Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 06:54:12 GMT, wrote:

you will be banned to ROFF where you were spawned from

Ewwwww. I be so scared. Freddie the junkie is gonna ban be from
roff. Ewwww.

Smoke a joint, Fred. You're out of character as a tough guy. Smoke a
joint and wimper away.

hth

d;o)

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Mar 10, 9:48 pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 18:52:17 -0700 (PDT), Halfordian Golfer

wrote:
You bring up horses. I know horses are used and rewarded in the form
of a pretty good life and a lot of love. Where they are not the horses
are confiscated and the owner on the 10 O:Clock news. They work hard
for their living and their nurture. Not unlike humans.

He brought up horses and what we do to them. There is little
difference what we do to a horse for the sake of riding them than we
do catching a fish. Bridle/bit easily equates to hook - nails in the
hooves has no equal in the fish world, and like Dan'l says, we
domesticate the horse and ride him all the time for our *pleasure*.
It must suck to be a horse compared to a brook trout. You live in
horse country; how's come you aren't out there complaining about all
them cowpokes poking horses? Eh?

Give up fishing, Tim. It is your only solution.

Dave

I guess you're right Dave, about the horses, that is. I didn't realize
the similarities until now.

Q. What do horses and catch and release trout have in common?
A. They're both domesticated animals.

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

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Mar 8, 11:24 am, Dave LaCourse wrote:
Looks fine to me, Tim.

Good luck.

Dave

Hi Dave,

Below is the entire email thread I had with Forrest Bonney with the
Maine F&G. He gave me explicit approval to repost it here.

Please note that I post it in its entirety and without qualification
or opinion.

It is my sincere hope that this is useful.

Best regards,

Tim

Gmail Tim Walker
Threat to Brookies on Rapid River
10 messages
Tim Walker Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 10:51 AM
To:
Hello,

My name is Tim Walker and I am researching fisheries management
regulations, especially regulations where fishing is allowed but all
fish must be returned to the water immediately (pure catcha nd
release, as opposed to selective harvest).

In particular I am curious about the pure C&R, Flyfishing only,
regulations on the Rapid River.

My understanding is that, in that waterway, the brook trout are mostly
threatened by the introduction of smallmouth bass in Umbagog lake and
that the reason for the regulations is selective harvest by species.
That is all smallmouth bass should be kept and all brook trout should
be released. That makes sense. What I'm specifically curious about is
the claims that I have read that it was over harvesting by "meat
gatherers" that led to the demise of the Rapid RIver brook trout
fishery and wonder if this was true and, assuming that this is
causality for the decline in the fishery, if it was poaching or
illegal over-harvest that caused the decline, or were the bag and size
restrictions set to generous?

I'm also curious about the 'flyfishing only' regulations and very
curious to know why those regs are in place. I ask because, in all the
catch and release mortality studies I have read, the incidence of
mortality is about the same between a barbed treble and a single
barbless hook, as well as the fact that a fly can be fished with non-
flyfishing tackle which might be important for the physically
challenged as well as just personal preference.

Thank you very much in advance for any information you can pass along.
In my research of Maine, I constantly encounter praise on praise for
the work you do.

Sincerely,

Tim Walker
Colorado


Bonney, Forrest Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 6:58
AM
To:
Cc: "Rossignol, Rae J"
Hi Tim,

You are correct that we are concerned that invasive smallmouth bass
will displace the wild brook trout population in the Rapid River.
These trout grow to exceptional sizes for Maine, many weighing several
pounds. The quality of the brook trout fishery had declined somewhat
in the 1980's due to increased angler use and harvest. For that
reason, we imposed a catch and release regulation effective 1986.
Size quality was soon restored, but then smallmouths moved into the
river a few years later. We still have an exceptional brook trout
fishery in terms of size quality, but recruitment is beginning to be
impacted as evidenced by fewer small brook trout. We are attempting
to stress the bass not only by maximizing their harvest, but by
releasing high flows just as the black fry hatch out.

You are correct that hooking mortality by flies is only slightly less
than that of lures. However, fly fishing is as much a social issue as
a biological issue in the Rangeley area, where it has been in effect
on many waters for more than a century. Access to the Rapid River is
fairly strenuous, pretty much negating any argument for the use of
lures for the benefit of the physically challenged.

Thanks for your interest and let me know if you'd like any reports on
the Rapid River fishery.

Forrest



From: Tim Walker ]
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2008 11:52 AM
To: Rossignol, Rae J
Subject: Threat to Brookies on Rapid River

[Quoted text hidden]

Tim Walker Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 1:00 PM
To: "Bonney, Forrest"
Cc: "Rossignol, Rae J"
Hi Forrest,

Thank you most sincerely for this reply. Actually, I just received an
invitation to come over to try the Rapid later this spring. I hope
I'll be able to make it. Something I'd love to do. I'm a huge fan of
your freighter canoes and want to come to Maine to photograph them as
well.

Thanks again for the information. It is very much appreciated.

Sincerely,

Tim
[Quoted text hidden]
Tim Walker Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 1:18 PM
To: "Bonney, Forrest"
Cc: "Rossignol, Rae J"
Hi Forrest,

I hope it's not an inconvenience but I'd like to ask some follow-on
questions.

You mentioned that you imposed a C&R regulation in 1986 after a
serious decline in 1980's and that you saw an increase in size.

I'm curious if this was a 'pure C&R' regulation (all fish must be
returned to the water) or if there were other slots involved?

Do you think that creating a minimum size at 22" (24"?) 1 fish harvest
angler must quit, result in the same outcome, or maybe even better?

It seems like the bag limits and minimum sizes were not restrictive
enough, or there was poaching?, that caused your decline but then the
regs went all the way to pure C&R and I'm curious about that. Were
more restrictive regulations attempted first?

I'm curious why there isn't some harvest allowed. It seems that there
would be mortality that is incidental to C&R angling, even if very
low, 1-3% for example. Still that's 1-3 fish killed per hundred with
unlimited rod hours. A very restrictive slot limit would target year
class mortality keeping the population healthy while allowing some
harvest of trout by people.

I have been a C&R angler for a long time. Since the opening of some of
the first pure C&R waters in the country (Cheesman Canyon) and really
enjoy the subject.

I realize that this is a lot to ask and am very appreciated of any
answers or insights you can afford. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Tim



On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 6:58 AM, Bonney, Forrest
wrote:
[Quoted text hidden]

Bonney, Forrest Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 5:22
AM
To: Tim Walker
Hi Tim, glad you got back at me because I wrote the wrong year for the
C&R; it was 1996, not 1986. The main reason that the regulation went
to catch and release rather than, say, an 18 length limit, was that
there was so much public support for it - still is. We do impose an
18 inch length limit on some waters, which allows the occasional
trophy fish to be taken home. There's been a tremendous change in
angler attitude within the last decade or so - much higher rate of
voluntary catch and release and support of restrictive regulations. F.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Walker ]
[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden]

Tim Walker Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 8:18 AM
To: "Bonney, Forrest"
Hi Forrest,

Appreciate that very much. I know it's a lot to ask, but please bear
me out. I've thought about this a lot and have spent a huge amount of
time on this.

Please consider:

There is definitely a lot of angler support for voluntary C&R. I know
I have been one for a long time and have given this an incredible
amount of time. I also know that it's big business.

Recruitment for hunting is down. That's an odd irony .

The census shows dramatically that people are moving to the urban
areas in droves. While sportsmen constitute setting the tone about
regulations, this population of urbanized dwellers constitute the real
vote. Things like spring bear hunts get voted down by the voters and
then the wildlife guys get blamed when a bear breaks in to a cabin.

The trend in the urban areas is towards Vegan and Green lifestyles. I
believe that an animal rights group could mount a campaign against
pure C&R fishing that the sportsmen would be adamant about but it
would pass just the same.

There is never a biological reason for pure C&R. Maintaining a
biological imperative and respect for the fish is paramount. As long
as there is focus of management of maximizing yield versus strictly
sport fishing there is always a defensible position.

Pure C&R creates tension between angling groups and shows special
interest favoritism of public lands.

Pure C&R results in scarred fish that act funny. There are a lot of
fish and they are big but ,man, I've seen the end game, on places like
the Frying Pan in Colorado. Some of the fish caught are grotesque
abominations. Missing eyes, lips gill covers. People elbow to elbow.

The final moral and ethical question comes down to: should we treat a
wild animal like a biological golf ball? That is the vote we would
lose to the popular vote, in my estimation and why it is so important
to maintaing that biological imperatives in our management approaches.

I always want the ability to complete the circle of fishing. Eating a
trout in my camp is the finest pleasure God has given us and I don't
want to see that gone nor feel any guilt about it.

Thanks again,

Tim
[Quoted text hidden]

Tim Walker Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 8:44 AM
To: "Bonney, Forrest"
Quick question: Do big brook trout eat little brook trout? You
mentioned that you were finding brook trout recruitment down, might be
the bass...might not?

Thanks again.

Sincerely,

Tim
http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi...4&isi ze=text
[Quoted text hidden]

Bonney, Forrest Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 8:50
AM
To: Tim Walker
Big trout do eat small trout of course, but our electrofishing shows
that it's the bass that are among the trout fry in the shallows, not
the big trout. Plus, we didn't have a recruitment problem until the
bass showed up. Appreciate your comments on C&R; we have very few
waters with that regulation but under the circumstances we're pulling
out all the stops to save this wild trout population.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Walker ]
[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden]

Tim Walker Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 9:14 AM
To: "Bonney, Forrest"
Appreciate your time. If I can ever be of assistance to you, please do
not hesitate to ask.

Question: Would you mind if I posted this thread in a flyfishing
ndewsgroup?

Tim
[Quoted text hidden]
Bonney, Forrest Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 9:17
AM
To: Tim Walker
No problem, and thanks for asking!

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Walker ]
[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden]

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
...
Below is the entire email thread I had with Forrest Bonney with the
Maine F&G. He gave me explicit approval to repost it here.

Please note that I post it in its entirety and without qualification
or opinion.

It is my sincere hope that this is useful. ...

I don't know about useful but it proves Louie was absolutely
correct about C&R in the Rapid River. Most of us knew that
already of course. And it also shows you're an obsessed
crackpot, but then most of us knew that already too.

So that's two instances you've been given where "pure C&R"
is the best fishery management tool for a particular fishery,
the brook trout fishery on the Rapid River in Maine and the
smallmouth fishery of the Sylvania Wilderness in Michigan.

Hope, but seriously doubts, this helps.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Mar 11, 9:40 am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
I don't know about useful but it proves Louie was absolutely
correct about C&R in the Rapid River. Most of us knew that
already of course. And it also shows you're an obsessed
crackpot, but then most of us knew that already too.

So that's two instances you've been given where "pure C&R"
is the best fishery management tool for a particular fishery,
the brook trout fishery on the Rapid River in Maine and the
smallmouth fishery of the Sylvania Wilderness in Michigan.

Hope, but seriously doubts, this helps.

--
Ken Fortenberry

I basically agree, except about the personal attacks. No doubt, all of
Louie's knowledge, insight and passion for this wonderful place is
spot on and it's been a privilege to learn more about. I acknowledge
the 'status quo' in the response. You have to pretty much expect this.
To be objective, however, it is also true that the pure C&R
regulations on the Rapid went from 60 to 0 as the result of social as
opposed to biological management rationales. Good stuff Maynard.

There is a fascinating question in this.

Is it the big brook trout that is causing a recruitment problem? Man,
those bruisers must vacuum up a lot of fry. Dave says he doesn't
really see that many big bass. Forrest says electroshocking found bass
in the bed.

Willi - say what you will about tedium man but Columbo don't get
better than this.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 18:52:17 -0700 (PDT), Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

You bring up horses. I know horses are used and rewarded in the form
of a pretty good life and a lot of love. Where they are not the horses
are confiscated and the owner on the 10 O:Clock news. They work hard
for their living and their nurture. Not unlike humans.

Ever been to a rodeo and seen a bronc come up lame after a ride? When they drag
it off on a pipe rail gate to the back 40, those cops that go along are not
there to protect the horsie from too much love.
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

I believe Forest is wrong with his dates: I didn't start fishing the
Rapid until 1988 and it was NOT c&r then. You could kill 1 brook
trout or 1 salmon/day. I think he meant 1996.

Dave

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
I don't know about useful but it proves Louie was absolutely
correct about C&R in the Rapid River. Most of us knew that
already of course. And it also shows you're an obsessed
crackpot, but then most of us knew that already too.

So that's two instances you've been given where "pure C&R"
is the best fishery management tool for a particular fishery,
the brook trout fishery on the Rapid River in Maine and the
smallmouth fishery of the Sylvania Wilderness in Michigan.

Hope, but seriously doubts, this helps.

I basically agree, except about the personal attacks. ...

Now you're whining about personal attacks ? What did you
expect from a stark and wanton killer of wildlife who has
not a "spank" of conscience, you crazy piece of **** ?

Your pal,

I am not your pal.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:02:57 -0700 (PDT), Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

Is it the big brook trout that is causing a recruitment problem? Man,
those bruisers must vacuum up a lot of fry. Dave says he doesn't
really see that many big bass. Forrest says electroshocking found bass
in the bed.

Forrect was at the meeting where the biologist explained about getting
rid of bass in a particular pond. The bass in the Rapid are there to
stay. How badly they will impact the fisherey is not known at this
time, but to all the people that are trying to rid the river of the
bass, al I can say is, "Good luck." If I catch a smallmouth in the
river, I will dispatch it without much pity.

I haven't seen *any* big bass, but I have been told that some have
been taken and killed. The bad news is that smallmouth have been
caught in Cupsuptic Lake (a part of Mooselookmaguntic), probably as a
result of illegal stocking by some fool. Catch and kill all you want
with the bass (or, ftm, any fish in the lakes), but leave the brook
trout of the Rapid alone. Let them thrive as best they can.

Dave

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Mar 11, 11:20 am, Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:02:57 -0700 (PDT), Halfordian Golfer

wrote:
Is it the big brook trout that is causing a recruitment problem? Man,
those bruisers must vacuum up a lot of fry. Dave says he doesn't
really see that many big bass. Forrest says electroshocking found bass
in the bed.

Forrect was at the meeting where the biologist explained about getting
rid of bass in a particular pond. The bass in the Rapid are there to
stay. How badly they will impact the fisherey is not known at this
time, but to all the people that are trying to rid the river of the
bass, al I can say is, "Good luck." If I catch a smallmouth in the
river, I will dispatch it without much pity.

I haven't seen *any* big bass, but I have been told that some have
been taken and killed. The bad news is that smallmouth have been
caught in Cupsuptic Lake (a part of Mooselookmaguntic), probably as a
result of illegal stocking by some fool. Catch and kill all you want
with the bass (or, ftm, any fish in the lakes), but leave the brook
trout of the Rapid alone. Let them thrive as best they can.

Dave

I hear ya.

The thing is....if the brookies are getting big and the bass are
not...is it possible...go with me here man...that the big brook trout
you're letting go are eating a lot of the fry contributing to the
decrease in recruitment seen? It must be contributory? Thoughts? How
many baby trout does a 5 pounder eat a day?

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer