To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
 

Conan The Librarian wrote:
Jonathan Cook wrote:

And, according to the definition above, I'm a subsistence
angler/hunter. Still working on the last 50 pounds or so
of moose meat (did a crock pot of meat last week, froze
some of it), and added 40 pounds of halibut from AK to the
freezer this summer (had some last night, yum yum!).

I was thinking more about this, and if we follow the "experts'" line
of reasoning, then an angler who catches one salmon (or halibut in your
case) which feeds himself for enough meals to meet the suggested
definition of "subsistence", could then go the rest of the season C&R
and still be considered a "subsistence fisherman".

So, is that what you meant by "traditional subsistence fisherman",
Tim?


Chuck Vance

No.

If you do not intend on killing any fish for food, you probably
shouldn't be fishing at all.

Didn't say I didn't do it. In fact, the phrase "guilt replaced the
creel is my personal demon".

The intent of a subsistence fishing, however, is always, if the angler
catches something worth eating, and the resource will be better, or no
worse off, for them killing it, the subsistence angler will kill that
fish.

Everything else is golf.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer
It is impossible to catch and release a wild fish.

To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
 

Cyli wrote:
On 25 Aug 2006 18:33:36 GMT, (Jonathan Cook) wrote:

Another google ref on subsistence angling:


"In some rural areas of the country, and especially in a
large portion of Alaska, fishing for subsistence purposes
is quite common.

Bet there are damn few of them hoping for rainbows on the Battenkill.
--

r.bc: vixen
Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher, etc..
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless. Really.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

Sure, but in 30 minutes, they could be.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer
Guilt replaced the creel.

To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
 

wrote:
Wolfgang wrote:
wrote in message

I spent 4 years in the US Coast Guard making sure they did not, at
least in US Coastal waters.

No. You did not.

Wolfgang

With all due respect, I was a boarding officer, E-6 Quartermaster, 25
months sea service the rest search and rescue on lake michigan. I won
top honors at the national search and rescue school on governors island
in New York. I was in the auxiliary as recently as last year (quit when
it became department of the reichstag) doing boating saftey on the
ramps on my day off.

WHOOOOOEEEE!, deputy Dawg!

The USCG is responsible for fisheries enforcement
and I have supported that effort with a lot of my soul for nearly 30
years, so please, please do not say I did not.

Did not what?

Do you have ANY idea at all what you said?

Dumbass.

Wolfgang
are we suddenly drowning in fish and nobody told me? :(

To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
 

wrote:

Two fish and quit. 40 casts. Do you suck that bad Wolfgang?

Two legal fish......40 casts.......on the upper Tomorrow?......say,
above Loberg road in Nelsonville?

Are you a betting man? :)

Your pal,

TBone

Dumbass.

Wolfgang

To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
 

On 25 Aug 2006 17:59:19 -0700, wrote:


Dave LaCourse wrote:
On 25 Aug 2006 15:46:49 -0700, wrote:

These include:
1) Selective Harvest

Of a unique species near extinction. Yeah, that oughta work.

You would catch and release a species near extinction? Go for it dude.
I'll stick to the ones that can handle it. The mortality of catch and
release is never zero. An angler that fishes 100 days a year kills many
fish.

It was catch and kill that nearly wiped out the species. With catch
and release they bounded back to what they were 20 or more years ago.
Catch and kill (harvesting as you call it) nearly wiped them out.

2) Closed Seasons

Then why should I pay for a fishing license.

That's precisely the point that has been made before. At the end of the
day, IMO, the average angler is not willing to sacrifice anything but
then claim to be concerned conservationists. I just don't get it.

Concerned conservationists? Oh, like you? I see. So with your
"concern" you would devaste this river. I just don't get it.

3) Restricted Access

Access to the river is already restricted. Unless you stay at
Lakewood (140 us/day), access to the river is difficult.

