|
|
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
I think it's us fishermen that have distorted the meaning of wild. That's not the way we use the term "wild" when we're referring to animals other than fish. Yeah, I guess if it was a cat or a hog whose parents had escaped captivity and bred in the wild we would call both the parents and the resulting offspring "feral". But in terms of fish how many generations of brown trout need to naturally reproduce in a stream before they're wild, not native of course, but wild fish ? At any rate those are just my personal definitions, YMMV. I share those definitions but find it odd that us fishermen have come up with a new definition for the word wild. Willi |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
On Mar 6, 1:32 pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 12:02:45 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer wrote: Sorry Dave but you make a really dumb assed argument, IMO. We throw a hook in the water and we pull it into the head, eyes, gill plates, fins and spine of our quarry. Then we haul it across rapids, rocks, sticks, glass and the remnants of various civilizations and proceed to do streamside surgery to remove the hook. At the extreme minimum there is a hook scar. At the extent, it is grotesque. There's just no point arguing this. Besides, you aren't anywhere near getting up early enough in the morning to take the worm away from Willi. And your argument is also dumb assed. Why do you fish, Tim? Really? Why do you fish? It must hurt to be you with a fly rod in your hand. If you have all this guilt (I don't, btw), then why do you fish. There is a certain amount of fatality with c&r, and yes, some fish end up scarred. But the alternative is even worse - sure death at the hands of a meat gatherer like you. Catch a fish, use a barbless hook, play it a minimum of time (Lee Wulff sez a minute/pound), release it without taking it out of the water, and you have minimized any impact on that fish. Or, catch a fish - doesn't matter what kind of hook, play it as long as you want - he's gonna die anyway, and lift him out of the water while you remove the hook. Ya don't have to be careful - just rip that sucker out of there. He's gonna die anyway, right? ****, why don't you use a spear gun or a trident? Results would be the same. You and I have had this argument for longer than I care to remember. You have yet to change my mind, and no one can change your mind. So, you are correct - there is no point in arguing about it. I don't know what you mean about taking the worm from Willi. (???) Dave So Dave. Do you eat? |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
On Mar 6, 2:13 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: Willi wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: Halfordian Golfer wrote: I'm not sure why folkes started misusing wild, but I wish they'd stop. I'm not going to get into yet another C&R argument, been there done that, but I will offer up some definitions which have proven useful to me. Stocker - a fish born or raised in a hatchery and planted in a stream. Holdover - a fish born or raised in a hatchery and planted in a stream which has survived in the stream more than one season. Wild - a fish born in the stream regardless of ancestry or how many times it's been caught. Native - an indigenous fish born in the stream. Now, I'm not sure why you started misusing wild. ;-) I think it's us fishermen that have distorted the meaning of wild. That's not the way we use the term "wild" when we're referring to animals other than fish. Yeah, I guess if it was a cat or a hog whose parents had escaped captivity and bred in the wild we would call both the parents and the resulting offspring "feral". But in terms of fish how many generations of brown trout need to naturally reproduce in a stream before they're wild, not native of course, but wild fish ? At any rate those are just my personal definitions, YMMV. -- Ken Fortenberry If the fish is born, lives and dies, and never encounters human in any form it is wild. Everything else are just degrees of wildness. Your pal, |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... On Mar 6, 9:09 am, "JT" wrote: "Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... On Mar 4, 4:25 pm, "JT" wrote: "Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message .net... I have caught such fish as Tim describes. And it is pathetic. I consider tailwaters phony fisheries and the stocked fish therein phony fish. Better to let folks eat those things than to release them over and over until they're monstrosities. I'm talking about the San Juan River in New Mexico. I'm not talking about stocked fish, I'm talking about wild trout. Hell, some of the stocked fish I have seen look terrible before they have been caught once. I have no problem with keeping a planter for the fry pan, (and do on occasion) I have a hell of a time killing a wild trout to eat. There is no one and only true fishery management method for all streams everywhere. C&R is good for some streams, selective harvest for others. What we need is a little less dogma and a little more science. I would agree, however the wild freestone C&R streams I fish, I feel C&R is the best means to keep them productive into the future. JT -How you doing with your health these days? Last report was good, hope things are continuing the same. JT - How can a fish that is caught repeatedly by a human possibly be 'wild'? If a fish is born in a raceway that has an automatic feeder and lives completely in the absence of man. With the racoons and bears for it's natural life, and dies in that raceway, is that not a more "wild" fish than any fish that shares the river every day with hundreds of humans? Maybe I'm not sure what the word "wild" means. If the fish was born in the stream it's a wild fish, regardless of whether it's been caught or not. Just because the fish was caught by a human doesn't take away the fact that it's a wild fish to the stream/river. As I have mentioned, I'm not opposed to keeping a stocked/planted fish for the fry pan under the right circumstances. I have no interest in killing and eating a wild fish that I have caught, I would much rather take care in landing and releasing the fish so it will swim another day to breed and raise offspring for my children and their children to catch. If I look at a normal day on one of my favorite C&R stream and every fisherman I see in that day was to kill their keep (let's say the limit is 1 fish) there would be 20 - 25 dead fish on that day. Multiply that by the week that I'm on the river and your looking at 140 - 175 dead fish, it would ultimately be devastating to the fishery. If I understand your MO, you never fish C&R streams and you keep the first fish you catch that meets the slot limit. What do you do when you catch a fish that doesn't meet the slot limit? JT Hi JT, I'm not sure why folkes started misusing wild, but I wish they'd stop. Streamborne is much better if that's what you mean. However, even that is of very extremely limited utility as a measure of about anything except that in some given place a fish can reproduce. This turns out to be quite idd and unnatural in some places, like reproduction in lakes of certain stream specie. However, if I plant fry of a fish with genetics (x) that is still attached to the egg sac, is that wild or hatchery? If I hatch a bunch of eggs in a whitlock-vibert box, do they qualify as wild or stocked? While it might have pastoral connotations of pristine conditions that support the fish, it is hardly useful, if at all, from a biology-management perspective (there will be hair splitting arguments here). All Rainbow, Brook and Brown trout in Colorado threaten the indiginous cutthroat. "Wild" by your definition can be a very bad thing. Your math is both an over-simplification and terribly flawed. You did not account for mortality incident to unlimited C&R, which is never zero. The numbers that you suggested are generally as high or higher for unlimited hours of pure C&R fishing versus the catch, kill and quit mandate and infinitely less controllable. This is especially true in the summer months which sees warm water stress mortality, the highest density of fishermen, the highest density of novice fishermen etc. and is logically higher per catch in the winter when more subsurface imitations are used. This is well understood in this argument and has been completely dismissed over the years dozens of times. The other part that is critically missing from your oversimplification is the rate of biomass generation for maximizing yield of any fishery. Once a fish reaches a certain size it is no longer growing at rate that accounts for the biomass it consumes. This is referred to as negative yield. This is the logic behind the upper limits of slots. Willi, will weigh in on large fish genetics, which is fair. When you have a lot of fish competing for the resource their growth is stunted. You catch lot's of small fish and severely malnourished fish. The healthiest populations are the ones where this is kept in balance through active slot limits. Pure C&R is far less effective as a management strategy and is really a very poor justification for the act, which is really a ruse to increase the number of people that can fish and sells us a much lesser substitute in return. So we can start some place. Please answer this question honestly and without decoration. Is it true or is it false. I'm not asking of it matters or is good or anything else. Just looking for True or False. (T or F) Pure catch and releases fishing stresses, maims or kills fish purely for sport. My figures may be simple however the numbers don't lie... You do the math. I'm talking about a C&R stream that was changed so you could keep one fish a day. If 25 figherman over a week kept a fish, then 175 fish would die in that week. You answer my question and I'll answer yours: "If I understand your MO, you never fish C&R streams and you keep the first fish you catch that meets the slot limit? What do you do when you catch a fish that doesn't meet the slot limit?" JT |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
On Mar 6, 2:34 pm, Willi wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote: I think it's us fishermen that have distorted the meaning of wild. That's not the way we use the term "wild" when we're referring to animals other than fish. Yeah, I guess if it was a cat or a hog whose parents had escaped captivity and bred in the wild we would call both the parents and the resulting offspring "feral". But in terms of fish how many generations of brown trout need to naturally reproduce in a stream before they're wild, not native of course, but wild fish ? At any rate those are just my personal definitions, YMMV. I share those definitions but find it odd that us fishermen have come up with a new definition for the word wild. Willi I guess that sort of sums it up from me too. It wouldn't be so bad except that it seems like the folks that misuse it the most are the ones who have a responsibility to understand it the most. It's not all that mysterious to me though. A search of TESS reveals around 700 Trade Marks when "catch and release" is entered as a search term. I think InFisherrman holds "Selective Harvest" as a registered trademark. That said, it is not the least of our confusions on this issue. Quick Quiz: Who said: "Taking out small bass is the only way we have been able to maintain the quality of our biggest bass he said. Removing small bass reduces competition with bigger fish, but also takes a predator away from the foundation of forage fish. A 12-inch bass eats 2-to-4 inch bluegill, all day. If those young bluegill can live a bit longer, spawn a few more times, and increase the crop of forage, big bass ultimately benefit. Big bass eat big meals. But, if intermediate size bass overeat numbers of small forage fish, the only item left on the menu for monster bass is smaller cousins. And, most biologists say, diversity is crucial to the success of a trophy bass lake. Once again, 'balance' becomes a key word for pond managers." A. Lee Wulff, the author of the phrase, "A fish is too valuable to be caught only once" B. Ray Scott, the father and pioneer of the modern Catch and Release etchic C. Halfordian Golfer - Author of "Guilt replaced the creel" D. Dave "Louie" LaCourse - Who said "yes, some fish endup scarred. But the alternative is even worse" Answer: B. Ray Scott, the father and pioneer of modern Catch and Release ethic http://www.pennsoutdoors.com/2008/7-...t-for-fishing/ |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
On Mar 6, 2:47 pm, "JT" wrote:
