Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Mar 7, 8:53 am, Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 07:13:45 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer
snip

Hi Dave,

I was curious about my question about the Maine regs and the fact that
I didn't see many pure C&R regulations there. I'm curious for several
reasons. If the current regulations, including established minimum
lengths for all species, coupled with severely reduced bag limits, is
responsible for the resurgence in your streams. It seems like the
current management strategy is working. That's good. If this is not
the case, has there been anything else that is attributable.
Specifically, and directly back on-topic with my thread, is the
pollution response there. Has this changed dramatically?

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
I consider Tim questioning JT's honesty, an attack. YMMV.

Hi Ken,

There was no attack just a qualified statement of truth. He agrees
with this now and has recanted.

To wit: "Sure it stresses fish to catch and play a trout".

Ken - what sucked about JT's answer is that - I answered his question
straight up, like a gentleman - and he answered mine with pure crap,
you know it, and, well...that wasn't the deal.

But, all personal attacks aside, and letting bygones be bygones this
is where this stands in our Socratic, no ad hominem, debate:

1. "Sure it stresses fish to catch and play a trout" (Socrates)
2. "Does it matter?" (Plato)
3. Your answer goes here.

Your pal,

TBone

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Mar 7, 5:31 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
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.

In the day that was fairly difficult for me. Especially since I was on
a PC and the Internet was on a separate Unix LAN inside of [name of
large telco here]. And, I am proud of it.

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.

I really wish you'd just go with the debate and not get so personal.
This is stated as knowledge in almost all C&R Data, data you've
probably cited. I've included one below.

However, I specifically did NOT say anything about the fish feeling
stress. That would be a completely different or subsequent point to
discuss.

Let's try it from this 'fact?' (it really is true Ken)...

1. Fish die when they are stressed. (Socrates)
2. Does it matter? (Plato)
3. Your answer here (Ken).
4. ?

Your pal,

Tim
Here's the data I mentioned.
From: http://www.acuteangling.com/Reference/C&RMortality.html
Key Mortality Factors

Two factors predominate when considering the causes of angled fish
mortality: the hooking location, and the degree of physiological
stress suffered by the fish.

(snip)

Physiological Stress - Exercise performed by fish during a catch
event, or caused by angler handling methods and air exposure all
create measurable physiological responses. Physiological stress in
fish has been measured by experimenters using cortisol, lactate and
respiratory gas concentrations.

Although the catch and release mortality studies reviewed do not show
statistical results directly correlating the degree of physiological
stress to mortality, an experiment by Ferguson and Tufts examined the
effects of artificially induced stress on rainbow trout. They
concluded that various forms of physiological stress contribute to
fish mortality (12). It is reasonable to infer that such stress also
contributes to mortality in angled fish and therefore, that
minimization of stress assists in reduction of catch and release
mortality. \

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
...
Let's try it from this 'fact?' (it really is true Ken)...

1. Fish die when they are stressed. (Socrates)

Fish sometimes die when caught & released.

2. Does it matter? (Plato)

Does that cause you to think that C&R is not a viable
fisheries management protocol in some situations ?

3. Your answer here (Ken).

No.

4. ?

How in the hell did I ever get into another ridiculous
C&R wrangle with T-Bone ?

HTH

--
Ken Fortenberry

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Mar 7, 6:11 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Fish sometimes die when caught & released.
2. Does it matter? (Plato)
No.

Sweet!

OK...so following along...

Our relationship with fish include stressing and killing them purely
for recreation. (Socrates)
Does it matter? (Plato)
?

Tim

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
On Mar 7, 6:11 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Fish sometimes die when caught & released.
2. Does it matter? (Plato)
No.

Sweet!

OK...so following along...

Our relationship with fish include stressing and killing them purely
for recreation. (Socrates)
Does it matter? (Plato)
?

Nope. My recreation is every bit as important as the few
fish which accidentally die as a result of my C&R. Where
regulations permit I will eat the fish I kill and where
it's illegal to keep a fish the turtles and otters will
eat them. A few dead fish do not matter one whit to me,
I look at the bigger fishery management picture. As do
most of the folks who have grown weary of your tedious
and tiresome anti-C&R crusading.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 16:33:15 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

I was curious about my question about the Maine regs and the fact that
I didn't see many pure C&R regulations there.

Several rivers have "pure" C&R on brook trout. On these same rivers,
you must use only a single barbless hook. Some rivers have a 1
landlocked salmon 14" or greater/day during certain months of the
year.

I'm curious for several
reasons. If the current regulations, including established minimum
lengths for all species, coupled with severely reduced bag limits, is
responsible for the resurgence in your streams.

Once again, Tim: Some of these rivers were very nearly ruined by
catch and kill fishermen. I call them meat gatherers because that is
exactly what they were (are). They are still present. A guide and I
reported one fisherman for taking a 3 lb brook trout two years ago.
We turned in his boat number with a description. Never heard back on
him. I've seen people creel one fish and try to dump it when they
caught a bigger one (1 fish limit). It was killing the river. Twenty
years ago you could catch good size salmon and brook trout in the
river. Then, as the river became more popular with the locals, the
meat gatherers gathered every week-end throughout the season (May to
Sept) and put such a dent in the fishery that is was fortunate to
recover. Just before C&R was implemented, a 15 in brook trout was the
talk of the camp. Now, five pounders are not unusual. I took several
last June and Sept. The land locked salmon were skinny and seldom was
a good size one taken. I safely landed and released a 25+ incher (on
5x tippet and a size 20 PT) last June. I've heard of even bigger
brook trout and salmon being taken. The river is now thriving thanks
to C&R.