Hmmm...but I am led to believe the hordes of 'bait-anglers' are going
to cause massive damage to the ecosystem? Which is it going to be, you
can not have it both ways.

HUH? Access to the river requires several miles of driving over
logging roads and then a couple of miles of trail to hike. What that
has to do with "bait anglers" is between you and who? Bait anglers
*would* decimate *any* water they are allowed to fish. Where are the
pristine waters in Montana, NH, Idaho, Maine? Certainly not the ones
that are opened to the bait fishermen. Go to Burrel's Ford on the
Chattuaga River in north Georgia. Fish around the bridge along with
all the bait fishermen following the stock truck. You'd think you
were in the slums of some city because of all the refuse and garbage
they leave behind. Walk upstream about 2 miles and you will find
pristine water - it's too far for the fat ****s to walk. You'll see
the occasional fly fisher, and the land and water are nothing like at
the crossing.

4) Habitat improvement

Not necessary. It is a wild and wonderful river already.

Don't bogart that joint my friend, pass it over to me.

I've invited you. Two days on me. Come see what a wonderful and
clean river it is. Will you see fellow fishermen? Hell yes, but it
is not as crowded as some of the rivers I've fished in out west.

5) Self control, 100 days a year on the battenkill?

Who's talking Battenkill. Not me.

Seriously, pass it along, you've had enough dude. Maybe you're in the
wrong thread?

I am talking about the river that you said would be ok to open for
catch and kill, the Rapid. Yes, this is the Battenkill thread, but I
have shown you a river that catch and kill almost ruined, but catch
and release brought back to life. Your insistence that stocked
rainbows would bring back the Battenkill is ludicrous. Do you own a
Rollex watch? Take off the watch band and go to Walmarts and buy a
Spidel watchband for it. Same thing as putting stocked fish of *any*
species in the Battenkill, the Rapid, Middle Fork of the Salmon,
Allagash, et al. The whole world is a tuxedo, Tim, and you're a pair
of brown shoes.

6) Not allowing outfitters to profit from public resources BEFORE the
public's needs have been satisfied

No outfitters on the river. Some guides, yes, but their clients
aren't that many, and it is c&r remember. d;o)

And there are advertisements and trade shows and angling shops and
national organizations with two letter acronyms brainwashing the masses
and spouting conservation out one orifice and flyfishing competition
out the other.

The river is advertised very little. Lakewood and one other camp are
the only ones on the river and they don't do the trade shows that
often. You are right about TU, however. They sold their soul to
Florida Power and Light, but that's another story.

7) Fishing in places not as threatened

Yeah, for pellet rainbows? Or maybe we could introduce whirling
disease to these hallowed waters.

Ummm....pellet rainbows. Do they finish them with the shrimp and
paprika pellets?

I don't know what the pellets are made of, but the fish sure as hell
doesn't taste like a wild brook trout, or salmon.

8) Ad nauseam

Ad nauseam? You haven't given me ONE reason for catch and kill on
this river, not ONE. People dream of catching and killing five pound
brookies. Open the river to the meat takers and we'll be right back
where we were 15 years ago -- no fish of any size. Hell, might as
well allow spinning gear and bait fishermen. Really **** it up ala
T-Bone logic.

There you go again with that 'binary' nonsense. 'Tyranny of Or' Dave,
look it up.

Tyranny of Or my ass. Your ideas would kill this river and turn it
into another Chattauga River. When I was a kid my parents would
vacation every year on Back Lake in Northern NH (The Connecticut Lakes
Region). In those days you could fish off the dock at dusk and catch
2 to 5 pound brook trout on dry flies. I was a kid and played during
the day, but that early evening hatch was never missed and my old
Sears and Rubbish bamboo rod took many nice brook trout. It was catch
and kill, by the way. We would go home after two weeks of with more
than 50 pounds of native brookies. So did everyone else. There was
*nothing* in those waters in the 40s and 50s but native brook trout.

