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

wrote:

Conan The Librarian wrote:

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?

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".

Yes, we know that this whole crusade of yours is really about trying
to make others share your own personal demon(s).

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.

Ah, but there's the rub. Who gets to decide if the resource will be
no worse off, the "traditional subsistence fishermen"? In many of the
cases that have been brought up in this thread, the resources *were*
worse off because of the actions of "traditional subsistence
fishermen", and measures were needed to correct the situation.

BTW, if you want to see what can happen when *real* subsistence
fishing is practiced, do some research on Mexico. This isn't a case of
some "sports" going out and catching their limits and throwing it in
the freezer to invite their buddies over for a fish fry later. This is
people living off the fish they catch. And it has basically emptied
the rivers of desirable fish populations all across the country. (And
it's "golfers" who are actually doing something about trying to protect
the resources.)

I'm guessing those folks didn't think the resource would be worse
off for them feeding their families.


Chuck Vance (a reliable protein source runs through it)

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

Jonathan Cook wrote:

(This is sort of a reply to Chuck, too). I don't see that
recreation and subsistence need to be non-intersecting
definitions. Nor does subsistence need an economic definition.

I can't agree here, unless we re-defiine subsistence to be something
completely different than what it has traditionally meant.

The refs I provided pointed out that subsistence fishing
is done for all sorts of reasons, including personal and
social benefits. To me, that's what recreation is too, an
activity with personal and social benefits. I don't have
to _not_ like fishing to make my fishing subsistence fishing.

No, just as you don't have to dislike your job just because it's a
job, but that doesn't change the fact that it's not the primary purpose
for going to work. Just like the fact that you enjoy subsistence
fishing doesn't mean that its purpose isn't to put food on the table.
IMHO, if the food is simply a happy by-product of the activity, then
it's not subsistence fishing, but recreational fishing that has the
added benefit of putting some fish in the freezer.


Chuck Vance (and that's where I disagree with the "experts")

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

Conan The Librarian wrote:
wrote:

Conan The Librarian wrote:

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?

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".

Yes, we know that this whole crusade of yours is really about trying
to make others share your own personal demon(s).

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.

Ah, but there's the rub. Who gets to decide if the resource will be
no worse off, the "traditional subsistence fishermen"?
[deleted]

The people who get paid to decide. In this case Vermont F&G.

I've asked the question a couple of times (to no avail): Do you trust
the biologists to make this decision or don't you?

TBone
It is impossible to catch and release a wild trout.

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

wrote:

Conan The Librarian wrote:

Yes, we know that this whole crusade of yours is really about trying
to make others share your own personal demon(s).

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.

Ah, but there's the rub. Who gets to decide if the resource will be
no worse off, the "traditional subsistence fishermen"?
[deleted]

The people who get paid to decide. In this case Vermont F&G.

I've asked the question a couple of times (to no avail): Do you trust
the biologists to make this decision or don't you?

I disagree with their decision.

Now, a question for you: If a F&G department says that a certain
water should be C&R only, "do you you trust [them] to make this
decision or don't you"?

Furthermore, why do you feel the need to attempt transfer your own
guilt and sense of inadequacy onto others?

And one mo Why do you keep changing the subject?


Chuck Vance (I'm sure there's another question I could think of,
but let's leave it at that for now)

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

Conan The Librarian wrote:
wrote:

Conan The Librarian wrote:

Yes, we know that this whole crusade of yours is really about trying
to make others share your own personal demon(s).

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.

Ah, but there's the rub. Who gets to decide if the resource will be
no worse off, the "traditional subsistence fishermen"?
[deleted]

The people who get paid to decide. In this case Vermont F&G.

I've asked the question a couple of times (to no avail): Do you trust
the biologists to make this decision or don't you?

I disagree with their decision.

Now, a question for you: If a F&G department says that a certain
water should be C&R only, "do you you trust [them] to make this
decision or don't you"?

No, but the difference is: there is never a sound management reason for
pure C&R.

Furthermore, why do you feel the need to attempt transfer your own
guilt and sense of inadequacy onto others?

I don't know. How about you?

And one mo Why do you keep changing the subject?

Not sure what you mean.

Halfordian Golfer
Guilt replaced the creel

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

wrote:

Conan The Librarian wrote:

I disagree with their decision.

Now, a question for you: If a F&G department says that a certain
water should be C&R only, "do you you trust [them] to make this
decision or don't you"?

No, but the difference is: there is never a sound management reason for
pure C&R.

Hilarious. So you really know better than anyone else what is good
for a particular river.

Furthermore, why do you feel the need to attempt transfer your own
guilt and sense of inadequacy onto others?

I don't know. How about you?

Ah, but I'm fine with how I fish. I keep a fish if I want to (and
the regs permit it), I release fish when called for, and I try to learn
about the history of a particular water when making my decision whether
to keep or release a fish. It just so happens that the majority of the
time I prefer to put the fish back. Call me a golfer if you must, but
I'm not a hypocrite about it like you.

And as is shown so clearly in your statement above and your
continuous reliance on a tired, one-trick pony of an argument are
obviously quite unhappy with your own decisions.

Must suck to be you.

And one mo Why do you keep changing the subject?

Not sure what you mean.

Ah, so you don't even read what you write. That explains a lot.


Chuck Vance (a guilt trip runs through it)

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

Conan The Librarian wrote:
wrote:

Conan The Librarian wrote:

I disagree with their decision.

Now, a question for you: If a F&G department says that a certain
water should be C&R only, "do you you trust [them] to make this
decision or don't you"?

No, but the difference is: there is never a sound management reason for
pure C&R.

Hilarious. So you really know better than anyone else what is good
for a particular river.

No but it's a fact that there is no legitimate, requisite, imperative
for pure C&R. This has been amply demonstrated time and time again.

[rest of personal hoo-ha omitted]

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer
Guilt replaced the creel

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.
 

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:

No but it's a fact that there is no legitimate, requisite, imperative
for pure C&R. This has been amply demonstrated time and time again.

If Yellowstone National Park didn't have strict C&R only
regs on the native cutthroat no one would be able to fish
for them. I think being able to fish in my national park
is a legitimate enough reason for C&R and so do the park
biologists.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Really? A one over 24" reg wouldn't accomplish the same thing?

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer
Guilt replaced the creel?

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

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:

No but it's a fact that there is no legitimate, requisite, imperative
for pure C&R. This has been amply demonstrated time and time again.

There is no legitimate, requisite, imperative for you to lavish your
pathology on this newsgroup for years on end.......and yet, here you
are.

If Yellowstone National Park didn't have strict C&R only
regs on the native cutthroat no one would be able to fish
for them. I think being able to fish in my national park
is a legitimate enough reason for C&R and so do the park
biologists.

There is no such place as Yellowstone, as even you would doubtless have
been able to ascertain eventually had you stayed ON that barstool in
Cooke city rather than under it, you insufferable moron.

Wolfgang
yeah, fishing is o.k., but it's the intellectual stimulation that keeps
us coming back. :)