Fishing - TUNA!

FishingBanter (http://www.fishingbanter.com/index.php)

- Fly Fishing (http://www.fishingbanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=6)

- - TUNA! (http://www.fishingbanter.com/showthread.php?t=3508)

Jonathan Cook wrote:

While I would like to agree with the sentiment, it must simply
be observed that _something_ in this newsgroup, the FF glossy rags,
the "cash flow" business, everything else that revolves around
flyfishing _did_ cause cyli to perceive a hostility to C+K. It is
my opinion that she perceived a real phenomenon, that she isn't
crazy but rather observant.

I agree that the sentiment is floating around. I do run into it at
streamside. However, I don't see that as a widely held position by
people on this newsgroup. Do they fish in order to eat? - no but I think
most people that post here do, at least occasionally, keep some fish to
eat.

Willi

Halfordian Golfer wrote:

"Willi" wrote in message
...

Halfordian Golfer wrote:

The real answer, of course, depends on what is the fishery being managed
for. But, even the fisheries managers agree that catching a fish caught

and

released 20 times has very little aesthetic value regardless of how big

it

gets. You really should harvest the big pigs out of the Frying Pan, for
example,

I don't know if you can apply standard fishery management to that
section of water. That situation and a couple others in CO are just too
weird for me. Those big fish are there because of the releases of mysis
shrimp from the dam that basically serves as a "feeding station". IMO,
there is no "natural" way to manage such a fishery. Those big trout
aren't fish eaters, they get big and fat gorging on the mysis release.

True. But any little baby trout swimming by would be engulfed just as
surely. Rapala's and jigs work great in the toilet bowl.

and a few of those 18" browns from You-Know-Where-Willi Creek for

the benefit of these fisheries.

Natural part of the system. It's a nicely balanced fishery with them
there. What the fishery needs are more consistent water flows, not a
change in regulations or more harvest - it is open regulation and IMO
working very well.

*Exactly*. Couldn't agree more.

Smaller bag and enforced slot limit's are

the best way to go in just about every situation. Of course, when you
release a fish from outside the slot, this is NOT "C&R fishing", this is
"Culling", but I've tried to make this distinction clear for nigh on a
decade and for nought.

I think that slot limits and reduced bags are an effective management
tool but not the only tool and not a tool that is applicable to all
waters. IE Some waters with stunted populations benefit from
increased bag limits. Many CO waters are managed with slot limits or
size limits. Far more in fact than are C&R.

Actually, you need to be careful when you say this, because slots can be set
at about any criteria threshold, including, 'effectively', pure C&R.

That's true if you include absolute size limits in with slot limits.
Many of the small streams in my area have regulations like no fish under
18" may be kept. This is essentially C&R fishing because only one fish
in a thousand in these waters is that large.

PS Something you didn't respond to in terms your your comments on
stocking catchables:

1. How do you reconcile your position on stocking catchables with the
studies done in Montana that showed that the stocking of catchables in a
stream or river that has a healthy self sustaining population of trout,
actually reduces the carrying capacity of that water?

The stocking does not reduce the carrying capacity, which remains constant.

Maybe carrying capacity is the wrong term. I find it bizarre that you
complain about people "golfing for trout" while you seem to support
turning our streams into what is essentially "pay for rubber fish" streams!

Montana did several studies in the late 80's, early 90's, that lead to
their cessation of stocking catchables in streams and rivers that have
healthy self sustaining fish populations (the vast majority of their
running water). I was unable to find the text from any of the studies on
line but the below is the first:

Vincent, R.E. 1987. Effects of stocking catchable-size hatchery rainbow
trout on two wild trout species in the Madison River and O'Dell Creek,
Montana. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 7:91-105.

Essentially the study showed that the stocking of catchables reduced the
number of stream bred trout through displacement and the competition
caused by the rapid increases in population when stocking occurred. The
stream population goes up dramatically when stocking occurs, but crashes
because the catchables are generally unable to survive in the wild. As
the stocking continues over time, fewer and fewer stream bred fish are
in the population. The result is the majority of the trout population is
composed of the catchable stockers and the population goes through a
rapid boom and bust cycle each year based on the timing of the stocking
of catchables.

This is an excellent example of a place where the stocking of fry of a
desirable species 8) would be beneficial. The stocking of catchables results
in the ability for the average fisherman, be it a kid from North Denver or a
tourist from Oklahoma, who is not Wild-Willi to get out and catch a few
fish. This returns nearly a billion dollars in revenue to the state. The
CDOW uses it's direct revenue from license and grants to manage all kinds of
wildlife management. I'd dare say that stocking catchables is eminently
symbiotic.

Catchables are very expensive to raise. I don't believe that the revenue
generated by the increased number of licenses from the stocking of
catchables will even approach the costs of raising them for the DOW.

Can you show me figures that show otherwise?

2. And do you actually think that the "You-Know-Where-Willi Creek" would
benefit from the stocking of catchable trout?

No, probably not, but I'd love to see about a billion cuttthroat fingerlings
dumped in.

I'm not opposed to stocking, even the stocking of catchables does have
its place - like in urban lakes and reservoirs to provide kids with a
place to catch fish. However, I think that the wholesale and
indiscriminate stocking of catchables that the DOW used to practice
before the introduction of Whirling Disease was a destructive practice.

I thought I'd hit that area of the stream as soon as runoff subsides. I
think it's going to be a VERY poor year water wise in this part of the
State. I'll keep you informed.

Willi

Bob Weinberger wrote:

While some dictonaries have included the simple definition of "to separate,
select or pick out", without including the criteria for such selection , in
their list of definitions for culling, their action is merely an
acknowledgement of the lack of rigor by a portion of the populace in
properly using the term culling.

I think that this often occurs when the same words are used in some
field of science and are also used in our common language. The
definition of "culling" you used is a correct, more precise one that is
used in science. Common usage of the word is more varied and less
precise. The meanings of words change over time and are influenced by
common usage. When words are "borrowed" from the scientific community by
people for use in their everyday conversations, these words often adopt
new meanings, sometimes wildly different from their origins. When you're
writing a scientific paper, there would be a generally accepted,
specific definition for the word "culling." However, in common usage,
there is a much wider range of meanings. Neither of these usages are
"wrong" or "stupid" or ????????

Willi

"Bob Weinberger" wrote in message
While some dictonaries have included the simple definition of "to
separate,
select or pick out", without including the criteria for such selection ,
in
their list of definitions for culling, their action is merely an
acknowledgement of the lack of rigor by a portion of the populace in
properly using the term culling. This position by the dictionaries is
contradicted by the seemingly universal inclusion of such negative terms
as
"defective", "of little or no value", and "undesireable" in their
definitions of the noun Cull.(that which has been culled out of the
group).

I haven't followed this thread at all, so forgive any lack of context in
what follows. I come from an area (the Chesapeake Bay) in which culling is
a common term in respect to a sorting of one's catch. Many species and
growth stages are managed by regulations (and common sense) so that
"culling" has come to have a practical meaning of removing the less
desirable members of a catch, typically the undersized. Catches of oysters,
hard crabs, soft crabs, peelers, and various finfish are sorted on board;
and the smaller/illegal/unmarketable ones are thrown back. In my personal
experience, the same term and meaning applies to livestock, wherein the less
desirable and less productive members of the flock end up in the freezer.

I'm not sure the individual fisherperson could consider himself in a similar
position astream beyond his own creel. Management of the overall population
is beyond his authority and control; and he typically lacks comprehensive
information to make decisions as to which fish are more or less desirable
for that stream.

Joe F.

Bob Weinberger wrote:

"Willi" wrote in message
...
snip

However, in common usage,
there is a much wider range of meanings. Neither of these usages are
"wrong" or "stupid" or ????????

Willi

While the terms wrong & stupid may be too harsh (and I never used the term
stupid), the term grossly imprecise comes to mind; especially in light of
the virtually universally accepted definitions for the noun, cull.

The "stupid" was directed at Wolfgang not you.

IMO, your "universally accepted definition" applies to the scientific
community, not the common usage of the word. "Grossly imprecise" is true
when compared to the scientific definition but so what? That tends to be
true of any words that were adapted from scientific language into common
usage. People communicate in a different manner when having a
conversation than when writing a scientific paper or writing a novel
or posting on the internet or........

Where and how a word is used alters its meaning and since the remark
originally was part of a post on a newsgroup and not part of scientific
treatise, I disagree with your "universally accepted definition".

Willi

Bob Weinberger wrote:

Sorry Charlie, both you and Timmie are wrong. The definining element of
culling is removing the UNDESIREABLES.

Baloney. The American Heritage Dictionary gives the definition of "to
cull" as:

VERB:
1. To pick out from others; select.
2. To gather; collect.
3. To remove rejected members or parts from (a herd, for example).

Only in the third alternative is there any suggestion of removing
undesireables -- hardly the "defining" element.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Personally, I think that
people that have the tendency to label other people as stupid, tend to
have some sort of self esteem issues.

That's just freakin' stupid..

Er... :)

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 16:45:36 GMT, "Wayne Harrison" wrote:

"Wolfgang" wrote Wolfgang
who, personally, subscribes to the thoroughly reasonable theory that
superman would win because he's a real guy, while mighty mouse is a
cartoon.

****ing rodentaphobe!

raging anti-rodentite!

;-)

"Wolfgang" wrote...
snip
Wolfgang
who, personally, subscribes to the thoroughly reasonable theory that
superman would win because he's a real guy, while mighty mouse is a cartoon.

Since a cartoon can ascribe powers from the imagination of the cartoonist, my
money's on Mighty Mouse.

(Freakin' realist) :)
--
TL,
Tim
http://css.sbcma.com/timj