Today if you fish Back Lake you catch stocked rainbows. Some of the
rivers and streams still contain native brook stock, but also have
been stocked with landlocked salmon and .....ta-da.... rainbows.
Perry Stream from the Rt. 3 Covered Bridge to the Covered Bridge on
River Road once contained nothing but brook trout - all native. I
doubt it is the same today. Joanne and I brought my mother back to
the region to fish one last time before she died. The conditions of
the region damn near killed her. She couldn't believe that the
brookies were all but gone.

I know, I know.... all of this is anecdotal, but your way, the kill em
and eat em way, has yet to work for any stream I've ever fished.


Catch and release saved the Rapid. Close the Rapid and I would fish
two weeks out of the year - in Alaska/Chile/Labrador, and a few days
drifting the Kennebec in October. The Rapid is almost like a god to
me. Take it away by killing the specific brook trout native to its
waters, and I may as well sell/give away all my gear. Wayne Knight
might be happy, but I won't be. Anyone out there want a *******
Bamboo rod?

Yes, I'm stll waiting for the brown truck.

Well, I hope your rod is straighter than mine. d;o)

Dave

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer
Guilt replaced the creel.


Dave

To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
 

On 25 Aug 2006 18:08:47 -0700, wrote:

But Dave, the browns are surely affecting that dream.

Browns eat a lot of brook trout Dave.

There are no browns in the Rapid. Only landlocked salmon
and brookies, with the occasional togue (lake trout, which *are*
killed). The river is thriving right now thanks to.... drum roll
please..... catch and release of brook trout (you can still kill a
salmon greater than 14 inches until Aug 15).

As far as stocked rainbows..... never saw a stocked rainbow that was
worth anything. Now, if you be talkin' about Kamchatka or Alaskan
*native rainbows*, yeah they are great to catch. My personal best in
Alaska is 31 inches, and a 28 incher in Kamchatka that measured 17
inches around the girth. But stocked rainbow? Whirling disease,
anyone?

Dave

To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
 

On 25 Aug 2006 18:08:47 -0700, wrote:

One thing I forgot Dave.

You said something that you really should consider.

"I would fish two weeks out of the year - in Alaska/Chile/Labrador, and
a few days
drifting the Kennebec in October."

Not everyone has the means to do this. I can absolutely tell you for
certain no angler would be upset catching a 5 pound rainbow holdover
from a previous year stocking. It might be a life highlight for that
kid, parent or blue collar worker.

Agreed, I am a very fortunate man. I say a stocked rainbow is by
definition a stocked rainbow and has no interest whatsoever to me.
But, you seem to be willing to take a wild river like the Rapid and
turn it into a meat collector's heaven. WHY? There are hundred of
places where a kid, parent or "blue collar worker" (??) can catch
rainbows. And there are lots of blue collar workers that fish the
Rapid and I've seen some young kids catch some very nice salmon and
brookies which are a helluva lot better than any stocked rainbow.

Dave

To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is thequestion.
 

On 8/25/06 7:49 PM, in article ,
" wrote:

In article , says...
wrote:

That's one possible definition.

Agreed. Still, I didn't have to search hard to find that
specialists are using the phrase in a way meaningful to
their management of the resources. It popped up right at
the top.

Definition by Google search popularity isn't what I consider
authoritative.

Must....stay.....out......of........this......thre ad.........

Bill

To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
 

To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
 

Conan The Librarian wrote:

wrote:

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

What is a "traditional subsistence angler" ?


People who fish to catch and kill fish to eat.



Chuck Vance (I daresay there aren't many truly "subsistence"
anglers in the US, and none at all in ROFF)


uh...well...my sal****er fishing probably qualifies me under that
definition. the only fish we release are barracuda, sharks, false
albacore, and (hopefully, i'll be able to say one day soon) billfish.
dolphin, wahoo, tuna, spanish mackeral, blues, stripers, cobia... yum!