It seems like the
current management strategy is working. That's good. If this is not
the case, has there been anything else that is attributable.
Specifically, and directly back on-topic with my thread, is the
pollution response there. Has this changed dramatically?

There is no pollution in this river. I know guides that regularly
drink from it. I'd be afraid because there are beaver up-stream in
the lakes. But, the water is clean, gin clear, and very fast moving.

There is some concern about an invasive algae, Didymo. It has been
discovered in the Connecticut River in New Hampshire, and a couple of
streams in Vermont. "Rock Snot", as it is called by some, can cover
the entire bottom of a stream making any plant or animal life (nymphs,
insects) disappear. It is easily transferred by waders, boots,
boats/motors, and some think even birds such as eagles and ospreys,
and animals like deer, moose, bear, etc.

Tim, if any of us (fishermen) are queasy about hooking and landing a
fish, I think it would be time to take up another hobby/pastime. I
gave up hunting after I shot a deer and followed his trail for hours
(some blood and good prints). I was 15. I shot my first deer the
year before with a single shot 12 gauge shotgun dating from my dad's
childhood (born 1900). I was using a Browning Sweet 16 Auto-loader on
the one I wounded. I sold it 20 years later to a Navy buddy for $100
- I bet it hadn't been fired but a few times. It was a hassle owning
a firearm while in the military. Go figure.

Dave

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Mar 7, 6:55 pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:
[snip]
Several rivers have "pure" C&R on brook trout. On these same rivers,
you must use only a single barbless hook. Some rivers have a 1
landlocked salmon 14" or greater/day during certain months of the
year.
[snip]
Once again, Tim: Some of these rivers were very nearly ruined by
catch and kill fishermen. I call them meat gatherers because that is
exactly what they were (are). They are still present. A guide and I
reported one fisherman for taking a 3 lb brook trout two years ago.
We turned in his boat number with a description. Never heard back on
him. I've seen people creel one fish and try to dump it when they
caught a bigger one (1 fish limit). [snip]

Which rivers are pure C&R for brook trout? Looked like not that many,
considering how big Maine is. Are you sure that it's not the more
restrictive size limits plus seriously reduced bag and possession
limits are mostly responsible for the comeback? The one 3 pound brook
trout, in and of itself, is less than the C&R mortality of a single
day, I'd imagine.

Thanks,

Tim

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Mar 7, 6:55 pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:
snip

Dave,

In continuing my research for the causality of the comeback of the
brook trout fisheries of Maine I agree that selective harvest has
played a big role, though I still fail to see any places where pure
C&R can by attributed as the primary cause.

It seems to me that it was a combination of factors that led to the
demise and regrowth of your beautiful waterways. One of these was the
introduction of the black bass to the equation. Much like the
greenback recovery program where all greenbacks were to be returned to
the water in Colorado, the goal of fishing in those water was not to
catch a fish nearing genetic extinction but, rather, to remove all
brook trout and other foreign fish that would compete for its
recovery. Specifically, in a white paper issued by the managers they
state that it was, indeed the introduction of regulations in the QFI -
Quality Fishing Initiative that was the primary causality in the
increase in size and number of fish.

The paper has these quotes:

"For these reasons, four years ago the Maine Department of Inland
Fisheries and Wildlife implemented about 100 special, highly
restrictive regulations, which generally resulted in very low bag
limits, higher length limits and restrictions on terminal tackle
(flies & lures) to reduce mortality from hooking since many more fish
would need to be released alive. This was called the Quality Fishing
Initiative. Following this initiative, special restrictive limits (bag
and length) were implemented on some 400 wild brook trout ponds in
order to conserve these important native populations."

"With increasing angling pressure on bass, which is one of Maine's
most popular game fish, the Department biologists recommended greater
protection for this valuable game fish. Through research conducted in
Ontario, we have learned much about the importance of the older,
larger smallmouth bass in these northern climes. In order to protect
these fish, not only for the excitement they provide anglers but for
their spawning potential, Maine also implemented very restrictive bass
regulations."

Further, and also somewhat contrary to your beliefs, apparently, is
that the brook trout hatchery program has been in full steam ahead
mode and is also cited as contributing to the program. It looks like
the angling future in Maine is very good. Interestingly.

However, it would be completely reckless to suggest that "Catch and
Release" (all fish must be returned to the water) has played very
little, if any role, with the exception of selectively harvesting
bass.

And while this subject is tedium for you and others. I would
respectfully suggest that management of our fisheries is of extreme
importance. Having these discussions and debates could prove
invaluable to researchers and policy makers. To this end, the paper
cited (http://maine.gov/ifw/fishing/good_gettingbetter.htm) ends with
this stetement:

"There are many other issues regarding Maine's sport fishery, not the
least of which is the rearing and stocking of fish and the general
management of our fishery. Among anglers, biologists and policy makers
alike, there needs to be considerable thought and debate about our
fish culture program, introduction of new strains of trout, exotic
fish, habitat changes and the need for the kind of regulations that
will safeguard Maine's valuable sport fishery while at the same time
providing diverse and high-quality angling opportunities for all to
enjoy."

Which seems sagacious in the extreme.

Anyway I'd suggest that using the proper causality (restrictive
regulations and a good hatchery program) would be more efficacious in
getting your point across than "Catch and Release" and crucifying the
"meat gatherers".

I want to teach our children proper respect for the wild. That a fish
is a wild animal that is struggling to survive. I want to teach them
the respect for the animal while also letting them experience their
place in the natural world and the experience of tying a fly, catching
a fish and enjoying it in the evening meal, one of life's greatest
pleasures and proof of the abundant plans of our Creator.

Which goes back to this thread: We can't do this - the fish have
mercury in them. My contention that the C&R dogma hurts forcing
measurements and controls has been absolutely verified in this thread
and, particularly, your and JT's responses.

Your pal,

TBone

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 07:12:58 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

Further, and also somewhat contrary to your beliefs, apparently, is
that the brook trout hatchery program has been in full steam ahead
mode and is also cited as contributing to the program. It looks like
the angling future in Maine is very good. Interestingly.

Tim, will you please listen to me: There is NO stocking of brook
trout in the Rapid River. All of the brook trout are native to that
river, and it is thought that they may be a specific strain native to
only that river. There obviously is stocking throughout Maine, but
they do not stock the Rapid River.

Banning the killing of a brook trout is what brought back the
population and increased the sizes to *normal*. Stocking had nothing
to do with it. Banning the killing of landlocks who were stocked
about a hundred years ago also increased their number and size. The
Rapid River is a prime example of how catch and release can bring a
doomed waterway back to a viable and healthy one.

Dave

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Mar 8, 8:46 am, Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 07:12:58 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer

wrote:
Further, and also somewhat contrary to your beliefs, apparently, is
that the brook trout hatchery program has been in full steam ahead
mode and is also cited as contributing to the program. It looks like
the angling future in Maine is very good. Interestingly.

Tim, will you please listen to me: There is NO stocking of brook
trout in the Rapid River. All of the brook trout are native to that
river, and it is thought that they may be a specific strain native to
only that river. There obviously is stocking throughout Maine, but
they do not stock the Rapid River.

Banning the killing of a brook trout is what brought back the
population and increased the sizes to *normal*. Stocking had nothing
to do with it. Banning the killing of landlocks who were stocked
about a hundred years ago also increased their number and size. The
Rapid River is a prime example of how catch and release can bring a
doomed waterway back to a viable and healthy one.

Dave

Hi Dave,

I said this exact thing (at least that's exactly what I meant) when I
specifically compared and contrasted the regs regarding greenbacks in
colorado. No limit on brookies (just like no generous bags on bass in
the rapid river) but all brookies must be returned. If it were JUST an
endangered species of brookies that can not withstand the mortaility
incidental to pure C&R than it can not withstand the harvest of slot
or minium size and there should be NO FISHING allowed. But, it
benefits everyone to fish and pull out the bass.

One species is protected because that is what it is being managed
for.

The Rapid is also flyfishing only water, which is extremely
controversial in my opinion and in violation of equal access laws
since there is no 'biological' or 'management' imperative for this, it
is purely social. We've had this discussion many times, in the context
of FF only regs in Oregon. A regulation stating "flies and lures only"
has identical outcomes but allows people to choose how they prefer to
fish.

Anyway, it is NOT pure catch and release that brought back the Rapid.
It is the Selective Harvest of species. That is the regulation that is
in effect.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 07:12:58 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

However, it would be completely reckless to suggest that "Catch and
Release" (all fish must be returned to the water) has played very
little, if any role, with the exception of selectively harvesting
bass.

Tim, bass fishing is very big in Maine. Lots of pond/rivers with bass
in them. In fact, it was a meat gatherer who illegally stocked
Umbagog, the lake that the Rapid flows into, with small mouth bass
about 20+ years ago. Those bass are now entering the Rapid and are
endangering the native trout.

You want to have a nice and polite discussion, Tim, but yet you won't
believe a thing I say about the Rapid River. It was *doomed*, damn
it. DOOMED! The meat gatherers raped it and left it with small brook
trout and salmon populations. I used to fish the river with a 3 or 4
weight. I now use a 5 or 6 weight. That is how much it has improved.
And the only thing the State of Maine did was....... wait for
it..........implent pure catch and release of brook trout, and limited
killing of landlocked salmon. If the small mouth bass had found their
way up river 15 years ago after they were illegally stocked in
Umbagog, they would have been the straw that broke the camel's back.
There would have been no big brookie or landlocked stock to continue
the species.

Because of catch and release, AND ONLY BECAUSE OF CATCH AND RELEASE,
the river has come back to what it was 50 years ago, a healthy, viable
clean water river with a healthy population of brook trout and salmon.
Educating anglers to use barbless hooks, limiting their fighting time
of a fish, and keeping the fish in the water when removing the hook
will help keep it a viable healthy waterway.

Also, user of this waterway should dedicate one pair of waders/boots
to be worn only when fishing the Rapid. Otherwise, Didymo (Rock Snot)
will some day make its way to this beautiful wild river, filled with
wild brook trout and wild salmon that will tail walk across a stretch
of water. There will be no river for my grandchildren and their
children if we kill these fish either by hook or pollution.

Dave

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 08:05:01 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

Anyway, it is NOT pure catch and release that brought back the Rapid.
It is the Selective Harvest of species. That is the regulation that is
in effect.

Selective harvest of *what* species, Tim? Ten or so years ago, there
were only four main species of fish in the Rapid: Unique native brook
trout, landlocked salmon that were introduced 100 years ago, laketrout
that come in via the dam, and white suckers. There was no selective
harvest. The meat gatherers were "harvesting" the brook trout, the
salmon and the laketrout. It was *stopping* the selective harvest of
the brook trout and salmon that saved the river. Why do you not
understand what I have been saying for several days now (actually more
than 12 years). The river was doomed *because* of harvesting of brook
trout and salmon.

The bass were illegally stocked by a civilian and not by either Maine
or New Hampshire (Umbagog is in both states). When the present power
company (owns the dam) lowered the stream flow to unheard of low
levels (200 cfs) the bass started to come up river. There has been a
concerted effort to rid the river of these fish, but it is impossible
to do. There was a meeting in Rangeley last year with lots of
scientists, fisherey people, guides, land owners, and just plain
caring fly fishermen to address the smallmouth problem. One speaker,
I have forgotten his name, told of his scientific efforts to rid a
certain pond of small mouth bass.

He estimated the population of smallmouth bass at 5000 (the numbers I
am using are not the ones he used, but they are demonstrative of his
work and conclusions). He removed 20% of them by hook, netting,
seining. One year later, he again made an estimate of the population
and found that there was now 8000 bass. He again removed a certain
percentage and the following year the bass population had risen even
higher. His conclusion: The only way to get rid of bass in any
waterway is to poison ALL the fish and start over. That is not a
viable option on the Rapid.

So, the bass will remain in the Rapid, thanks to some damn fool that
was thinking of his stomach and trophy wall.

Dave (who is getting a bit tired trying to convince you that C&K was
killing the river, and C&R brought it back to a healthy river)

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Mar 8, 9:10 am, Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 07:12:58 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer

wrote:
However, it would be completely reckless to suggest that "Catch and
Release" (all fish must be returned to the water) has played very
little, if any role, with the exception of selectively harvesting
bass.

Tim, bass fishing is very big in Maine. Lots of pond/rivers with bass
in them. In fact, it was a meat gatherer who illegally stocked
Umbagog, the lake that the Rapid flows into, with small mouth bass
about 20+ years ago. Those bass are now entering the Rapid and are
endangering the native trout.

You want to have a nice and polite discussion, Tim, but yet you won't
believe a thing I say about the Rapid River. It was *doomed*, damn
it. DOOMED! The meat gatherers raped it and left it with small brook
trout and salmon populations. I used to fish the river with a 3 or 4
weight. I now use a 5 or 6 weight. That is how much it has improved.
And the only thing the State of Maine did was....... wait for
it..........implent pure catch and release of brook trout, and limited
killing of landlocked salmon. If the small mouth bass had found their
way up river 15 years ago after they were illegally stocked in
Umbagog, they would have been the straw that broke the camel's back.
There would have been no big brookie or landlocked stock to continue
the species.

Because of catch and release, AND ONLY BECAUSE OF CATCH AND RELEASE,
the river has come back to what it was 50 years ago, a healthy, viable
clean water river with a healthy population of brook trout and salmon.
Educating anglers to use barbless hooks, limiting their fighting time
of a fish, and keeping the fish in the water when removing the hook
will help keep it a viable healthy waterway.

Also, user of this waterway should dedicate one pair of waders/boots
to be worn only when fishing the Rapid. Otherwise, Didymo (Rock Snot)
will some day make its way to this beautiful wild river, filled with
wild brook trout and wild salmon that will tail walk across a stretch
of water. There will be no river for my grandchildren and their
children if we kill these fish either by hook or pollution.

Dave

Dave,

I can't find a single reference to your claim that:

The meat gatherers raped it and left it with small brook trout and salmon populations.

What is your source? Was it poachers or were the regulations too
lenient? I ask because we have shown many time, conclusively, that
there is never a need to manage a fishery as pure C&R, you just set
the minimum size a bit higher than the size you want a good population
of, as is done in the vast majority of the state.

What is generally attributed to the demise of the Rapid RIver brook
trout is the smallmouth bass introduction 20 yrs ago in Umbagogg
lake.

To Wit:
------------
The Threat
Approximately 20 years ago, smallmouth bass were illegally introduced
into Umbagog Lake. Smallmouths rapidly colonized this habitat and
within the past 8 years have invaded the Rapid River, where they
threaten one of the nation's finest wild brook trout fisheries.
Smallmouth bass predation on brook trout fry has been documented, and
there is evidence that brook trout recruitment is declining. The
Rapid River's wild brook trout, which routinely attain weights of 3-5
pounds and support one of the state's highest angler use rates, are
clearly imperiled, as is the fishery they support.
------------

http://www.brookie.org/site/pp.asp?c...OLvF&b=1737055

I believe the regs would be restrictive but not pure C&R on the Rapid
if not for this fact. I'll ask the commission and let you know.

Your pal,

TBone

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

Snip:

Dave,

This is the letter I wrote to the Maine IF&G. Please let me know your
thoughts. My goal was to be objective and specific.

-------------------------
Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

[Deleted]
Colorado

----------------

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer
Guilt replaced the creel

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Mar 8, 9:38 am, Dave LaCourse wrote:
[snip]
Selective harvest of *what* species, Tim?

The bass. It makes sense. When you have a species that is aggressively
threatened by another species you don't have many options. Much like
the fear of someone putting Pike in Trapper's Lake or similar in
Colorado. You can Rotenone and start over or you can give the species
you want to survive all the advantages (pure C&R) while giving the
species you do not want all the dis-advantages (No bag limits).

Right?

Halfordian Golfer

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Mar 8, 9:38 am, Dave LaCourse wrote:
(snip)
Dave (who is getting a bit tired trying to convince you that C&K was
killing the river, and C&R brought it back to a healthy river)

Yeah, I sensed that! 8)

That's why I just asked the IF&G. We'll see what they say!

Thanks for the discussion. The Rapid River seems like a wonderful and
beautiful place. I'd love to catch a 3# brookie there with you Dave,
and eat a damned bass with you afterwards. I suspect we agree on more
than meets the eye.

Your pal,

TBone

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 08:38:51 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

I can't find a single reference to your claim that:

The meat gatherers raped it and left it with small brook trout and salmon populations.

What is your source? Was it poachers or were the regulations too
lenient?

Have you not read what I have been writing, Tim? I *lived* the
transition from catch and kill (one brookie/day/person) People would
flock to the river on week-ends hoping to catch a 15 inch brook trout
to eat.

I ask because we have shown many time, conclusively, that
there is never a need to manage a fishery as pure C&R, you just set
the minimum size a bit higher than the size you want a good population
of, as is done in the vast majority of the state.

THAT is what almost killed the river. Will you not listen? People
were taking the breeding stock, the big healthy fish. They left
nothing but little trout. If the bass had come up river 15 years ago,
they would have decimated an unhealthy river. PURE c&r brought the
river back. It is less crowded now and the mortality rate is as close
to zero as it will ever be.

What is generally attributed to the demise of the Rapid RIver brook
trout is the smallmouth bass introduction 20 yrs ago in Umbagogg
lake.

No it is not. The Rapid River is now *living* with smallmouth bass.
While they are a problem, an unsolvable problem I might add, they are
not big enough to take a 5 pound brook trout or salmon. I have yet to
catch a smallmouth in the river, but I landed many brook trout and
salmon in the 3 to 5 pound range. Two pounders are common enough not
to even mention.
To Wit:
------------
The Threat
Approximately 20 years ago, smallmouth bass were illegally introduced
into Umbagog Lake. Smallmouths rapidly colonized this habitat and
within the past 8 years have invaded the Rapid River, where they
threaten one of the nation's finest wild brook trout fisheries.
Smallmouth bass predation on brook trout fry has been documented, and
there is evidence that brook trout recruitment is declining. The
Rapid River's wild brook trout, which routinely attain weights of 3-5
pounds and support one of the state's highest angler use rates, are
clearly imperiled, as is the fishery they support.

I've already addressed this, Tim. The brook trout are *thriving* in
the Rapid as I type inspite of the smallmouths. They are thriving
because the c&KILL regs were changed to pure c&RELEASE. Let me
emphasis that for you. PURE CATCH AND RELEASE HAS BROUGHT THE RIVER
BACK. If you release a big brookie it is going to live and breed. If
you kill it for meat or for your wall, well...... you know what
happens.... the river dies. Right now the C&R regs are extremely
important because the smallmouth are eating trout/salmon fry. BTW,
the smallmouth only recently became a threat to the river, and C&R
regs were implemented several years before they made their appearance.
Although illegally stocked in Umbagog more than 20 years ago, it took
them a long time to finally make it up the river, and they did that
thanks to the owners Middle Dam who made the Rapid a warm water
fisherey by releasing only 200 cfs of water. I was there that summer
about 7 or 8 years ago when the water temp was 74 by mid June. The
following year folks began catching smallmouth, *BUT catch and release
was implemented years before the bass came into the river. So, do not
blame the demise of the Rapid on the bass. It is still a healthy
brook trout fisherey with enormous brook trout that challenge the
Labrador brook trout in size and meanness.
------------

http://www.brookie.org/site/pp.asp?c...OLvF&b=1737055

I believe the regs would be restrictive but not pure C&R on the Rapid
if not for this fact. I'll ask the commission and let you know.


Again, Tim, I lived through this transition. The ONLY hope for this
brook trout population is to let them live, especially now when they
are threatened by an alien species.

I can not understand why you would want to interfer, experiment with a
system that is obviously working. Catch and Release on this river is
working. Why would you want to jeopardize these wonderful fish who
are thriving quite well *without* the aide of man. Leave them alone!

Dave

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 09:05:32 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

The bass. It makes sense. When you have a species that is aggressively
threatened by another species you don't have many options. Much like
the fear of someone putting Pike in Trapper's Lake or similar in
Colorado. You can Rotenone and start over or you can give the species
you want to survive all the advantages (pure C&R) while giving the
species you do not want all the dis-advantages (No bag limits).

The bass are aliens to this river. If you catch one you throw it into
the woods or slit it open and let the fish eat it. That isn't
selective harvesting - it is ridding the water of a pest.

Dave

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 09:08:25 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

Thanks for the discussion. The Rapid River seems like a wonderful and
beautiful place. I'd love to catch a 3# brookie there with you Dave,
and eat a damned bass with you afterwards. I suspect we agree on more
than meets the eye.

Call me. I'm in the book. First three days at Lakewood Camps on me.

Dave

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Mar 8, 9:38 am, Dave LaCourse wrote:
[snip]
So, the bass will remain in the Rapid, thanks to some damn fool that
was thinking of his stomach and trophy wall.

Socratic debate...

1) The bass eat a lot of baby brook trout in the Rapid River.
2) Yes, Plato. Plus they are aggressive and compete for the brook
trout for food. It is hard for the brook trout.
3) That is true Socrates. It makes sense that we should let people
fish and harvest the bass, but we must protect the brook trout.
4) Plato, you are right. But, if the bass did NOT remain in the Rapid,
if somehow they were gone tomorrow, could we harvest some brook trout
from the Rapid, assuming that the surplus would be returned, the
competition removed and that some harvest would be beneficial to the
yield of the river and the quality and average size and health of the
fish?
5) ?

Your pal,

TBone

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

Looks fine to me, Tim.

Good luck.

Dave

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Mar 8, 10:17 am, Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 09:08:25 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer

wrote:
Thanks for the discussion. The Rapid River seems like a wonderful and
beautiful place. I'd love to catch a 3# brookie there with you Dave,
and eat a damned bass with you afterwards. I suspect we agree on more
than meets the eye.

Call me. I'm in the book. First three days at Lakewood Camps on me.

Dave

Thank you, that would be awesome. Perhaps the fall...

TBone

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 09:19:13 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

Socratic debate...

1) The bass eat a lot of baby brook trout in the Rapid River.
2) Yes, Plato. Plus they are aggressive and compete for the brook
trout for food. It is hard for the brook trout.
3) That is true Socrates. It makes sense that we should let people
fish and harvest the bass, but we must protect the brook trout.
4) Plato, you are right. But, if the bass did NOT remain in the Rapid,
if somehow they were gone tomorrow, could we harvest some brook trout
from the Rapid, assuming that the surplus would be returned, the
competition removed and that some harvest would be beneficial to the
yield of the river and the quality and average size and health of the
fish?
5) ?

Hey, Soco and Plato, this is Sisyphus. When the bass became apparent
in the Rapid, fishermen started to kill them *regardless* their size.
Most of the ones I have seen are very small, but I am sure there are
bigger ones in the river. There is signage all over the river to kill
the bass when you catch one. Kill, kill, kill the bass. However,
this is only a "feel good" regulation. No matter how many you kill,
they will continue to survive. They are a rugged fish, not like the
brook trout.

You know, the original Sisyphus was condemned to pushing a rock up a
mountain only to have it roll all the way down where he would push it
back up the mountain only to have it roll down............

This modern day Sisyphus is condemned to forever explaining to Soco
and Plata that catch and release works when applied to a certain
species like a native brook trout whose existence is threatened. Woe
is poor Sisyphus.

Dave aka Pirate aka Bottom Dweller aka Asshole aka Fat Fool aka Jerk
nka Sisyphus

d;o)

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Mar 8, 10:13 am, Dave LaCourse wrote:
[snip]
Have you not read what I have been writing, Tim? I *lived* the
transition from catch and kill (one brookie/day/person) People would
flock to the river on week-ends hoping to catch a 15 inch brook trout
to eat.
....
THAT is what almost killed the river. Will you not listen? People
were taking the breeding stock, the big healthy fish. They left
nothing but little trout. If the bass had come up river 15 years ago,
they would have decimated an unhealthy river. PURE c&r brought the
river back. It is less crowded now and the mortality rate is as close
to zero as it will ever be.

Understood.

What do you believe would have happened if the regulations were
changed such that the minimum size limit was 22" and you could only
keep one?

What is generally attributed to the demise of the Rapid RIver brook
trout is the smallmouth bass introduction 20 yrs ago in Umbagogg
lake.
No it is not. The Rapid River is now *living* with smallmouth bass.
While they are a problem, an unsolvable problem I might add, they are
not big enough to take a 5 pound brook trout or salmon. I have yet to
catch a smallmouth in the river, but I landed many brook trout and
salmon in the 3 to 5 pound range. Two pounders are common enough not
to even mention.
I've already addressed this, Tim. The brook trout are *thriving* in
the Rapid as I type inspite of the smallmouths. They are thriving
because the c&KILL regs were changed to pure c&RELEASE. Let me
emphasis that for you. PURE CATCH AND RELEASE HAS BROUGHT THE RIVER
BACK.
(snip)

The brook trout are thriving under the current regs which protect them
but allow harvesting bass. You can not subtract that from the
equation, can you? I mean, it's the way it is.

If bass were protected and brook trout were not...what would the
predictable outcome be?

What of these landlocked salmon? They sound delicious!

Best,

Halfordian Golfer

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 09:25:27 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

Thank you, that would be awesome. Perhaps the fall...

Season ends on the Rapid the last day of September. Other rivers are
open until the end of October.

Dave

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Mar 7, 6:35 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
[snip]

Ken, you said,

A few dead fish do not matter one whit to me

While I do not believe mortality alone is a litmus of ethicity, this
stark and wanton disregard for killing wildlife solely for your
pleasure shocked even me.

It spanks of no conscience.

A few years ago fishing on the flat tops, a small fish of about 5
inches took my fly and I accidentally pulled him into a side-pocket
where he escaped under a crack. The side pocket would dry up in a day
or two, it was more like a rain basin. I took off my vest and set down
my rod and tried in vain to free him back to the main river.
Incidental and unavoidable? Certainly. Doesn't mean I'll ever, ever
not respect that this was a wild animal that I killed for no good
reason.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Mar 8, 10:41 am, Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 09:25:27 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer

wrote:
Thank you, that would be awesome. Perhaps the fall...

Season ends on the Rapid the last day of September. Other rivers are
open until the end of October.

Dave

Makes sense, protects the spawn. When is the best? I'd imagine
september? Right now?

TBone

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

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.


The problem is that nothing NEW is introduced into the discussion. The
problem between your position and mine is that we only share some of
these so called "fundamental truths".

PS There are a series of newer C&R studies done in YNP that show MUCH
less mortality from C&R fishing than the older studies due to, I
believe, improved methodology where the study itself didn't contribute
to the mortality. I'm not sure if these are on the internet.



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.

At least for me, a C&R thread had nothing to do with this.

Willi

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

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.
At least for me, a C&R thread had nothing to do with this.
Willi

Not so sure.

"Eventually all things merge in to one and a river runs through it..."

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 09:53:10 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

A few years ago fishing on the flat tops, a small fish of about 5
inches took my fly and I accidentally pulled him into a side-pocket
where he escaped under a crack. The side pocket would dry up in a day
or two, it was more like a rain basin. I took off my vest and set down
my rod and tried in vain to free him back to the main river.
Incidental and unavoidable? Certainly. Doesn't mean I'll ever, ever
not respect that this was a wild animal that I killed for no good
reason.

Tim, all of us have experienced similar tragedies while we fly fish.
Either get over it quickly, or let it rot in your gut. **** happens.

I once heard of a man that did not want to shoot any more
deer/moose/bear. But he still wanted to pursue them - track them -
hunt them without killing them. His solution was to mount a 35 mm
camera on a gun stock with the shutter connected directly to the
trigger. His "kill" was pictures of the many animals that he "shot".

I suggest you do something similar. Perhaps do as I do on occasion:
break off the hook and fish just the feathers/dubbing/whatever. If
you get a rise and feel the take, consider it a caught fish. The same
would be true if nymphing (although I have never tried it with a
nymph). To me the take is the entire adventure; you've figured out
what the fish wants, how he wants it presented, and where to present
it. After the take there is very little excitement unless, of course,
it is one humungous 32 inch Russian rainbow, or a seven pound Labrador
brookie.

I leave for Chile in a couple of days. I hear tell their brown trout
actually jump like landlocked salmon. Been terribly ill for a week
with a virus - not the flu, but just as bad. I hope I am better by
then. I'll be gone for about 10 days and will not have my beautiful
bride to take care of me. d;o( But, then again, I won't have to push
any more rocks up the mountain. d;o)

Dave (Sisyphus in disguise)

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 09:54:46 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

Makes sense, protects the spawn. When is the best? I'd imagine
september? Right now?

The end of May and all of June. By early July the river warms and the
brook trout head out into Pond in the River and its spring holes.

Fishing picks up again in late August and is pretty good in September.

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 09:40:12 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

What do you believe would have happened if the regulations were
changed such that the minimum size limit was 22" and you could only
keep one?

Esentially that would be pure C&R for there were few 22 inch trout in
those days. However, those big trout are healthy and strong, able to
defend themselves from the bass (when they arrived), and essential to
the breeding cycle.

The ratio of brookies to landlocks was about 1 to 10 before c&r.
Since the no-kill implementation, the brookies have rebounded and now
the ratio is more even, say 50/50 (an educated guess). It seems now
that I catch just as many brookies as I do landlocks.

Dave

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 09:40:12 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

The brook trout are thriving under the current regs which protect them
but allow harvesting bass. You can not subtract that from the
equation, can you? I mean, it's the way it is.

If bass were protected and brook trout were not...what would the
predictable outcome be?

What of these landlocked salmon? They sound delicious!

Sorry.... I did not read your entire post before answering.....

The bass problem occured AFTER the no-kill implementation. They
played no role in the state's ruling to protect the brook trout in
this river. The no-kill edict was because the size and quantity of
the native brook trout had declined by the c&k crowd. Within a year
of the no-kill edict, the river bounced back with some healthy fish.
Within two years trophy fish were being taken - of both species,
brookies and salmon. Catch and release saved this river.

I needn't tell you that if the bass were protected and the brook trout
and salmon were not, the river would no longer be the finest brook
trout water on the East Coast.

Landlocks are delicious. Think of an Atlantic Salmon. Basically the
same animal although the largest I have seen was only 27 inches.
Their meat is just as good as a wild Atlantic Salmon. Delicious!
And they fight like hell with aerial displays that leave you
awestruck.

Dave

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
A few dead fish do not matter one whit to me

While I do not believe mortality alone is a litmus of ethicity, this
stark and wanton disregard for killing wildlife solely for your
pleasure shocked even me.

It spanks of no conscience.

If you're going to reply to my posts I'm going to have to
insist that you quote full sentences only. You know that
posting only that sentence fragment was a distortion of
what I posted. It was dishonest. I will have an honest
discussion with an honest correspondent but I will not get
into a conversation with a dishonest fruitcake. And "spanks"
of no conscience ? What in the hell is that supposed to mean ?

--
Ken Fortenberry

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Mar 8, 1:14 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
A few dead fish do not matter one whit to me

While I do not believe mortality alone is a litmus of ethicity, this
stark and wanton disregard for killing wildlife solely for your
pleasure shocked even me.

It spanks of no conscience.

If you're going to reply to my posts I'm going to have to
insist that you quote full sentences only. You know that
posting only that sentence fragment was a distortion of
what I posted. It was dishonest. I will have an honest
discussion with an honest correspondent but I will not get
into a conversation with a dishonest fruitcake. And "spanks"
of no conscience ? What in the hell is that supposed to mean ?

--
Ken Fortenberry

Here is the full quote. Didn't think it changed anything.

"Nope. My recreation is every bit as important as the few
fish which accidentally die as a result of my C&R. Where
regulations permit I will eat the fish I kill and where
it's illegal to keep a fish the turtles and otters will
eat them. A few dead fish do not matter one whit to me, "

"Spanks of" is just something we say around here..smacks of spanks of
stinks of same same.

Halfordian Golfer

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
If you're going to reply to my posts I'm going to have to
insist that you quote full sentences only. You know that
posting only that sentence fragment was a distortion of
what I posted. It was dishonest. I will have an honest
discussion with an honest correspondent but I will not get
into a conversation with a dishonest fruitcake. And "spanks"
of no conscience ? What in the hell is that supposed to mean ?

Here is the full quote. ...

No, here is the full quote:

"Nope. My recreation is every bit as important as the few
fish which accidentally die as a result of my C&R. Where
regulations permit I will eat the fish I kill and where
it's illegal to keep a fish the turtles and otters will
eat them. A few dead fish do not matter one whit to me,
I look at the bigger fishery management picture. As do
most of the folks who have grown weary of your tedious
and tiresome anti-C&R crusading."

You are obviously not interested in an honest discussion.
Which is fine, your jihad is not an honest one so there
is really no point in your making an inevitably futile
attempt to discuss it.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Mar 8, 1:01 pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 09:40:12 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer

wrote:
The brook trout are thriving under the current regs which protect them
but allow harvesting bass. You can not subtract that from the
equation, can you? I mean, it's the way it is.

If bass were protected and brook trout were not...what would the
predictable outcome be?

What of these landlocked salmon? They sound delicious!

Sorry.... I did not read your entire post before answering.....

The bass problem occured AFTER the no-kill implementation. They
played no role in the state's ruling to protect the brook trout in
this river. The no-kill edict was because the size and quantity of
the native brook trout had declined by the c&k crowd. Within a year
of the no-kill edict, the river bounced back with some healthy fish.
Within two years trophy fish were being taken - of both species,
brookies and salmon. Catch and release saved this river.

I needn't tell you that if the bass were protected and the brook trout
and salmon were not, the river would no longer be the finest brook
trout water on the East Coast.

Landlocks are delicious. Think of an Atlantic Salmon. Basically the
same animal although the largest I have seen was only 27 inches.
Their meat is just as good as a wild Atlantic Salmon. Delicious!
And they fight like hell with aerial displays that leave you
awestruck.

Dave

Are they the same thing as Kokanee which, I think are landlocked
sockeyes we have in Colorado...silver bullets jump way out of the
water, orange meat.

Halfordian Golfer

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Mar 8, 4:49 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
If you're going to reply to my posts I'm going to have to
insist that you quote full sentences only. You know that
posting only that sentence fragment was a distortion of
what I posted. It was dishonest. I will have an honest
discussion with an honest correspondent but I will not get
into a conversation with a dishonest fruitcake. And "spanks"
of no conscience ? What in the hell is that supposed to mean ?

Here is the full quote. ...

No, here is the full quote:

"Nope. My recreation is every bit as important as the few
fish which accidentally die as a result of my C&R. Where
regulations permit I will eat the fish I kill and where
it's illegal to keep a fish the turtles and otters will
eat them. A few dead fish do not matter one whit to me,
I look at the bigger fishery management picture. As do
most of the folks who have grown weary of your tedious
and tiresome anti-C&R crusading."

You are obviously not interested in an honest discussion.
Which is fine, your jihad is not an honest one so there
is really no point in your making an inevitably futile
attempt to discuss it.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Ken,

You said you only cared about posting full sentences, not the full
quote.

Specifically you said:: I'm going to have to insist that you quote
full sentences only

So I did,

Bone

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
You are obviously not interested in an honest discussion.
Which is fine, your jihad is not an honest one so there
is really no point in your making an inevitably futile
attempt to discuss it.

Ken,

You said you only cared about posting full sentences, not the full
quote.

Specifically you said:: I'm going to have to insist that you quote
full sentences only

So I did,

This is a full sentence:

"A few dead fish do not matter one whit to me,
I look at the bigger fishery management picture."

You posted a sentence fragment, twice, which was
a dishonest distortion of my post and then you
expounded on your dishonest distortion to accuse
me of being a man with no conscience who had a
wanton disregard for killing wildlife. Not only
is that dishonest it's despicable.

--
Ken Fortenberry

--
Ken Fortenberry