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... On Mar 6, 9:09 am, "JT" wrote: "Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... On Mar 4, 4:25 pm, "JT" wrote: "Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message .net... I have caught such fish as Tim describes. And it is pathetic. I consider tailwaters phony fisheries and the stocked fish therein phony fish. Better to let folks eat those things than to release them over and over until they're monstrosities. I'm talking about the San Juan River in New Mexico. I'm not talking about stocked fish, I'm talking about wild trout. Hell, some of the stocked fish I have seen look terrible before they have been caught once. I have no problem with keeping a planter for the fry pan, (and do on occasion) I have a hell of a time killing a wild trout to eat. There is no one and only true fishery management method for all streams everywhere. C&R is good for some streams, selective harvest for others. What we need is a little less dogma and a little more science. I would agree, however the wild freestone C&R streams I fish, I feel C&R is the best means to keep them productive into the future. JT -How you doing with your health these days? Last report was good, hope things are continuing the same. JT - How can a fish that is caught repeatedly by a human possibly be 'wild'? If a fish is born in a raceway that has an automatic feeder and lives completely in the absence of man. With the racoons and bears for it's natural life, and dies in that raceway, is that not a more "wild" fish than any fish that shares the river every day with hundreds of humans? Maybe I'm not sure what the word "wild" means. If the fish was born in the stream it's a wild fish, regardless of whether it's been caught or not. Just because the fish was caught by a human doesn't take away the fact that it's a wild fish to the stream/river. As I have mentioned, I'm not opposed to keeping a stocked/planted fish for the fry pan under the right circumstances. I have no interest in killing and eating a wild fish that I have caught, I would much rather take care in landing and releasing the fish so it will swim another day to breed and raise offspring for my children and their children to catch. If I look at a normal day on one of my favorite C&R stream and every fisherman I see in that day was to kill their keep (let's say the limit is 1 fish) there would be 20 - 25 dead fish on that day. Multiply that by the week that I'm on the river and your looking at 140 - 175 dead fish, it would ultimately be devastating to the fishery. If I understand your MO, you never fish C&R streams and you keep the first fish you catch that meets the slot limit. What do you do when you catch a fish that doesn't meet the slot limit? JT Hi JT, I'm not sure why folkes started misusing wild, but I wish they'd stop. Streamborne is much better if that's what you mean. However, even that is of very extremely limited utility as a measure of about anything except that in some given place a fish can reproduce. This turns out to be quite idd and unnatural in some places, like reproduction in lakes of certain stream specie. However, if I plant fry of a fish with genetics (x) that is still attached to the egg sac, is that wild or hatchery? If I hatch a bunch of eggs in a whitlock-vibert box, do they qualify as wild or stocked? While it might have pastoral connotations of pristine conditions that support the fish, it is hardly useful, if at all, from a biology-management perspective (there will be hair splitting arguments here). All Rainbow, Brook and Brown trout in Colorado threaten the indiginous cutthroat. "Wild" by your definition can be a very bad thing. Your math is both an over-simplification and terribly flawed. You did not account for mortality incident to unlimited C&R, which is never zero. The numbers that you suggested are generally as high or higher for unlimited hours of pure C&R fishing versus the catch, kill and quit mandate and infinitely less controllable. This is especially true in the summer months which sees warm water stress mortality, the highest density of fishermen, the highest density of novice fishermen etc. and is logically higher per catch in the winter when more subsurface imitations are used. This is well understood in this argument and has been completely dismissed over the years dozens of times. The other part that is critically missing from your oversimplification is the rate of biomass generation for maximizing yield of any fishery. Once a fish reaches a certain size it is no longer growing at rate that accounts for the biomass it consumes. This is referred to as negative yield. This is the logic behind the upper limits of slots. Willi, will weigh in on large fish genetics, which is fair. When you have a lot of fish competing for the resource their growth is stunted. You catch lot's of small fish and severely malnourished fish. The healthiest populations are the ones where this is kept in balance through active slot limits. Pure C&R is far less effective as a management strategy and is really a very poor justification for the act, which is really a ruse to increase the number of people that can fish and sells us a much lesser substitute in return. So we can start some place. Please answer this question honestly and without decoration. Is it true or is it false. I'm not asking of it matters or is good or anything else. Just looking for True or False. (T or F) Pure catch and releases fishing stresses, maims or kills fish purely for sport. My figures may be simple however the numbers don't lie... You do the math. I'm talking about a C&R stream that was changed so you could keep one fish a day. If 25 figherman over a week kept a fish, then 175 fish would die in that week. You answer my question and I'll answer yours: "If I understand your MO, you never fish C&R streams and you keep the first fish you catch that meets the slot limit? What do you do when you catch a fish that doesn't meet the slot limit?" JT You asked: "If I understand your MO, you never fish C&R streams and you keep the first fish you catch that meets the slot limit? What do you do when you catch a fish that doesn't meet the slot limit?" Which is a fair question that I will answer truthfully and objectively. You are right that I will not fish a stream that is pure C&R. That's true. But, to answer your question. By law I will release the fish as carefully as I can and hope it swims off. Infrequently I release it as carefully as I can and it twirls to the bottom with a little blood trail from it's gill. Sometimes it swims away weakly only to twirl and die later. This mostly when lake fishing. Sometimes the fish has died in my hands and I decide to throw it in the water or the brush. This is rare but it happens. When I am fishing for bass and a bluegill has swallowed my nymph, it dies and I am profoundly sad and feel like an idiot. What's even more tormenting for me are the days where I head out with a creel and the intention of killing a few and quitting. Then I am caught with the wonder of a beautiful wild animal in my hand and I can not bring myself to kill it, even though it is legal and I release it and feel silly. Of course the problem is that this happens roughly 99.9% of my fishing time so I bring it to ROFF and alt.flyfishing to discuss as therapy and precisely the reason my tag line is often... Halfordian Golfer Guilt replaced the creel |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 13:40:15 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer
wrote: So Dave. Do you eat? Who, me? No. I don't breathe either, and it has been decades since I've had a drink of water. Why do you ask? Do you want my food? My air? My water? Why? |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
On Mar 6, 1:48 pm, Willi wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote: Your math is both an over-simplification and terribly flawed. You did not account for mortality incident to unlimited C&R, which is never zero. The numbers that you suggested are generally as high or higher for unlimited hours of pure C&R fishing versus the catch, kill and quit mandate and infinitely less controllable. This is especially true in the summer months which sees warm water stress mortality, the highest density of fishermen, the highest density of novice fishermen etc. and is logically higher per catch in the winter when more subsurface imitations are used. This is well understood in this argument and has been completely dismissed over the years dozens of times. The other part that is critically missing from your oversimplification is the rate of biomass generation for maximizing yield of any fishery. Once a fish reaches a certain size it is no longer growing at rate that accounts for the biomass it consumes. This is referred to as negative yield. This is the logic behind the upper limits of slots. Willi, will weigh in on large fish genetics, which is fair. When you have a lot of fish competing for the resource their growth is stunted. You catch lot's of small fish and severely malnourished fish. The healthiest populations are the ones where this is kept in balance through active slot limits. Your argument is flawed especially when you specify targeting the larger fish in a population. It will be necessary to C&R numerous other fish before you catch your keeper, if you even do catch a keeper. You not only have all the negatives and the incidental mortality you attribute to C&R, in addition you have the mortality of keeping a fish. As you know and like I stated earlier, Colorado has this type of limit on many streams - ie one fish over 18 inches. In many of these streams there is MAYBE one fish per mile that size. Nothing more than De facto C&R. Although some fisheries do have malnourished, small fish (usually introduced fish in my experience), man generally isn't needed to keep a healthy fishery in balance. Nature has been doing it for a long time. Willi So we can start some place. Please answer this question honestly and without decoration. Is it true or is it false. I'm not asking of it matters or is good or anything else. Just looking for True or False. (T or F) Pure catch and releases fishing stresses, maims or kills fish purely for sport. Your pal, TBone Willi - you said: "Your argument is flawed especially when you specify targeting the larger fish in a population. It will be necessary to C&R numerous other fish before you catch your keeper, if you even do catch a keeper. You not only have all the negatives and the incidental mortality you attribute to C&R, in addition you have the mortality of keeping a fish." This is not right for the simple reason that the constraints are not known to have it make any sense. If the fishing is good for 'keepers' I might quit after one good cast. Such was the case last year when I hiked in to R**** P**** and caught, killed and quit a 3 pounder on the first cast. On the other hand, as I have witnessed it living on the Roaring Fork for a dozen years, the modern typical C&R guy (am I talking about myself here?) fishes intensely and competitively looking for that fish. Hundred fish days, we call them. Days that find you astream again after dinner and well past dark. The drift boats relentlessly hauling fish into 100 degree aluminum boats. These days would do well to fish less, to be sure. But the point is back to these constraints and the variability in the outcomes and population of desired year class individuals in the fishery. Most specifically I point to the people who are in charge of managing these things, who hire scientists and take surveys, and count fish with our tax dollars. The Colorado Division of Wildlife, which only tends to serve my primary points. In general, in Colorado, you can keep 4 trout and an additional bag of stunted brookies. There is no limit on Whitefish (delicious BTW) and ya know...the fishing is pretty darned good. The people that know the most agree, that there is no reason for pure C&R most of the time and the fisheries will benefit generally from some harvest. This is the science Ken rightly seeks. TBone It is impossible to catch and release a wild trout. |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
On Mar 6, 3:38 pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 13:40:15 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer wrote: So Dave. Do you eat? Who, me? No. I don't breathe either, and it has been decades since I've had a drink of water. Why do you ask? Do you want my food? My air? My water? Why? Because Dave, you said "But the alternative is even worse - sure death at the hands of a meat gatherer like you.". I just wanted to be clear that you were Vegan or at least acknowledge that someone else is doing the killing for you. I also ask because this is alt.flyfishing and I believe the overwhelming majority of fishermen since the dawn, something like 99.999999999999999999999...% of them, have gone fishing to catch and eat fish, and it's pretty insulting to the souls of our brethren to say what you say. There is a quote I wish I could find Dave, something about all of us and our distance with the butcher which makes our lives a little more moral in our own minds. Any help on that, appreciated. Your pal, TBone |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 14:47:08 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer
wrote: Because Dave, you said "But the alternative is even worse - sure death at the hands of a meat gatherer like you.". I just wanted to be clear that you were Vegan or at least acknowledge that someone else is doing the killing for you. Uhuh. I love a brookie pan fried with some eggs and strong coffee made on a camp stove. And I will take a fish to eat, I've said that before. If I have no impact on the fishery, I will take and eat a wild fish (not a stocker - my dog eats dogfood, not me). The last time I was in Labrador my grandson and I collected 15 brookies about 10 inches long, and had them for the evening meal along with pan fried potatoes, onions. I ate a silver salmon, a 14 pounder, on the Kamishak River in Alaska. I caught it, killed it and 5 of us ate it. I would not, however, keep any fish out of the rivers I fish in Maine. As I have said a dozen times already, these waters were virtually on the edge of total disappearance of native brook trout thanks to the meat gatherers. Today the rives are healthy and chock full of wild and native brooktrout. I also ask because this is alt.flyfishing and I believe the overwhelming majority of fishermen since the dawn, something like 99.999999999999999999999...% of them, have gone fishing to catch and eat fish, and it's pretty insulting to the souls of our brethren to say what you say. Horse puckies. Insulting is when you kill a fish and won't let me catch it. Now *that's* insulting. I have eaten fish, but I will not eat a fish from a stream where they are endangered. If I did, you did, willi did, all of roff did, I wouldn't have anyplace to fish for wild trout, Tim. You do your thing out in Colorado and be happy. I'll do my thing in Maine, Canada, Russia, Alaska, and in just a few days, Chile. There is a quote I wish I could find Dave, something about all of us and our distance with the butcher which makes our lives a little more moral in our own minds. Any help on that, appreciated. Tim, I used to hunt. Killed my first deer and dressed it when I was 14. I worked for Swift and Co. (big slaughter house in Springfield years ago). I've killed and cleaned more fish and animals than most men have. You're preaching to the choir. Dave |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... On Mar 6, 2:47 pm, "JT" wrote: "Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... On Mar 6, 9:09 am, "JT" wrote: "Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... On Mar 4, 4:25 pm, "JT" wrote: "Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message .net... I have caught such fish as Tim describes. And it is pathetic. I consider tailwaters phony fisheries and the stocked fish therein phony fish. Better to let folks eat those things than to release them over and over until they're monstrosities. I'm talking about the San Juan River in New Mexico. I'm not talking about stocked fish, I'm talking about wild trout. Hell, some of the stocked fish I have seen look terrible before they have been caught once. I have no problem with keeping a planter for the fry pan, (and do on occasion) I have a hell of a time killing a wild trout to eat. There is no one and only true fishery management method for all streams everywhere. C&R is good for some streams, selective harvest for others. What we need is a little less dogma and a little more science. I would agree, however the wild freestone C&R streams I fish, I feel C&R is the best means to keep them productive into the future. JT -How you doing with your health these days? Last report was good, hope things are continuing the same. JT - How can a fish that is caught repeatedly by a human possibly be 'wild'? If a fish is born in a raceway that has an automatic feeder and lives completely in the absence of man. With the racoons and bears for it's natural life, and dies in that raceway, is that not a more "wild" fish than any fish that shares the river every day with hundreds of humans? Maybe I'm not sure what the word "wild" means. If the fish was born in the stream it's a wild fish, regardless of whether it's been caught or not. Just because the fish was caught by a human doesn't take away the fact that it's a wild fish to the stream/river. As I have mentioned, I'm not opposed to keeping a stocked/planted fish for the fry pan under the right circumstances. I have no interest in killing and eating a wild fish that I have caught, I would much rather take care in landing and releasing the fish so it will swim another day to breed and raise offspring for my children and their children to catch. If I look at a normal day on one of my favorite C&R stream and every fisherman I see in that day was to kill their keep (let's say the limit is 1 fish) there would be 20 - 25 dead fish on that day. Multiply that by the week that I'm on the river and your looking at 140 - 175 dead fish, it would ultimately be devastating to the fishery. If I understand your MO, you never fish C&R streams and you keep the first fish you catch that meets the slot limit. What do you do when you catch a fish that doesn't meet the slot limit? JT Hi JT, I'm not sure why folkes started misusing wild, but I wish they'd stop. Streamborne is much better if that's what you mean. However, even that is of very extremely limited utility as a measure of about anything except that in some given place a fish can reproduce. This turns out to be quite idd and unnatural in some places, like reproduction in lakes of certain stream specie. However, if I plant fry of a fish with genetics (x) that is still attached to the egg sac, is that wild or hatchery? If I hatch a bunch of eggs in a whitlock-vibert box, do they qualify as wild or stocked? While it might have pastoral connotations of pristine conditions that support the fish, it is hardly useful, if at all, from a biology-management perspective (there will be hair splitting arguments here). All Rainbow, Brook and Brown trout in Colorado threaten the indiginous cutthroat. "Wild" by your definition can be a very bad thing. Your math is both an over-simplification and terribly flawed. You did not account for mortality incident to unlimited C&R, which is never zero. The numbers that you suggested are generally as high or higher for unlimited hours of pure C&R fishing versus the catch, kill and quit mandate and infinitely less controllable. This is especially true in the summer months which sees warm water stress mortality, the highest density of fishermen, the highest density of novice fishermen etc. and is logically higher per catch in the winter when more subsurface imitations are used. This is well understood in this argument and has been completely dismissed over the years dozens of times. The other part that is critically missing from your oversimplification is the rate of biomass generation for maximizing yield of any fishery. Once a fish reaches a certain size it is no longer growing at rate that accounts for the biomass it consumes. This is referred to as negative yield. This is the logic behind the upper limits of slots. Willi, will weigh in on large fish genetics, which is fair. When you have a lot of fish competing for the resource their growth is stunted. You catch lot's of small fish and severely malnourished fish. The healthiest populations are the ones where this is kept in balance through active slot limits. Pure C&R is far less effective as a management strategy and is really a very poor justification for the act, which is really a ruse to increase the number of people that can fish and sells us a much lesser substitute in return. So we can start some place. Please answer this question honestly and without decoration. Is it true or is it false. I'm not asking of it matters or is good or anything else. Just looking for True or False. (T or F) Pure catch and releases fishing stresses, maims or kills fish purely for sport. My figures may be simple however the numbers don't lie... You do the math. I'm talking about a C&R stream that was changed so you could keep one fish a day. If 25 figherman over a week kept a fish, then 175 fish would die in that week. You answer my question and I'll answer yours: "If I understand your MO, you never fish C&R streams and you keep the first fish you catch that meets the slot limit? What do you do when you catch a fish that doesn't meet the slot limit?" JT You asked: "If I understand your MO, you never fish C&R streams and you keep the first fish you catch that meets the slot limit? What do you do when you catch a fish that doesn't meet the slot limit?" Which is a fair question that I will answer truthfully and objectively. You are right that I will not fish a stream that is pure C&R. That's true. But, to answer your question. By law I will release the fish as carefully as I can and hope it swims off. Infrequently I release it as carefully as I can and it twirls to the bottom with a little blood trail from it's gill. Sometimes it swims away weakly only to twirl and die later. This mostly when lake fishing. Sometimes the fish has died in my hands and I decide to throw it in the water or the brush. This is rare but it happens. When I am fishing for bass and a bluegill has swallowed my nymph, it dies and I am profoundly sad and feel like an idiot. TBone, Please don't take anything I'm going to say as a cheap shot. I question your C&R technique if you are having the troubles you mentioned releasing fish. I live on a lake where our association raises 12,000 rainbow each winter and F&W throw in several thousand others rainbow, triploids and browns. I go out for enjoyment once or twice a week. Throwing or trolling a fly around. I might keep a fish or two (normal I don't) however release the others that I catch. I can honestly say that 99% of the time the fish I release in the lake take off like a bat out a hell when I put them in the water rarely do any of the fish swim off weakly and I have never put a fish in the water that twirls to the bottom. I use barbless hooks, keep the fish in the water if I can and release them unharmed. What's even more tormenting for me are the days where I head out with a creel and the intention of killing a few and quitting. Then I am caught with the wonder of a beautiful wild animal in my hand and I can not bring myself to kill it, even though it is legal and I release it and feel silly. Of course the problem is that this happens roughly 99.9% of my fishing time so I bring it to ROFF and alt.flyfishing to discuss as therapy and precisely the reason my tag line is often... So what you are saying is that 99.9% of the time you are a C&R fisherman because you can't kill the fish you catch? I hate to say this, however maybe you should hang up the fly rod for some other sport. It sounds like the inner demons are getting the best of you. Good luck, JT |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
On Mar 6, 4:24 pm, "JT" wrote:
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... On Mar 6, 2:47 pm, "JT" wrote: "Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... On Mar 6, 9:09 am, "JT" wrote: "Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... On Mar 4, 4:25 pm, "JT" wrote: "Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message .net... I have caught such fish as Tim describes. And it is pathetic. I consider tailwaters phony fisheries and the stocked fish therein phony fish. Better to let folks eat those things than to release them over and over until they're monstrosities. I'm talking about the San Juan River in New Mexico. I'm not talking about stocked fish, I'm talking about wild trout. Hell, some of the stocked fish I have seen look terrible before they have been caught once. I have no problem with keeping a planter for the fry pan, (and do on occasion) I have a hell of a time killing a wild trout to eat. There is no one and only true fishery management method for all streams everywhere. C&R is good for some streams, selective harvest for others. What we need is a little less dogma and a little more science. I would agree, however the wild freestone C&R streams I fish, I feel C&R is the best means to keep them productive into the future. JT -How you doing with your health these days? Last report was good, hope things are continuing the same. JT - How can a fish that is caught repeatedly by a human possibly be 'wild'? If a fish is born in a raceway that has an automatic feeder and lives completely in the absence of man. With the racoons and bears for it's natural life, and dies in that raceway, is that not a more "wild" fish than any fish that shares the river every day with hundreds of humans? Maybe I'm not sure what the word "wild" means. If the fish was born in the stream it's a wild fish, regardless of whether it's been caught or not. Just because the fish was caught by a human doesn't take away the fact that it's a wild fish to the stream/river. As I have mentioned, I'm not opposed to keeping a stocked/planted fish for the fry pan under the right circumstances. I have no interest in killing and eating a wild fish that I have caught, I would much rather take care in landing and releasing the fish so it will swim another day to breed and raise offspring for my children and their children to catch. If I look at a normal day on one of my favorite C&R stream and every fisherman I see in that day was to kill their keep (let's say the limit is 1 fish) there would be 20 - 25 dead fish on that day. Multiply that by the week that I'm on the river and your looking at 140 - 175 dead fish, it would ultimately be devastating to the fishery. If I understand your MO, you never fish C&R streams and you keep the first fish you catch that meets the slot limit. What do you do when you catch a fish that doesn't meet the slot limit? JT Hi JT, I'm not sure why folkes started misusing wild, but I wish they'd stop. Streamborne is much better if that's what you mean. However, even that is of very extremely limited utility as a measure of about anything except that in some given place a fish can reproduce. This turns out to be quite idd and unnatural in some places, like reproduction in lakes of certain stream specie. However, if I plant fry of a fish with genetics (x) that is still attached to the egg sac, is that wild or hatchery? If I hatch a bunch of eggs in a whitlock-vibert box, do they qualify as wild or stocked? While it might have pastoral connotations of pristine conditions that support the fish, it is hardly useful, if at all, from a biology-management perspective (there will be hair splitting arguments here). All Rainbow, Brook and Brown trout in Colorado threaten the indiginous cutthroat. "Wild" by your definition can be a very bad thing. Your math is both an over-simplification and terribly flawed. You did not account for mortality incident to unlimited C&R, which is never zero. The numbers that you suggested are generally as high or higher for unlimited hours of pure C&R fishing versus the catch, kill and quit mandate and infinitely less controllable. This is especially true in the summer months which sees warm water stress mortality, the highest density of fishermen, the highest density of novice fishermen etc. and is logically higher per catch in the winter when more subsurface imitations are used. This is well understood in this argument and has been completely dismissed over the years dozens of times. The other part that is critically missing from