Conference wahoo::fishing-v2

 Like anything else, stocking fish has both good and not so good attributes.
On the plus side, stocking affords more liberal bag limits, opens more waters
to fishing, and in general eases the problems associated with coordinating
fish populations with fishing pressure. On the minus side, subtle questions
about the gene pool and ecological consequences emerge.

 To me, catching a stocked fish is much less enjoyable than catching a
wild fish. To clarify terms- a stocked fish is a fish that has been raised
in a pen and then released into a natural environment; however, time is an
important factor. A fish recently released into a body of water is a stocked
fish. A fish released into a body of water that survives from one season to
the next is a holdover. A stocked fish which survives over several seasons
is fundamentally similar to a wild fish (a fish that was the result of natural
reproduction in a natural environment.) A native fish is a fish that occurred
in a particular body of water at some arbitrarily defined time in the past.
HC can quibble about these definitions if necessary, we can use them as working
definitions for the time being.

 Wild trout are the most fun to catch. They are generally speaking the 
prettiest, they are the most difficult to catch, and the are the most tasty.
In my mind, they are a superior quarry. Native fish are equivalent to wild 
trout, except some people get even greater pleasure in catching these fish,
particularly ideologically "pure" trout fishermen.

 In some ways, introducing new species to certain bodies of water is a good
thing. In other ways, it is not so good. One problem that introduction of
a non-native species into a body of water causes is a disruption of the
balance of nature. At this point, however, nature's balance has already been
destroyed in most areas, so this consideration loses importance to some
degree. Issues that I see in this area are the interference of introduced
species with native species, competition over forage, unexpected biological
impacts, and corruption of the gene pool.

 In NH, we have witnessed the extinction of a particularly beautiful and
wonderful species of trout, the sunapee trout. This is a biological tragedy,
IMO. In addition, there is but a single place where golden trout can be found
in our state. That's sad, IMO.

 I think that it would be helpful for fish populations' genetics for stocked
fish ova to be turned over more frequently. What has happened is that some
strains of trout have been created through successive generations of hatchery
breeding that are uniquely adapted to surviving in captivity. While this is
helpful for biologists counting pennies to have more fish survive in the pen,
it is not helpful for the fish once they are released into the wild. They
have lost some of the genetics which evolved over thousands of years which
helped them adapt to their envioronment. This loss is real and tangible.
It is not immediately felt, however. It's a problem which we had better address
before too long, IMO.

 The Doctah

    
    
      John,
    
        I personally like the stocking programs that are in place but I
    wish that more fish could be stocked in the (what I call) put-n-take
    creeks. have you ever been at a creek and watched a 5 yr old catch
    trout after trout. I tell ya the smile on the kids face is worth it.
    
      I enjoy taking people out on my boat that have never caught big fish,
    to see the look on their face is worth the trip. the most memorable one
    was when I dumped a 32 lb king salmon at my moms feet last summer, I
    will remember that for the rest of my life! and if it wasnt for the
    massive stocking program here in NY that would of probably never happened
    
       But on the same note you have to look at everything in the nature
    cycle, you cant let the food base diminish the way it did in NH, with 
    the smelt. hopefully it was a lesson they learned from the first time
    around.
     
     I will say that a drag burning, heart pounding, leg shaking, 30+ lb
    stocked king salmon sure is delicious on the grill in january&february!
     ^^^^^^^^^  EAT YOUR HEART OUT GUY'S ***)8 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    
                                           Lee
    

    I'm not too wild about the put-n-take stocking in the small rivers.
    The state spends a tremendous amount of money for this.  For a few
    weeks a year a pile of people catch and kill stockies fresh off the 
    truck which don't even taste that great.  
    
    Lee's point about kids being able to catch them is probably the best
    argument for the program.  A fiesty brookie can be alot of fun for a
    kid.  
    
    If the stream could support the reproduction of smallmouth, then I'd 
    rather see it managed for smallmouth, which would save f&g money.
    
    I think the money could be better spent elsewhere.
    
    How about more white perch and crappie?  Both can be easy to catch
    and are GREAT eating?  How about some BIG catfish for the rivers?
    
    How about stocking northern pike in some waters?  Right now we 
    supposedly have pike in Spoffard Pond, that's it.  
    
    I'm hoping the experimental walleye stocking on the contoocook river 
    will do well, I'd like to see more of that.  
    
    I'm also glad that f&g is putting a larger emphasis on rainbow trout,
    since they are heartier and tend to do better than lake trout or 
    landlocks in many lakes.
    
    -donmac

        I guess I'm for and against it depending on the definition and
    application. 
    
        Stocking fish in places where we--"mankind"--in our profligate
    greed and/or stupidity have decimated former populations is, in my
    humble opinion, at least an attempt to right an injury perpetrated on
    nature. An example is the stocking of Atlantic Salmon in some of the
    east's rivers where man decimated them due to polluting the rivers or
    some other stupid environmental crime. In some of these rivers ther is
    now a viable, reproducing and catchable population of the fish, and
    they now could be probably considered to be "wild" salmon again..
    
       However, dumping thousands of hungry, pond-bred, unaware,
    non-instinctive fish into a river or pond 50 feet from a bunch of dudes
    with $200.00 worth of "K-Mart" fishing gear is sort of humiliating to a
    true sportsman in my opinion. It's like tieing a Zoo leopard to a tree
    and shooting it from 20 feet away with a 45-70 buffalo rifle... If you
    just want MEAT, I'd rahter go the a fish store. I don't usually keep a
    lot of the fish I catch each year anyway, and in most summers I do
    fairly well...3 LMB over 5', one over 7.5', and over 100 of other sizes
    last summer, and I kept 3 in the 2' range to put on the grill, and
    these 3 had been pretty severly gill-hooked to boot. What I had for
    enjoyment with the others will far outweigh what I'd have catching
    stocked fish though.. Not to mention the fresh air, walks in the woods,
    sunburn, bug bites, twisted legs from slipping on rocks, sighting
    birds, animals, etc.... Guess that sums up what I like about fishing..
    
      Too each his own...
    
      John McD

    
    
    Speaking of Stocking.
    
    
    Stevens Creek Res. is now stocked with rainbows. It's been stocked
    twice in the past week due to lots of rain. Just so the bay
    area folks know...I'm leaving now.....see ya

    Talk all you want about the esoterics of naturals, the fact is that
    building and demographics are creating so many fisherman that without
    stocking, there would not be much enjoyment for anyone in the rivers
    and lakes.  
    
    The immediate action for the newcomer or stock fish catcher gives the
    enjoyment of the first time catch for the newly repatriated family
    as well as creates a sense that if fish don't respond in a short period
    of time to the regular baits, the "hole" is fished out.  This
    encourages them to move on and leaves the naturals to us-folk that are
    more patient and have a higher trust that there really are trout to be
    taken.
    
    Also remember that licenses have never gone down in price and people
    tend to want to get something for their money.  If stocking did not
    occur, there might be some really destructive tactics used to try and
    get one's money's worth.
    
    Consider that if it were not for the Ayer, and other, game farms, there
    would be not pheasant hunting in the state.  There 25,000 cock birds
    are raised and subsequently released every year.  The few that winter
    over are harder to fool the next year, but the sportsman that buy the
    licenses are at least somewhat satisfied that they had the potential to
    bag a few as opposed to feeling they wasted their money.
    
    I used to live in upstate N.Y. on the best trout river in the north
    east(35yrs ago).  I could catch my limit twice a day...easy.  The
    area got so fished out and poluted that, if it weren't for stocked
    fish, the tourist revenue and the fishing, period, today would be
    1/4 what it is today.
    
    I agree with an earlier notewriter that stocking may not be our first
    choice, but given the current climate and demographics, unless you want
    to move to northern Canada, it may be the only way to get the revenue
    to help protect what we have, satisfy the weekend fisherman, and still
    leave some naturals for the rest of us.(Remember, there are a lot of
    people with jobs and kids that have a maximum of 2 hours a week to fish
    that really enjoy getting something eatible to take home.  Few people
    have the time to spend the hours necessary to learn how or have the
    patience to continue to search for that 4-7lber that eludes all the
    rest of us.)
    
    Jun 

    Of course "stocking" is such a general term.  There are going to be
    instances where one is against stocking, and some instances where one
    will be for stocking.  Bottom line, if there was no stocking, all the
    lakes and rivers would be fished out, and it would be even HARDER to 
    catch a native, due to all the pressure.
    
    I don't place fishermen or fisherwomen on different levels because they
    fish for "wild" vs stocked.  Fishing is fishing.  Of course it is more
    fun to catch a wild brook trout than it is a stocked rainbow.  But
    everyone who fishes buys a fishing license, and that money goes back
    into the creels of both stocked, and native fishermen.  The comment
    about people fishing with $200 kmart fishing equipment in my opinion
    is a tunnel vision outlook because if you think about it, it's not what
    brand of rod or reel you have in your hand, or how much your waders
    cost, it is the presentation of the lure, using the right lure, and
    being at the right place at the right time.  Obviously skill has alot
    to do with being at the right place, and that is something you cannot
    buy at K mart or any yuppie store. 
         In summary, back to stocking, I am for it, but only on state
    rivers and lakes that get the bulk of the fishing pressure, or where
    the state is trying to bring back a certain species to a certain body
    of water.  Stocking is a PROACTIVE approach to the ever increasing 
    fishing pressure of today.  
    
    Good fishing,
    Bob
    

First, I wantto congratulate you all; I haven't seen one note that said, 
"I've never seen a stocking fish". I know that must have been hard for some 
of you. It was hard enough for me.

I also have bought a lot of stuff at K-Mart. Or Bradlees or whatever. In 
fact, one of my favorite rods came from one of those type stores. I've had 
that thing for ten years, and caught a lot of fish on it. I ain't proud; 
I'll buy fishing gear from anyone who will sell it to me, as long as I think 
I'm getting a good deal. If someone else thinks I'm getting screwed or 
stupid for buying something from a certain place, that's their option to 
think. 

leo

>    being at the right place at the right time.  Obviously skill has alot
>    to do with being at the right place, and that is something you cannot
>    buy at K mart or any yuppie store. 
    
BTW, I also think that stocking is the only way we can repair the damage 
done and increase the fish stocks to match the size of the fishing public.

      Re .7
    
      I think it's more OBVIOUS "tunnel vision" to take a statement TOTALLY
    out of context such as you did and ignore the entire focus of the reply
    such as you did!! Maybe if you'd go back and read the entire reply
    again it would make a bit more sense. If the type of "stocking" that I
    referred to is perceived as "good", then why don't we raise those
    pheasants and have them released inside a wire cage so these "real
    sportmen" can shoot them without the chance that some of them may get
    away??  "Fishing" next to the truck that's dumping farm-raised, 
    half-starved, non-instinctive fish may be "fishing" to some people, but
    it sure as hell isn't very sporting.... I'd rather NOT catch any fish
    if I have to do it that way. I DO place people on different levels. Not
    because of what they can or cannot afford in the way of gear, but
    rather what the DO when they go out. I've seen ignorant folks keep 4"
    largemouths...and those people should not be allowed to be near the
    water in my opinion. "Levels" in my mind has more to do with education
    and responsibility....
    
    
       JMcD

    Sorry for taking you out of context.  After rereading your comment, I
    agree with your outlook on stocking.  I believe that we think close to
    the same thing, I just said mine differently.  Getting back to the
    subject of stocking now.........
    

     .10
      Appreciate the response. It wasn't really "K-mart" that I was
    criticizing...rather the "dudes" who haven't got a clue about the
    environment. 
    
      Actually, I buy much of my stuff at "K-Mart".....they're the only
    ones in this area that I know of that stocks "Producto" plastic worms,
    which I've had the best luck with.. Most of my other stuff comes from
    Sears..
    
      JM

    re: .1
    
    Mark---
    
    No need to quibble. I'll willingly use your definitions in this
    conference. <grin>
    
    Your mention of the extinction of the Sunapee Trout caught my eye.
    Can you elaborate? Maine's Inland Fisheries folks fairly routinely
    stock Sunapee Trout in "deep" Maine glacier-made lakes. Do you not
    consider these real Sunapee Trout?
    
    Just asking....
    
    John H-C

 It was my understanding that Sunapee trout were extinct. It is possible that
they are simply no longer to be found in state waters. In any case, I mourn
their absence from Lake Sunapee and any other lakes in which the fish was
originally found.

>Maine's Inland Fisheries folks fairly routinely
>    stock Sunapee Trout in "deep" Maine glacier-made lakes. Do you not
>    consider these real Sunapee Trout?

 If they are stocking fish with the same taxonomic classification as sunapee
trout then I guess it's a moot point. I hope that some of these fish are able
to reproduce naturally, however.

 I was under the impression that sunapee trout had been found to be tasty
by lake trout (one of the reasons why there aren't any more.) Do these lakes
in Maine not have any lakers?

    >Do these lakes in Maine not have any lakers?
    
    I think they do, in fact. I'll remember to ask next time I talk to some
    Inland Fisheries folks.
    
    Do you have any idea of the approximate date of extinction in NH of the
    Sunapee Trout?
    
    Can I surmise that stocking Lake Trout in Sunapee did away with the
    native trout population?
    
    John H-C

>    Do you have any idea of the approximate date of extinction in NH of the
>    Sunapee Trout?

 I don't have any idea. If I had to guess I'd say it was the 70s.

>    Can I surmise that stocking Lake Trout in Sunapee did away with the
>    native trout population?

 I believe that was the explanation given; between competition for forage
and predation the lakers did 'em in. And I don't know whether it was due
to stocking or not.

    John,
    I believe the last Sunapee trout was caught in the 50's. Being a
    summer home owner on the lake the subject has fascinated me for
    years. I've done lot's of reading on it, and spent a good amount
    of time talking with some of the old timers who live nearby. One
    gentleman in his early 90's showed me photo albums from what I'd
    guess to be around the 1920-30 period and they had stringers with
    dozens of Sunapee trout on them. He seems to tie in their disapearence
    with the introduction of lake trout, at least that's when the numbers
    started to drop. I believe the feeling was that the adult lakers
    ate the small Sunapee trout. In reality the increase in the lakes
    popularity/fishing pressure probably had lot's to do with it too.
    
    The locals always referred to the trout in Sunapee as "Golden Trout".
    This is where their relationship to the trout in Maine gets a little
    fuzzy. I have a fish identification book written in the 30's that
    seems to  give the most comprehensive story of the "Golden trout".
    Because they lived in deep water, and spawn on deep water reefs they
    weren't discovered until the late 1800's. Deep water techniques were
    needed to catch them. I wish I had the book handy, but it's back with
    my office stuff in Acton MA, and I'm here in New Mexico on a temporary
    assignment...anyway's, it tells of people trolling for them with wire
    line out of small sailboats...they were suppose to be the most
    brilliantly colored of all the trout species. They were found in one
    other pond, I believe in Ossipee NH, but could be wrong. There was
    some scientific debate at the time as to their relationship to the
    Blue Back trout, found in the rangely lakes region. I think the Blue
    Back could be what is now referred to as a Sunapee trout, but I think the
    coloration was different from the accounts I've read, but they may
    have descended from the same species at some point...not sure without
    the book on how to describe the latin names, but I recall that they
    were considered by the author to be different fish...It seems I recall
    reading somewhere that because of the common link people started
    calling the Blue Back trout Sunapee trout, and that people who new
    what a Sunapee (golden)trout really was balked at the suggestion...anyways
    I'd be real interested on finding out the true background of these
    Maine "Sunapee" trout :-) 
    
    There's more fascinating stories I've heard from these old timers on
    Lake Sunapee, like the time one of thems father inlaw, who was head
    of fish and game at the time, imported king salmon fry from the west
    coast and dumped them in the lake...and on and on...
    
    Marty

    I just got off the phone with the Maine guy responsible for the Sunapee
    Trout program. I have more information than I know what to do with. I
    missed a lot because we talked about a lot of other stuff, and I don't
    take notes fast enough.
    
    Anyway, the Sunapee Trout is not consumed out of existence as much as
    it is genetically subjugated by Lake Trout. They cross-breed, and the
    Lake Trout are dominant.
    
    Sunapee Trout are really Sunapee Char, which are the same as Arctic
    Char and Blueback Char, with some *minor* mitochondrial differences.
    There is one other landlocked char, the name of which I can't remember,
    which is identical to the Arctic and Blueback Chars and differs only a
    minuscule amount from the Sunapee Char.
    
    The "Sunapee Char" is no longer in use in Maine. It is now known as the
    Silver Char.
    
    There is a "native" (note the working definition of this word in .1)
    population of Silver Char in Floods Pond near Bangor. Fishing is not
    allowed in Floods Pond because it is a Bangor water supply. There are
    no Lake Trout there. There are also no Lake Trout in Long Pond, where a
    population of Silver Char was introduced recently and seems to have
    taken hold. Silver Char have failed to thrive in several lakes in
    Maine, notably Coffee Pond.
    
    The only known successful coexistence of Lake Trout and Silver Char is
    in a lake above the Arctic Circle in Northern Quebec.
    
    The only other known populations of Silver Char are in two remote ponds
    in the Sawtooth National Wilderness in Idaho, where they were
    established a few years ago. (This is where my note-taking abilities
    abandoned me, sorry.)
    
    
    The Silver Char and the Sunapee Trout are the same fish, according to
    this source. Fishermen called  it the Silver Trout because when they
    caught it in season, it was basically colorless. They take on the
    fabulous coloration depicted for Sunapee Trout during the breeding
    season, which happens after the local fishing season for these fish.
    
    That's all I got having to do with the Sunapee Trout.
    
    John H-C
    

    re .1
    Interesting stuff. The drastic change in coloration during the fall
    could explain the confusion years ago of people who may have seen
    a Blue Back up in Rangely during the summer, and a Sunapee trout during
    the fall at Lake Sunapee. 
    
    The fact that the Lake trout and Sunapee trout intermix may explain why
    I always thought the lakers in Sunapee looked somewhat different from
    what were caught elsewhere. Now they seem more "normal", but when I was
    a kid I seem to remember them having much more brown coloration then
    typical. I caught an 18 inch trout back when I was in my early teens
    (72 maybe) that I couldn't figure out what type it was. Silverish in
    color, not a laker, not a salmon and not a brookie. This was probably
    July in time frame. I proudly brought the fish back to the beach where
    our cottage resides and all the oldtimers came over, studied it awhile,
    debated back and forth some, and decided it was a "splake". This was
    explained to me at the time as a cross between a brook trout and a
    laker...now I wonder if it might not have been one of the last Golden
    trout taken from the lake, just that people didn't comprehend that the
    silver variation in the non fall period were the same fish, and chalked
    them up to something else...., or probably more likely a Sunapee/Laker
    hybrid not that many generations removed...
    
    Isn't it rare for two somewhat different species to cross breed like
    this ? Look at how similar smallmouth and largemouth bass are, and it
    seems they pick their sex partners pretty accurately....:-)
    
    Marty 

> Now they seem more "normal", but when I was
>    a kid I seem to remember them having much more brown coloration then
>    typical.

 I have noticed that some lakers in NH have what one would consider to be
normal coloration (as compared to pictures in magazines, etc of fish caught
from other bodies of water) but there are definitely some darker fish. Two
years ago my cousin caught a laker in the 3rd Connecticut Lake. It had the
"normal" coloration. The next day I caught one in the 1st Connecticut Lake;
it was much darker. The fish I caught at Newfound a couple of weeks ago
was a dark one.

 I'm not sure whether the difference is due to genetics or diet. But it's
very noticeable.

 The Doctah

    re: -.1
    	Have you ever noticed that trout taken from Humic (dark, naturally
    acidic) waters are darker in color than their counterparts in very
    crystal clear water??  Not to rathole this subject, but trout seem
    to be able to take on the general dark/light coloration of their 
    surrounding water for camouflage.  
    	As an aside from this, trout stocked in a lake/pond/river which
    exhibited a certain dark or light shade to their coloration will take
    on the coloration of their natural habitat.  It makes sense for their
    survival.
    
    - Rob

    Rob,
    I've  noticed small variations in Brown and Rainbows...I'd say
    brook trout seem to be more consistant in color from my experience.
    With the lake trout I'd think that being well hidden wouldn't be
    a genetic advantage...in a lake such as Sunapee they are at the
    top of the food chain...I don't think schools of smelt are bright
    enough to even care about the closeness of the laker. They move
    along doing there thing until something moves rapidly into the group,
    then they dart briefly, the winners go back to the leisurely pace,
    until the next large fish hanging out underneath the school desides
    it wants another snack...:-)  Small lakers live on the bottom, and
    I don't think anything else lives down there that would eat them.
    Salmon tend to be higher up in depth...Lake Champlain would probably be
    a lot different, as the Lamprey's prey on the trout...A few thousand
    years of this and you'd probably see a laker from Sunapee and one from
    Champlain evolve into somewhat different fish...IMHO...Of course, if
    they get rid of the Lampreys in the next few years I guess no one will
    ever know :-)
    
    Marty

 I suspect that most of the variations one sees in rainbows and browns is due to
genetics. A number of strains of these species have evolved over the years,
making the differences in appearance obvious even to the untrained eye.

 For example, some rainbows have really pronounced black spots; others have
very tiny black spots. The general coloration of these fish can be quite 
different as well. Some rainbows have light pink stripes (if any), others
have sharply delineated rouge bars. A casual perusal through a fly fishing
mag that has several close ups of rainbows will demonstrate these strains.

    Since virtually *all* rainbows and browns are stocked fish (I'll shy
    away from the word "exotic" except to hint that it might be an
    appropriate word) that come from hatcheries with distinctive water
    chemistry, diets (due to the interaction with the water chemistry), and
    benthic matter, it would not be very surprizing that distinctive
    "strains" would develop. At least, I don't think it would come as a
    surprize. 
    
    Just as now one can look at certain crayfish and tell where they came
    from within a one-state margin of error, pretty soon you ought to be
    able to guess which hatchery a fish came from just by its color and the
    distinctive shapes and sizes of its patterns.
    
    JMHO
    
    John H-C

    
    	re: -.1 Yes John, that was basically what I was driving at in my
    earlier note.  It does appear that fish from different water chemistry
    appear different - at least in my experiences with Brook trout. 
     
        It very much does appear to me that during the 20+ years that I've 
    fished them, brookies from clear water will tend to be very silvery, and 
    brookies from dark water will be very dark, (almost black in some
    cases).....  As you've said, the same variations will occur
    with rainbow and Brown trout.
    
    	As for the Lakers Marty, I dunno...  I have seen variations in 
    color with Lake Champlain vs. Lake Ontario fish for example.  Maybe
    in Lake ontario its because of the radiation from 9-mile  :')

    
    	Pertaining to the Base note, I agree with stocking fish for many 
    of the same reasons stated in earlier reply's.  Here in Vermont, the
    Grand Isle fish hatchery will soon be producing stockable numbers of
    Trout and Salmon.  I read that they will produce Lake, Brown, Rainbow,
    and Brook trout as well as Landlocks.  Most of the fish will go into
    Champlain.
    
    	There are still places in this state where one can enjoy native 
    populations of Brook trout, but because of environmental destruction
    of much of their native habitat, fish such as Rainbows and Browns were 
    stocked in many places that no longer support Brookies.  Clearing of the 
    land caused many brooks and streams to warm too much during the summer 
    months to support them, and Rainbows and Browns can survive in higher
    temps - thus the stocking.  If it weren't for this, we basically
    wouldn't have much of a trout fishery.  I think everyone here knows
    that Rainbows and Browns are not native to the Eastern U.S. to 
    begin with.  
    
    	I'm not too much into put and take fishing, I prefer places where
    the fish get to grow a little, but that's just me.  The state produces
    fish for put and take, so if that's what you're after, go for it.  
    You can argue the ethics of following the stocking truck around, but
    maybe the person doing the following has a fishing license and just
    got laid off and needs the fish to eat....  Who knows?  I'd rather
    have them doing that than stealing...
    
    - Rob
    
    

    I hate to extend this just one more note, but there is fishing and
    there is fishing.  Purists will someday soon spend all their time
    in Canada or South America where they can get the native fish.
    
    For those of us who have a few hours here and there...who find
    this year's license at $17.50 a tad expensive when compared to
    the time available from family, business travel and chores around
    the house.....I would like to catch some fish for that price.
    
    I don't follow the stocking truck.  I am at work when they
    stock and don't even know when and where they do it.  What I would
    appreciate, is the opportunity to get my kids started on the sport,
    within driving distance and within the time limits we have.  I get real
    tired of people critical of us who live in the real world without days
    on end available to us to spend streamside.
    
    Jim

    Amen on .26.  Couldn't have said it better.  It's your license dollars
    and my license dollars that are paying for the stocking.  For the
    person who does not have all the time in the world to go fishing 7 days
    a week, stocked fish help people enjoy fishing.  I think that is what
    it's all about.  
    
    Enjoy,
    
    Bob "3 days for the trout opener"