your oversimplification is the rate of biomass generation for maximizing yield of any fishery. Once a fish reaches a certain size it is no longer growing at rate that accounts for the biomass it consumes. This is referred to as negative yield. This is the logic behind the upper limits of slots. Willi, will weigh in on large fish genetics, which is fair. When you have a lot of fish competing for the resource their growth is stunted. You catch lot's of small fish and severely malnourished fish. The healthiest populations are the ones where this is kept in balance through active slot limits. Pure C&R is far less effective as a management strategy and is really a very poor justification for the act, which is really a ruse to increase the number of people that can fish and sells us a much lesser substitute in return. So we can start some place. Please answer this question honestly and without decoration. Is it true or is it false. I'm not asking of it matters or is good or anything else. Just looking for True or False. (T or F) Pure catch and releases fishing stresses, maims or kills fish purely for sport. My figures may be simple however the numbers don't lie... You do the math. I'm talking about a C&R stream that was changed so you could keep one fish a day. If 25 figherman over a week kept a fish, then 175 fish would die in that week. You answer my question and I'll answer yours: "If I understand your MO, you never fish C&R streams and you keep the first fish you catch that meets the slot limit? What do you do when you catch a fish that doesn't meet the slot limit?" JT You asked: "If I understand your MO, you never fish C&R streams and you keep the first fish you catch that meets the slot limit? What do you do when you catch a fish that doesn't meet the slot limit?" Which is a fair question that I will answer truthfully and objectively. You are right that I will not fish a stream that is pure C&R. That's true. But, to answer your question. By law I will release the fish as carefully as I can and hope it swims off. Infrequently I release it as carefully as I can and it twirls to the bottom with a little blood trail from it's gill. Sometimes it swims away weakly only to twirl and die later. This mostly when lake fishing. Sometimes the fish has died in my hands and I decide to throw it in the water or the brush. This is rare but it happens. When I am fishing for bass and a bluegill has swallowed my nymph, it dies and I am profoundly sad and feel like an idiot. TBone, Please don't take anything I'm going to say as a cheap shot. I question your C&R technique if you are having the troubles you mentioned releasing fish. I live on a lake where our association raises 12,000 rainbow each winter and F&W throw in several thousand others rainbow, triploids and browns. I go out for enjoyment once or twice a week. Throwing or trolling a fly around. I might keep a fish or two (normal I don't) however release the others that I catch. I can honestly say that 99% of the time the fish I release in the lake take off like a bat out a hell when I put them in the water rarely do any of the fish swim off weakly and I have never put a fish in the water that twirls to the bottom. I use barbless hooks, keep the fish in the water if I can and release them unharmed. What's even more tormenting for me are the days where I head out with a creel and the intention of killing a few and quitting. Then I am caught with the wonder of a beautiful wild animal in my hand and I can not bring myself to kill it, even though it is legal and I release it and feel silly. Of course the problem is that this happens roughly 99.9% of my fishing time so I bring it to ROFF and alt.flyfishing to discuss as therapy and precisely the reason my tag line is often... So what you are saying is that 99.9% of the time you are a C&R fisherman because you can't kill the fish you catch? I hate to say this, however maybe you should hang up the fly rod for some other sport. It sounds like the inner demons are getting the best of you. Good luck, JT This does of sophistry aside, I answered your question. Please answer mine. TBone |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
On Mar 6, 4:02 pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 14:47:08 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer wrote: Because Dave, you said "But the alternative is even worse - sure death at the hands of a meat gatherer like you.". I just wanted to be clear that you were Vegan or at least acknowledge that someone else is doing the killing for you. Uhuh. I love a brookie pan fried with some eggs and strong coffee made on a camp stove. And I will take a fish to eat, I've said that before. If I have no impact on the fishery, I will take and eat a wild fish (not a stocker - my dog eats dogfood, not me). The last time I was in Labrador my grandson and I collected 15 brookies about 10 inches long, and had them for the evening meal along with pan fried potatoes, onions. I ate a silver salmon, a 14 pounder, on the Kamishak River in Alaska. I caught it, killed it and 5 of us ate it. I would not, however, keep any fish out of the rivers I fish in Maine. As I have said a dozen times already, these waters were virtually on the edge of total disappearance of native brook trout thanks to the meat gatherers. Today the rives are healthy and chock full of wild and native brooktrout. I also ask because this is alt.flyfishing and I believe the overwhelming majority of fishermen since the dawn, something like 99.999999999999999999999...% of them, have gone fishing to catch and eat fish, and it's pretty insulting to the souls of our brethren to say what you say. Horse puckies. Insulting is when you kill a fish and won't let me catch it. Now *that's* insulting. I have eaten fish, but I will not eat a fish from a stream where they are endangered. If I did, you did, willi did, all of roff did, I wouldn't have anyplace to fish for wild trout, Tim. You do your thing out in Colorado and be happy. I'll do my thing in Maine, Canada, Russia, Alaska, and in just a few days, Chile. There is a quote I wish I could find Dave, something about all of us and our distance with the butcher which makes our lives a little more moral in our own minds. Any help on that, appreciated. Tim, I used to hunt. Killed my first deer and dressed it when I was 14. I worked for Swift and Co. (big slaughter house in Springfield years ago). I've killed and cleaned more fish and animals than most men have. You're preaching to the choir. Dave Then your comment is even more of an enigma. I'll assume your meat gatherer comment was a mistake,. Your pal, Halfordan Golfer |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
On Mar 6, 4:02 pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 14:47:08 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer wrote: Because Dave, you said "But the alternative is even worse - sure death at the hands of a meat gatherer like you.". I just wanted to be clear that you were Vegan or at least acknowledge that someone else is doing the killing for you. Uhuh. I love a brookie pan fried with some eggs and strong coffee made on a camp stove. And I will take a fish to eat, I've said that before. If I have no impact on the fishery, I will take and eat a wild fish (not a stocker - my dog eats dogfood, not me). The last time I was in Labrador my grandson and I collected 15 brookies about 10 inches long, and had them for the evening meal along with pan fried potatoes, onions. I ate a silver salmon, a 14 pounder, on the Kamishak River in Alaska. I caught it, killed it and 5 of us ate it. I would not, however, keep any fish out of the rivers I fish in Maine. As I have said a dozen times already, these waters were virtually on the edge of total disappearance of native brook trout thanks to the meat gatherers. Today the rives are healthy and chock full of wild and native brooktrout. I also ask because this is alt.flyfishing and I believe the overwhelming majority of fishermen since the dawn, something like 99.999999999999999999999...% of them, have gone fishing to catch and eat fish, and it's pretty insulting to the souls of our brethren to say what you say. Horse puckies. Insulting is when you kill a fish and won't let me catch it. Now *that's* insulting. I have eaten fish, but I will not eat a fish from a stream where they are endangered. If I did, you did, willi did, all of roff did, I wouldn't have anyplace to fish for wild trout, Tim. You do your thing out in Colorado and be happy. I'll do my thing in Maine, Canada, Russia, Alaska, and in just a few days, Chile. There is a quote I wish I could find Dave, something about all of us and our distance with the butcher which makes our lives a little more moral in our own minds. Any help on that, appreciated. Tim, I used to hunt. Killed my first deer and dressed it when I was 14. I worked for Swift and Co. (big slaughter house in Springfield years ago). I've killed and cleaned more fish and animals than most men have. You're preaching to the choir. Dave Dave, I'm confused. In this post you said: "Today the rives are healthy and chock full of wild and native brooktrout." Which is a great thing. What makes me confused is that I just read the Maine Open Water Fishing Guide for 2008 at http://www.state.me.us/ifw/laws_rule...laws/index.htm and I only found one section of catch and release water, with the exception of a small handful of closures to restrict take during spawning. Further, it seems the general bag limit in Maine is greater than in Colorado but that the minimum length for all species is stated where it is not in Colorado. Either I read the regulations wrong or you've mis-attributed the causality for the comeback in Maine, because catch and release does not seem to be too a predominant management strategy there. Your pal, Halfordian Golfer It is impossible to release a wild trout. |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 16:07:40 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer
wrote: Then your comment is even more of an enigma. I'll assume your meat gatherer comment was a mistake,. Read it again, Tim. I used to hunt and kill fish. I no longer do. Meat gatherers have threatened my home waters. With c&r it is no longer a problem. You can gather all the meat you want in Colorado, just stay away from Maine, please. Dave |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
On Mar 6, 6:47 pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 16:07:40 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer wrote: Then your comment is even more of an enigma. I'll assume your meat gatherer comment was a mistake,. Read it again, Tim. I used to hunt and kill fish. I no longer do. Meat gatherers have threatened my home waters. With c&r it is no longer a problem. You can gather all the meat you want in Colorado, just stay away from Maine, please. Dave Dave, I guess what's bugging me is that maybe I'm not understanding what you mean when you say meat gatherers. Please explain. Are you referring to people that fish and keep more than the bag and possession limits? I'd agree with you, though we call it poaching out here in the west. If you refer to the act of harvesting meat within the guidelines proscribed by law, than I'm very confused given that you yourself do this on occasion. Please consider something Dave. If I come to Maine, perhaps with my camera and rods, and you see me bonk two and quit will you assume be that I am a "meat gatherer" and "decimating your stocks" or will you see a man who might do this once or twice a year, who does not get to travel around the world, who respects and loves nature as much or more than you do? Do you see a man who cares about trampling invertebrates by excessive wading? Who will stuff any stream side trash in his vest? A man so reflective that he limits his time astream to reduce impact and who is considerate enough to keep driving if I see your car in the pullout. Do you see a guy with boxes of his own hand crafted flies, including some deadly ones you may not know about. Fishing with the rod he wrapped and named after the very stream he is fishing. Or, Dave, do you just see a "meat gatherer"? Your pal, TBone |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 07:13:45 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer
wrote: I guess what's bugging me is that maybe I'm not understanding what you mean when you say meat gatherers. Please explain. Are you referring to people that fish and keep more than the bag and possession limits? I'd agree with you, though we call it poaching out here in the west. Meat gatherers: Those that fish for meat without regard to what they are doing to the waterway. Selfish fishermen who *must* remove a trophy trout simply because they caught it. If you refer to the act of harvesting meat within the guidelines proscribed by law, than I'm very confused given that you yourself do this on occasion. What does harvesting mean? Enough "harvesting" and the river becomes dead. Read my lips, Tim: I have seen the havoc that meat gatherers have caused on a river. Once they were removed, the fish came back to a healthy size and quantity. Without c&r to protect this river from the meat gatherers (meat harvesters, iyl) there would be nothing but stocked trout in the river. Please consider something Dave. If I come to Maine, perhaps with my camera and rods, and you see me bonk two and quit will you assume be that I am a "meat gatherer" and "decimating your stocks" or will you see a man who might do this once or twice a year, who does not get to travel around the world, who respects and loves nature as much or more than you do? Do you see a man who cares about trampling invertebrates by excessive wading? Who will stuff any stream side trash in his vest? A man so reflective that he limits his time astream to reduce impact and who is considerate enough to keep driving if I see your car in the pullout. Do you see a guy with boxes of his own hand crafted flies, including some deadly ones you may not know about. Fishing with the rod he wrapped and named after the very stream he is fishing. Or, Dave, do you just see a "meat gatherer"? Gee, Tim. Is your arm sore from patting yourself on the back? It should be. You are no different than hundred of other fishermen I have encountered, with one exception: You leave a trail of dead fish behind you. Like I said, stay in Colorado and do your killing, and leave Maine and me alone. Dave |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... On Mar 6, 9:09 am, "JT" wrote: "Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... On Mar 4, 4:25 pm, "JT" wrote: "Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message .net... I have caught such fish as Tim describes. And it is pathetic. I consider tailwaters phony fisheries and the stocked fish therein phony fish. Better to let folks eat those things than to release them over and over until they're monstrosities. I'm talking about the San Juan River in New Mexico. I'm not talking about stocked fish, I'm talking about wild trout. Hell, some of the stocked fish I have seen look terrible before they have been caught once. I have no problem with keeping a planter for the fry pan, (and do on occasion) I have a hell of a time killing a wild trout to eat. There is no one and only true fishery management method for all streams everywhere. C&R is good for some streams, selective harvest for others. What we need is a little less dogma and a little more science. I would agree, however the wild freestone C&R streams I fish, I feel C&R is the best means to keep them productive into the future. JT -How you doing with your health these days? Last report was good, hope things are continuing the same. JT - How can a fish that is caught repeatedly by a human possibly be 'wild'? If a fish is born in a raceway that has an automatic feeder and lives completely in the absence of man. With the racoons and bears for it's natural life, and dies in that raceway, is that not a more "wild" fish than any fish that shares the river every day with hundreds of humans? Maybe I'm not sure what the word "wild" means. If the fish was born in the stream it's a wild fish, regardless of whether it's been caught or not. Just because the fish was caught by a human doesn't take away the fact that it's a wild fish to the stream/river. As I have mentioned, I'm not opposed to keeping a stocked/planted fish for the fry pan under the right circumstances. I have no interest in killing and eating a wild fish that I have caught, I would much rather take care in landing and releasing the fish so it will swim another day to breed and raise offspring for my children and their children to catch. If I look at a normal day on one of my favorite C&R stream and every fisherman I see in that day was to kill their keep (let's say the limit is 1 fish) there would be 20 - 25 dead fish on that day. Multiply that by the week that I'm on the river and your looking at 140 - 175 dead fish, it would ultimately be devastating to the fishery. If I understand your MO, you never fish C&R streams and you keep the first fish you catch that meets the slot limit. What do you do when you catch a fish that doesn't meet the slot limit? JT Hi JT, I'm not sure why folkes started misusing wild, but I wish they'd stop. Streamborne is much better if that's what you mean. However, even that is of very extremely limited utility as a measure of about anything except that in some given place a fish can reproduce. This turns out to be quite idd and unnatural in some places, like reproduction in lakes of certain stream specie. However, if I plant fry of a fish with genetics (x) that is still attached to the egg sac, is that wild or hatchery? If I hatch a bunch of eggs in a whitlock-vibert box, do they qualify as wild or stocked? While it might have pastoral connotations of pristine conditions that support the fish, it is hardly useful, if at all, from a biology-management perspective (there will be hair splitting arguments here). All Rainbow, Brook and Brown trout in Colorado threaten the indiginous cutthroat. "Wild" by your definition can be a very bad thing. Your math is both an over-simplification and terribly flawed. You did not account for mortality incident to unlimited C&R, which is never zero. The numbers that you suggested are generally as high or higher for unlimited hours of pure C&R fishing versus the catch, kill and quit mandate and infinitely less controllable. This is especially true in the summer months which sees warm water stress mortality, the highest density of fishermen, the highest density of novice fishermen etc. and is logically higher per catch in the winter when more subsurface imitations are used. This is well understood in this argument and has been completely dismissed over the years dozens of times. The other part that is critically missing from your oversimplification is the rate of biomass generation for maximizing yield of any fishery. Once a fish reaches a certain size it is no longer growing at rate that accounts for the biomass it consumes. This is referred to as negative yield. This is the logic behind the upper limits of slots. Willi, will weigh in on large fish genetics, which is fair. When you have a lot of fish competing for the resource their growth is stunted. You catch lot's of small fish and severely malnourished fish. The healthiest populations are the ones where this is kept in balance through active slot limits. Pure C&R is far less effective as a management strategy and is really a very poor justification for the act, which is really a ruse to increase the number of people that can fish and sells us a much lesser substitute in return. So we can start some place. Please answer this question honestly and without decoration. Is it true or is it false. I'm not asking of it matters or is good or anything else. Just looking for True or False. (T or F) Pure catch and releases fishing stresses, maims or kills fish purely for sport. Your pal, TBone False Catch & Release fishing is a conservation effort to protect stream viability for the future generations, while enjoying the sport of fishing. JT |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... On Mar 6, 4:24 pm, "JT" wrote: "Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... On Mar 6, 2:47 pm, "JT" wrote: "Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... On Mar 6, 9:09 am, "JT" wrote: "Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... On Mar 4, 4:25 pm, "JT" wrote: "Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message .net... I have caught such fish as Tim describes. And it is pathetic. I consider tailwaters phony fisheries and the stocked fish therein phony fish. Better to let folks eat those things than to release them over and over until they're monstrosities. I'm talking about the San Juan River in New Mexico. I'm not talking about stocked fish, I'm talking about wild trout. Hell, some of the stocked fish I have seen look terrible before they have been caught once. I have no problem with keeping a planter for the fry pan, (and do on occasion) I have a hell of a time killing a wild trout to eat. There is no one and only true fishery management method for all streams everywhere. C&R is good for some streams, selective harvest for others. What we need is a little less dogma and a little more science. I would agree, however the wild freestone C&R streams I fish, I feel C&R is the best means to keep them productive into the future. JT -How you doing with your health these days? Last report was good, hope things are continuing the same. JT - How can a fish that is caught repeatedly by a human possibly be 'wild'? If a fish is born in a raceway that has an automatic feeder and lives completely in the absence of man. With the racoons and bears for it's natural life, and dies in that raceway, is that not a more "wild" fish than any fish that shares the river every day with hundreds of humans? Maybe I'm not sure what the word "wild" means. If the fish was born in the stream it's a wild fish, regardless of whether it's been caught or not. Just because the fish was caught by a human doesn't take away the fact that it's a wild fish to the stream/river. As I have mentioned, I'm not opposed to keeping a stocked/planted fish for the fry pan under the right circumstances. I have no interest in killing and eating a wild fish that I have caught, I would much rather take care in landing and releasing the fish so it will swim another day to breed and raise offspring for my children and their children to catch. If I look at a normal day on one of my favorite C&R stream and every fisherman I see in that day was to kill their keep (let's say the limit is 1 fish) there would be 20 - 25 dead fish on that day. Multiply that by the week that I'm on the river and your looking at 140 - 175 dead fish, it would ultimately be devastating to the fishery. If I understand your MO, you never fish C&R streams and you keep the first fish you catch that meets the slot limit. What do you do when you catch a fish that doesn't meet the slot limit? JT Hi JT, I'm not sure why folkes started misusing wild, but I wish they'd stop. Streamborne is much better if that's what you mean. However, even that is of very extremely limited utility as a measure of about anything except that in some given place a fish can reproduce. This turns out to be quite idd and unnatural in some places, like reproduction in lakes of certain stream specie. However, if I plant fry of a fish with genetics (x) that is still attached to the egg sac, is that wild or hatchery? If I hatch a bunch of eggs in a whitlock-vibert box, do they qualify as wild or stocked? While it might have pastoral connotations of pristine conditions that support the fish, it is hardly useful, if at all, from a biology-management perspective (there will be hair splitting arguments here). All Rainbow, Brook and Brown trout in Colorado threaten the indiginous cutthroat. "Wild" by your definition can be a very bad thing. Your math is both an over-simplification and terribly flawed. You did not account for mortality incident to unlimited C&R, which is never zero. The numbers that you suggested are generally as high or higher for unlimited hours of pure C&R fishing versus the catch, kill and quit mandate and infinitely less controllable. This is especially true in the summer months which sees warm water stress mortality, the highest density of fishermen, the highest density of novice fishermen etc. and is logically higher per catch in the winter when more subsurface imitations are used. This is well understood in this argument and has been completely dismissed over the years dozens of times. The other part that is critically missing from your oversimplification is the rate of biomass generation for maximizing yield of any fishery. Once a fish reaches a certain size it is no longer growing at rate that accounts for the biomass it consumes. This is referred to as negative yield. This is the logic behind the upper limits of slots. Willi, will weigh in on large fish genetics, which is fair. When you have a lot of fish competing for the resource their growth is stunted. You catch lot's of small fish and severely malnourished fish. The healthiest populations are the ones where this is kept in balance through active slot limits. Pure C&R is far less effective as a management strategy and is really a very poor justification for the act, which is really a ruse to increase the number of people that can fish and sells us a much lesser substitute in return. So we can start some place. Please answer this question honestly and without decoration. Is it true or is it false. I'm not asking of it matters or is good or anything else. Just looking for True or False. (T or F) Pure catch and releases fishing stresses, maims or kills fish purely for sport. My figures may be simple however the numbers don't lie... You do the math. I'm talking about a C&R stream that was changed so you could keep one fish a day. If 25 figherman over a week kept a fish, then 175 fish would die in that week. You answer my question and I'll answer yours: "If I understand your MO, you never fish C&R streams and you keep the first fish you catch that meets the slot limit? What do you do when you catch a fish that doesn't meet the slot limit?" JT You asked: "If I understand your MO, you never fish C&R streams and you keep the first fish you catch that meets the slot limit? What do you do when you catch a fish that doesn't meet the slot limit?" Which is a fair question that I will answer truthfully and objectively. You are right that I will not fish a stream that is pure C&R. That's true. But, to answer your question. By law I will release the fish as carefully as I can and hope it swims off. Infrequently I release it as carefully as I can and it twirls to the bottom with a little blood trail from it's gill. Sometimes it swims away weakly only to twirl and die later. This mostly when lake fishing. Sometimes the fish has died in my hands and I decide to throw it in the water or the brush. This is rare but it happens. When I am fishing for bass and a bluegill has swallowed my nymph, it dies and I am profoundly sad and feel like an idiot. TBone, Please don't take anything I'm going to say as a cheap shot. I question your C&R technique if you are having the troubles you mentioned releasing fish. I live on a lake where our association raises 12,000 rainbow each winter and F&W throw in several thousand others rainbow, triploids and browns. I go out for enjoyment once or twice a week. Throwing or trolling a fly around. I might keep a fish or two (normal I don't) however release the others that I catch. I can honestly say that 99% of the time the fish I release in the lake take off like a bat out a hell when I put them in the water rarely do any of the fish swim off weakly and I have never put a fish in the water that twirls to the bottom. I use barbless hooks, keep the fish in the water if I can and release them unharmed. What's even more tormenting for me are the days where I head out with a creel and the intention of killing a few and quitting. Then I am caught with the wonder of a beautiful wild animal in my hand and I can not bring myself to kill it, even though it is legal and I release it and feel silly. Of course the problem is that this happens roughly 99.9% of my fishing time so I bring it to ROFF and alt.flyfishing to discuss as therapy and precisely the reason my tag line is often... So what you are saying is that 99.9% of the time you are a C&R fisherman because you can't kill the fish you catch? I hate to say this, however maybe you should hang up the fly rod for some other sport. It sounds like the inner demons are getting the best of you. Good luck, JT This does of sophistry aside, I answered your question. Please answer mine. TBone Actually I think we are having a pretty civil conversation regarding C&R, not really an argument. Trouble is, based on our conversation, I doubt I'm going to change your mind and I know you are not going to change mine, so we are kind of ****ing in the wind... I answered your question. JT |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
On Mar 7, 9:13 am, "JT" wrote:
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... On Mar 6, 9:09 am, "JT" wrote: "Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... On Mar 4, 4:25 pm, "JT" wrote: "Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message .net... I have caught such fish as Tim describes. And it is pathetic. I consider tailwaters phony fisheries and the stocked fish therein phony fish. Better to let folks eat those things than to release them over and over until they're monstrosities. I'm talking about the San Juan River in New Mexico. I'm not talking about stocked fish, I'm talking about wild trout. Hell, some of the stocked fish I have seen look terrible before they have been caught once. I have no problem with keeping a planter for the fry pan, (and do on occasion) I have a hell of a time killing a wild trout to eat. There is no one and only true fishery management method for all streams everywhere. C&R is good for some streams, selective harvest for others. What we need is a little less dogma and a little more science. I would agree, however the wild freestone C&R streams I fish, I feel C&R is the best means to keep them productive into the future. JT -How you doing with your health these days? Last report was good, hope things are continuing the same. JT - How can a fish that is caught repeatedly by a human possibly be 'wild'? If a fish is born in a raceway that has an automatic feeder and lives completely in the absence of man. With the racoons and bears for it's natural life, and dies in that raceway, is that not a more "wild" fish than any fish that shares the river every day with hundreds of humans? Maybe I'm not sure what the word "wild" means. If the fish was born in the stream it's a wild fish, regardless of whether it's been caught or not. Just because the fish was caught by a human doesn't take away the fact that it's a wild fish to the stream/river. As I have mentioned, I'm not opposed to keeping a stocked/planted fish for the fry pan under the right circumstances. I have no interest in killing and eating a wild fish that I have caught, I would much rather take care in landing and releasing the fish so it will swim another day to breed and raise offspring for my children and their children to catch. If I look at a normal day on one of my favorite C&R stream and every fisherman I see in that day was to kill their keep (let's say the limit is 1 fish) there would be 20 - 25 dead fish on that day. Multiply that by the week that I'm on the river and your looking at 140 - 175 dead fish, it would ultimately be devastating to the fishery. If I understand your MO, you never fish C&R streams and you keep the first fish you catch that meets the slot limit. What do you do when you catch a fish that doesn't meet the slot limit? JT Hi JT, I'm not sure why folkes started misusing wild, but I wish they'd stop. Streamborne is much better if that's what you mean. However, even that is of very extremely limited utility as a measure of about anything except that in some given place a fish can reproduce. This turns out to be quite idd and unnatural in some places, like reproduction in lakes of certain stream specie. However, if I plant fry of a fish with genetics (x) that is still attached to the egg sac, is that wild or hatchery? If I hatch a bunch of eggs in a whitlock-vibert box, do they qualify as wild or stocked? While it might have pastoral connotations of pristine conditions that support the fish, it is hardly useful, if at all, from a biology-management perspective (there will be hair splitting arguments here). All Rainbow, Brook and Brown trout in Colorado threaten the indiginous cutthroat. "Wild" by your definition can be a very bad thing. Your math is both an over-simplification and terribly flawed. You did not account for mortality incident to unlimited C&R, which is never zero. The numbers that you suggested are generally as high or higher for unlimited hours of pure C&R fishing versus the catch, kill and quit mandate and infinitely less controllable. This is especially true in the summer months which sees warm water stress mortality, the highest density of fishermen, the highest density of novice fishermen etc. and is logically higher per catch in the winter when more subsurface imitations are used. This is well understood in this argument and has been completely dismissed over the years dozens of times. The other part that is critically missing from your oversimplification is the rate of biomass generation for maximizing yield of any fishery. Once a fish reaches a certain size it is no longer growing at rate that accounts for the biomass it consumes. This is referred to as negative yield. This is the logic behind the upper limits of slots. Willi, will weigh in on large fish genetics, which is fair. When you have a lot of fish competing for the resource their growth is stunted. You catch lot's of small fish and severely malnourished fish. The healthiest populations are the ones where this is kept in balance through active slot limits. Pure C&R is far less effective as a management strategy and is really a very poor justification for the act, which is really a ruse to increase the number of people that can fish and sells us a much lesser substitute in return. So we can start some place. Please answer this question honestly and without decoration. Is it true or is it false. I'm not asking of it matters or is good or anything else. Just looking for True or False. (T or F) Pure catch and releases fishing stresses, maims or kills fish purely for sport. Your pal, TBone False Catch & Release fishing is a conservation effort to protect stream viability for the future generations, while enjoying the sport of fishing. JT JT, You answered the question: (T or F) Pure catch and releases fishing stresses, maims or kills fish purely for sport. False? You are in denial or you are a liar. In all my years discussing this I've never seen that abject of a misperception. You really think that hooking and playing a trout does not stress it? Honestly? TBone |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
On Mar 7, 9:17 am, "JT" wrote:
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... On Mar 6, 4:24 pm, "JT" wrote: "Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... On Mar 6, 2:47 pm, "JT" wrote: "Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... On Mar 6, 9:09 am, "JT" wrote: "Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... On Mar 4, 4:25 pm, "JT" wrote: "Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message .net... I have caught such fish as Tim describes. And it is pathetic. I consider tailwaters phony fisheries and the stocked fish therein phony fish. Better to let folks eat those things than to release them over and over until they're monstrosities. I'm talking about the San Juan River in New Mexico. I'm not talking about stocked fish, I'm talking about wild trout. Hell, some of the stocked fish I have seen look terrible before they have been caught once. I have no problem with keeping a planter for the fry pan, (and do on occasion) I have a hell of a time killing a wild trout to eat. There is no one and only true fishery management method for all streams everywhere. C&R is good for some streams, selective harvest for others. What we need is a little less dogma and a little more science. I would agree, however the wild freestone C&R streams I fish, I feel C&R is the best means to keep them productive into the future. JT -How you doing with your health these days? Last report was good, hope things are continuing the same. JT - How can a fish that is caught repeatedly by a human possibly be 'wild'? If a fish is born in a raceway that has an automatic feeder and lives completely in the absence of man. With the racoons and bears for it's natural life, and dies in that raceway, is that not a more "wild" fish than any fish that shares the river every day with hundreds of humans? Maybe I'm not sure what the word "wild" means. If the fish was born in the stream it's a wild fish, regardless of whether it's been caught or not. Just because the fish was caught by a human doesn't take away the fact that it's a wild fish to the stream/river. As I have mentioned, I'm not opposed to keeping a stocked/planted fish for the fry pan under the right circumstances. I have no interest in killing and eating a wild fish that I have caught, I would much rather take care in landing and releasing the fish so it will swim another day to breed and raise offspring for my children and their children to catch. If I look at a normal day on one of my favorite C&R stream and every fisherman I see in that day was to kill their keep (let's say the limit is 1 fish) there would be 20 - 25 dead fish on that day. Multiply that by the week that I'm on the river and your looking at 140 - 175 dead fish, it would ultimately be devastating to the fishery. If I understand your MO, you never fish C&R streams and you keep the first fish you catch that meets the slot limit. What do you do when you catch a fish that doesn't meet the slot limit? JT Hi JT, I'm not sure why folkes started misusing wild, but I wish they'd stop. Streamborne is much better if that's what you mean. However, even that is of very extremely limited utility as a measure of about anything except that in some given place a fish can reproduce. This turns out to be quite idd and unnatural in some places, like reproduction in lakes of certain stream specie. However, if I plant fry of a fish with genetics (x) that is still attached to the egg sac, is that wild or hatchery? If I hatch a bunch of eggs in a whitlock-vibert box, do they qualify as wild or stocked? While it might have pastoral connotations of pristine conditions that support the fish, it is hardly useful, if at all, from a biology-management perspective (there will be hair splitting arguments here). All Rainbow, Brook and Brown trout in Colorado threaten the indiginous cutthroat. "Wild" by your definition can be a very bad thing. Your math is both an over-simplification and terribly flawed. You did not account for mortality incident to unlimited C&R, which is never zero. The numbers that you suggested are generally as high or higher for unlimited hours of pure C&R fishing versus the catch, kill and quit mandate and infinitely less controllable. This is especially true in the summer months which sees warm water stress mortality, the highest density of fishermen, the highest density of novice fishermen etc. and is logically higher per catch in the winter when more subsurface imitations are used. This is well understood in this argument and has been completely dismissed over the years dozens of times. The other part that is critically missing from your oversimplification is the rate of biomass generation for maximizing yield of any fishery. Once a fish reaches a certain size it is no longer growing at rate that accounts for the biomass it consumes. This is referred to as negative yield. This is the logic behind the upper limits of slots. Willi, will weigh in on large fish genetics, which is fair. When you have a lot of fish competing for the resource their growth is stunted. You catch lot's of small fish and severely malnourished fish. The healthiest populations are the ones where this is kept in balance through active slot limits. Pure C&R is far less effective as a management strategy and is really a very poor justification for the act, which is really a ruse to increase the number of people that can fish and sells us a much lesser substitute in return. So we can start some place. Please answer this question honestly and without decoration. Is it true or is it false. I'm not asking of it matters or is good or anything else. Just looking for True or False. (T or F) Pure catch and releases fishing stresses, maims or kills fish purely for sport. My figures may be simple however the numbers don't lie... You do the math. I'm talking about a C&R stream that was changed so you could keep one fish a day. If 25 figherman over a week kept a fish, then 175 fish would die in that week. You answer my question and I'll answer yours: "If I understand your MO, you never fish C&R streams and you keep the first fish you catch that meets the slot limit? What do you do when you catch a fish that doesn't meet the slot limit?" JT You asked: "If I understand your MO, you never fish C&R streams and you keep the first fish you catch that meets the slot limit? What do you do when you catch a fish that doesn't meet the slot limit?" Which is a fair question that I will answer truthfully and objectively. You are right that I will not fish a stream that is pure C&R. That's true. But, to answer your question. By law I will release the fish as carefully as I can and hope it swims off. Infrequently I release it as carefully as I can and it twirls to the bottom with a little blood trail from it's gill. Sometimes it swims away weakly only to twirl and die later. This mostly when lake fishing. Sometimes the fish has died in my hands and I decide to throw it in the water or the brush. This is rare but it happens. When I am fishing for bass and a bluegill has swallowed my nymph, it dies and I am profoundly sad and feel like an idiot. TBone, Please don't take anything I'm going to say as a cheap shot. I question your C&R technique if you are having the troubles you mentioned releasing fish. I live on a lake where our association raises 12,000 rainbow each winter and F&W throw in several thousand others rainbow, triploids and browns. I go out for enjoyment once or twice a week. Throwing or trolling a fly around. I might keep a fish or two (normal I don't) however release the others that I catch. I can honestly say that 99% of the time the fish I release in the lake take off like a bat out a hell when I put them in the water rarely do any of the fish swim off weakly and I have never put a fish in the water that twirls to the bottom. I use barbless hooks, keep the fish in the water if I can and release them unharmed. What's even more tormenting for me are the days where I head out with a creel and the intention of killing a few and quitting. Then I am caught with the wonder of a beautiful wild animal in my hand and I can not bring myself to kill it, even though it is legal and I release it and feel silly. Of course the problem is that this happens roughly 99.9% of my fishing time so I bring it to ROFF and alt.flyfishing to discuss as therapy and precisely the reason my tag line is often... So what you are saying is that 99.9% of the time you are a C&R fisherman because you can't kill the fish you catch? I hate to say this, however maybe you should hang up the fly rod for some other sport. It sounds like the inner demons are getting the best of you. Good luck, JT This does of sophistry aside, I answered your question. Please answer mine. TBone Actually I think we are having a pretty civil conversation regarding C&R, not really an argument. Trouble is, based on our conversation, I doubt I'm going to change your mind and I know you are not going to change mine, so we are kind of ****ing in the wind... I answered your question. JT We were having a good discussion until you cheapened it by flat ignoring or lying about catching fish stressing them, which is unsettling because I answered your question honestly and revealed the single biggest weakness in the argument: It's moral because everyone does it. That's normally where this thread goes. It is impossible to be honest about this and still support pure catch and release. Please just don't deceive yourself JT. Pure C&R fishermen stress, maim and kill a wild animal purely for fun. At least some are honest about it. TBone |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
On Mar 7, 9:13 am, "JT" wrote:
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... On Mar 6, 9:09 am, "JT" wrote: "Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... On Mar 4, 4:25 pm, "JT" wrote: "Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message .net... I have caught such fish as Tim describes. And it is pathetic. I consider tailwaters phony fisheries and the stocked fish therein phony fish. Better to let folks eat those things than to release them over and over until they're monstrosities. I'm talking about the San Juan River in New Mexico. I'm not talking about stocked fish, I'm talking about wild trout. Hell, some of the stocked fish I have seen look terrible before they have been caught once. I have no problem with keeping a planter for the fry pan, (and do on occasion) I have a hell of a time killing a wild trout to eat. There is no one and only true fishery management method for all streams everywhere. C&R is good for some streams, selective harvest for others. What we need is a little less dogma and a little more science. I would agree, however the wild freestone C&R streams I fish, I feel C&R is the best means to keep them productive into the future. JT -How you doing with your health these days? Last report was good, hope things are continuing the same. JT - How can a fish that is caught repeatedly by a human possibly be 'wild'? If a fish is born in a raceway that has an automatic feeder and lives completely in the absence of man. With the racoons and bears for it's natural life, and dies in that raceway, is that not a more "wild" fish than any fish that shares the river every day with hundreds of humans? Maybe I'm not sure what the word "wild" means. If the fish was born in the stream it's a wild fish, regardless of whether it's been caught or not. Just because the fish was caught by a human doesn't take away the fact that it's a wild fish to the stream/river. As I have mentioned, I'm not opposed to keeping a stocked/planted fish for the fry pan under the right circumstances. I have no interest in killing and eating a wild fish that I have caught, I would much rather take care in landing and releasing the fish so it will swim another day to breed and raise offspring for my children and their children to catch. If I look at a normal day on one of my favorite C&R stream and every fisherman I see in that day was to kill their keep (let's say the limit is 1 fish) there would be 20 - 25 dead fish on that day. Multiply that by the week that I'm on the river and your looking at 140 - 175 dead fish, it would ultimately be devastating to the fishery. If I understand your MO, you never fish C&R streams and you keep the first fish you catch that meets the slot limit. What do you do when you catch a fish that doesn't meet the slot limit? JT Hi JT, I'm not sure why folkes started misusing wild, but I wish they'd stop. Streamborne is much better if that's what you mean. However, even that is of very extremely limited utility as a measure of about anything except that in some given place a fish can reproduce. This turns out to be quite idd and unnatural in some places, like reproduction in lakes of certain stream specie. However, if I plant fry of a fish with genetics (x) that is still attached to the egg sac, is that wild or hatchery? If I hatch a bunch of eggs in a whitlock-vibert box, do they qualify as wild or stocked? While it might have pastoral connotations of pristine conditions that support the fish, it is hardly useful, if at all, from a biology-management perspective (there will be hair splitting arguments here). All Rainbow, Brook and Brown trout in Colorado threaten the indiginous cutthroat. "Wild" by your definition can be a very bad thing. Your math is both an over-simplification and terribly flawed. You did not account for mortality incident to unlimited C&R, which is never zero. The numbers that you suggested are generally as high or higher for unlimited hours of pure C&R fishing versus the catch, kill and quit mandate and infinitely less controllable. This is especially true in the summer months which sees warm water stress mortality, the highest density of fishermen, the highest density of novice fishermen etc. and is logically higher per catch in the winter when more subsurface imitations are used. This is well understood in this argument and has been completely dismissed over the years dozens of times. The other part that is critically missing from your oversimplification is the rate of biomass generation for maximizing yield of any fishery. Once a fish reaches a certain size it is no longer growing at rate that accounts for the biomass it consumes. This is referred to as negative yield. This is the logic behind the upper limits of slots. Willi, will weigh in on large fish genetics, which is fair. When you have a lot of fish competing for the resource their growth is stunted. You catch lot's of small fish and severely malnourished fish. The healthiest populations are the ones where this is kept in balance through active slot limits. Pure C&R is far less effective as a management strategy and is really a very poor justification for the act, which is really a ruse to increase the number of people that can fish and sells us a much lesser substitute in return. So we can start some place. Please answer this question honestly and without decoration. Is it true or is it false. I'm not asking of it matters or is good or anything else. Just looking for True or False. (T or F) Pure catch and releases fishing stresses, maims or kills fish purely for sport. Your pal, TBone False Catch & Release fishing is a conservation effort to protect stream viability for the future generations, while enjoying the sport of fishing. JT It is impossible to apply the socratic method when we deny the most fundamental truths in our quest. Halfordian Golfer |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
Tim, do me and everyone that is following this thread a favor: Do not
quote every line from the beginning. You are putting out a message with 268 lines when all you need is two or three. You do not have to quote *everything*. Think about it. Dave |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
snip That's normally where this thread goes. ... Then why do you keep beating the same dead horse ? Some would say that repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome defines insanity. If you don't like C&R don't do it, but your silly crusade has long since grown tiresome on roff and now you're being silly and tiresome here. What's the point ? -- Ken Fortenberry |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
On Mar 7, 10:40 am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: Halfordian Golfer wrote: snip That's normally where this thread goes. ... Then why do you keep beating the same dead horse ? Some would say that repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome defines insanity. If you don't like C&R don't do it, but your silly crusade has long since grown tiresome on roff and now you're being silly and tiresome here. What's the point ? -- Ken Fortenberry Hi Ken, The point is I find the subject fascinating and important. I can certainly understand it if you do not. I guess I'm not sure why you'd read along and then complain about it. Reading is purely optional. Besides, I created this newsgroup, so I think I can post what I want. Your pal, Tim |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
On Mar 7, 10:36 am, Dave LaCourse wrote:
Tim, do me and everyone that is following this thread a favor: Do not quote every line from the beginning. You are putting out a message with 268 lines when all you need is two or three. You do not have to quote *everything*. Think about it. Dave This was my mistake. I'll be more careful. Tim |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote: Halfordian Golfer wrote: snip That's normally where this thread goes. ... Then why do you keep beating the same dead horse ? Some would say that repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome defines insanity. If you don't like C&R don't do it, but your silly crusade has long since grown tiresome on roff and now you're being silly and tiresome here. What's the point ? Hi Ken, The point is I find the subject fascinating and important. I can certainly understand it if you do not. I guess I'm not sure why you'd read along and then complain about it. Reading is purely optional. I'm complaining because you're tossing spurious ad hominem attacks towards someone who disagrees with you. It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable. Make your point, no problem there, but don't question the honesty of those who honestly disagree. Besides, I created this newsgroup, so I think I can post what I want. That's a bunch of crap and you know it. The whole alt. hierarchy is a friggin' joke and it exists solely at the discretion of NNTP admins at ISPs willing to carry it. You've got delusions. -- Ken Fortenberry |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
I'm complaining because you're tossing spurious ad hominem attacks towards someone who disagrees with you. It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable. Make your point, no problem there, but don't question the honesty of those who honestly disagree. AMAZING statement coming from you Ken!!!! Although I agree with your assessment of the tedium of Tim's anguish, I don't see how you could rate what he did as an attack - no name calling- ranting -swearing etc. On a sadder note here's a picture of my home river. Usually it's fishing well this time of year. And this is with an above average snowpack!! http://crystalglen.net/Fishing/IMGP2888%20(Small).JPG Willi |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
Willi wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote: I'm complaining because you're tossing spurious ad hominem attacks towards someone who disagrees with you. It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable. Make your point, no problem there, but don't question the honesty of those who honestly disagree. AMAZING statement coming from you Ken!!!! Although I agree with your assessment of the tedium of Tim's anguish, I don't see how you could rate what he did as an attack - no name calling- ranting -swearing etc. You don't have to resort to curse words to deliver an attack. I consider Tim questioning JT's honesty, an attack. YMMV. On a sadder note here's a picture of my home river. Usually it's fishing well this time of year. And this is with an above average snowpack!! http://crystalglen.net/Fishing/IMGP2888%20(Small).JPG Damn, that looks really low. Sorry to hear it, Willi. -- Ken Fortenberry |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... False Catch & Release fishing is a conservation effort to protect stream viability for the future generations, while enjoying the sport of fishing. JT JT, You answered the question: (T or F) Pure catch and releases fishing stresses, maims or kills fish purely for sport. False? You are in denial or you are a liar. In all my years discussing this I've never seen that abject of a misperception. You really think that hooking and playing a trout does not stress it? Honestly? TBone Neither, and your definition of C&R is ridiculous and you know it. Sure it stresses fish to catch and play a trout. It must eat you up to release that fish that you can't kill since it doesn't meet the slot limit and at the same time if the fish is beautiful, it tears your heart out to kill it. As I suggested previously, you should hang up the waders and rod for another sport. You are fighting yourself. I'll stick with my definition of C&R: "Catch & Release fishing is a conservation effort to protect stream viability for the future generations, while enjoying the sport of fishing." JT |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... False Catch & Release fishing is a conservation effort to protect stream viability for the future generations, while enjoying the sport of fishing. JT It is impossible to apply the socratic method when we deny the most fundamental truths in our quest. I haven't contradicted myself although I believe you have. Quote: "What's even more tormenting for me are the days where I head out with a creel and the intention of killing a few and quitting. Then I am caught with the wonder of a beautiful wild animal in my hand and I can not bring myself to kill it, even though it is legal and I release it and feel silly." Keep ****ing in the wind, might I suggest you turn around so it doesn't keep spraying in your face. JT |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
"Willi" wrote in message ... Ken Fortenberry wrote: I'm complaining because you're tossing spurious ad hominem attacks towards someone who disagrees with you. It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable. Make your point, no problem there, but don't question the honesty of those who honestly disagree. AMAZING statement coming from you Ken!!!! Although I agree with your assessment of the tedium of Tim's anguish, I don't see how you could rate what he did as an attack - no name calling- ranting -swearing etc. On a sadder note here's a picture of my home river. Usually it's fishing well this time of year. And this is with an above average snowpack!! http://crystalglen.net/Fishing/IMGP2888%20(Small).JPG Willi Sorry to see that Willi, You have posted pictures of some really nice fat rainbow, I thought you mentioned they were from your home waters. Would this be that location? Have the fish died or migrated elsewhere? JT |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 12:42:18 -0700, Willi wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote: I'm complaining because you're tossing spurious ad hominem attacks towards someone who disagrees with you. It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable. Make your point, no problem there, but don't question the honesty of those who honestly disagree. AMAZING statement coming from you Ken!!!! Although I agree with your assessment of the tedium of Tim's anguish, I don't see how you could rate what he did as an attack - no name calling- ranting -swearing etc. On a sadder note here's a picture of my home river. Usually it's fishing well this time of year. And this is with an above average snowpack!! http://crystalglen.net/Fishing/IMGP2888%20(Small).JPG Willi Happily, it appears you have alternatives. A nice brownie here http://crystalglen.net/Fishing/SM.jpg All of the "home rivers" here are buried under a few feet of ice and snow... /daytripper |
Home Waters was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
JT wrote:
http://crystalglen.net/Fishing/IMGP2888%20(Small).JPG Sorry to see that Willi, You have posted pictures of some really nice fat rainbow, I thought you mentioned they were from your home waters. Would this be that location? Have the fish died or migrated elsewhere? JT There was probably some kill this Winter but this water cycle has taught me how tolerant trout are at least of some extreme conditions. During times of low flows like this, the trout pool up in the few deep pools that are left. This is generally about a pool per 1/8 or 1/4 mile. As long as these low flows don't occur during periods of severe weather, either very cold or very hot, the fish do OK. They are filling some reservoirs, I guess because the irrigation ditch behind my place has more water in it than the river. Willi |
Nice Brown was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
daytripper wrote:
On a sadder note here's a picture of my home river. Usually it's fishing well this time of year. And this is with an above average snowpack!! http://crystalglen.net/Fishing/IMGP2888%20(Small).JPG Willi Happily, it appears you have alternatives. A nice brownie here http://crystalglen.net/Fishing/SM.jpg All of the "home rivers" here are buried under a few feet of ice and snow... /daytripper Actually that's a picture of Danl. I cut off half his head when I took the picture so I cropped off the rest before I uploaded it. I met Danl last Summer to fish a part of Wyoming that I hadn't fished in MANY years. We had some very good small stream fishing with several strains of Cutts and some fine Browns. Danl left a bit too early because I fished a couple of the finest small streams I've ever fished. Big beautiful fish in streams you could jump across in some places and no other people. An out of the way area that anglers pass by on the way to "better" spots. Here's a few pix: http://crystalglen.net/Fishing/WYO2007.htm Willi |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 12:42:18 -0700, Willi
wrote: On a sadder note here's a picture of my home river. Usually it's fishing well this time of year. And this is with an above average snowpack!! Wow. What happened? |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 12:42:18 -0700, Willi wrote: On a sadder note here's a picture of my home river. Usually it's fishing well this time of year. And this is with an above average snowpack!! Wow. What happened? Although it is a designated "wild and scenic" river, it is heavily used for irrigation. It fills a dozen or so reservoirs. There are many miles of relatively pristine access in the mountains but when it sets to the foothills, they begin removing more water. The river by the time it reaches the plains is an afterthought and frequently has very little water. Interestingly, this section holds the biggest fish (by far) in the whole drainage. Willi |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
On Mar 7, 11:37 am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: Halfordian Golfer wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: Halfordian Golfer wrote: snip That's normally where this thread goes. ... Then why do you keep beating the same dead horse ? Some would say that repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome defines insanity. If you don't like C&R don't do it, but your silly crusade has long since grown tiresome on roff and now you're being silly and tiresome here. What's the point ? Hi Ken, The point is I find the subject fascinating and important. I can certainly understand it if you do not. I guess I'm not sure why you'd read along and then complain about it. Reading is purely optional. I'm complaining because you're tossing spurious ad hominem attacks towards someone who disagrees with you. It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable. Make your point, no problem there, but don't question the honesty of those who honestly disagree. Besides, I created this newsgroup, so I think I can post what I want. That's a bunch of crap and you know it. The whole alt. hierarchy is a friggin' joke and it exists solely at the discretion of NNTP admins at ISPs willing to carry it. You've got delusions. -- Ken Fortenberry Hi Ken, Not sure what you mean. I created the charter for and the physical nntp add message for this group years and years ago. This is a question that is on topic and I feel like discussing it. I also create alt.binaries.pictures.fishing. Lots of things are obsoleted, but that does not make them 'a joke'. Since you feel it's a joke I'm not sure why you subscribe. Regarding your claim of ad hominem attack. As politely as I can say it. Please know that I honestly feel, that, if someone claims hooking a fish does not stress it, especially being an aquarist for years, I claim bunk. RT's answer was not even close to an honest answer and you know it too. Read it again. Not a personal attack at all, just a personal observation. If you'd like. In a sincere Socratic discussion. I will bring it up specifically. Thanks, Tim |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
On Mar 7, 12:42 pm, Willi wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote: I'm complaining because you're tossing spurious ad hominem attacks towards someone who disagrees with you. It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable. Make your point, no problem there, but don't question the honesty of those who honestly disagree. AMAZING statement coming from you Ken!!!! Although I agree with your assessment of the tedium of Tim's anguish, I don't see how you could rate what he did as an attack - no name calling- ranting -swearing etc. On a sadder note here's a picture of my home river. Usually it's fishing well this time of year. And this is with an above average snowpack!! http://crystalglen.net/Fishing/IMGP2888%20(Small).JPG Willi Hi Willi, Emailed you privately, that is very sad. Are there any holding waters or pools that the fish survived in? Regarding your statement about the tedium of this subject, I'll offer no apology. It is on topic and very interesting, anything but tedium, for me. I learn something new or have an insight every single time. That said, I would humbly suggest that it is I that suffers the worst of it, but I try to persist diligently, politely and respectfully as possible. Given the nature of this discussion, I have to. I learned that a long, long time ago. On anything that is even remotey off topic, I try very hard to remember the "obligatory AF" to keep it informative. Yet, I have to say that, more than anything, this discussion degrades the closer we get to the truth and it is incredibly frustrating for me. Please consider, I would like to start a reasonable Socratic Debate on a subject. To do that we need to agree on a fundamental truth, assert it and than try to answer follow-on questions. In this light, I think that it's reasonable to state "a fish experiences stress when it is hooked" and I think most reasonable people (and especially biologists, aquarists, etc) would agree. Yet, in this forum I can try to get past that basic question and some will follow-up with some ridiculous non-sequitor and I am the one who gets burned at the stake. I could state it differently "a fish experiences increased metabolic acidosis when it is hooked" , but I think that it unnecessary. This is just "fact". An intelligent question at this point would be: Does it matter? Instead, I am subject to ridicule for my postulate. I personally believe that, at this point, the discussion is over. And, so I try again at some other point, hopefully finding a more reasonable group, or mellowed outlooks. And, while these discussions might be tedium, I can tell you that they have, at times, been incredibly rewarding. Having the opportunity to get a chance to fish with you is one of the more valuable ones. Tim |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Hi Ken, Not sure what you mean. I created the charter for and the physical nntp add message for this group years and years ago. ... In other words you sent an email. Big whoop. The alt. hierarchy has always been a joke, it's not a recent phenomena. You have no more privilege here than any other person with access to an ISP which carries the alt. hierarchy so get over yourself already. Regarding your claim of ad hominem attack. As politely as I can say it. Please know that I honestly feel, that, if someone claims hooking a fish does not stress it, especially being an aquarist for years, I claim bunk. RT's answer was not even close to an honest answer and you know it too. ... I don't know any such thing and neither do you. Anyone who claims to know that fish can feel stress is full of it. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but you are not a fish, so you cannot possibly know one way or the other. If you'd like. In a sincere Socratic discussion. I will bring it up specifically. LOL !! You haven't had a sincere discussion, Socratic or otherwise, on the subject of C&R in the almost 20 years I've been reading your nonsense. You're a zealot and like I said earlier I have absolutely no intention of getting into yet another C&R brouhaha with a crazy zealot. Just lay off the "honesty" attacks against JT and I'll be happy to continue ignoring your anti-CR crusade. -- Ken Fortenberry |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:50 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter