Fishing for stocked fish.
 

On 17 Sep, 02:30, Dave LaCourse wrote:
Gee, Mikey. You don't seem to be very successful in ignoring Kenny
Boy. Wot?

**** off Lacourse.

MC

Fishing for stocked fish.
 

I dont debate the Iraq war anymore
Like Vietnam
If you are not against it you are for it and **** you - At this point in
time there is no more debate

If you don't like my political opinions which are part of my world view then
all that I can do wirth a ****ing
clueless jerk like you is

I think that whats going on in the environment caused by clueless fools like
you that do nothing
is quite releveant to fishing today -As there will not be many resources
left tomorrow
Because fools like yo do not want to hear about nor act on it

Here is an eloquent statement that a mindless fool like you can understand-
**** off Jack!
Shihead!

Plonk

Fishing for stocked fish.
 

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 17:32:24 -0700, Mike
wrote:

On 17 Sep, 02:30, Dave LaCourse wrote:
Gee, Mikey. You don't seem to be very successful in ignoring Kenny
Boy. Wot?

**** off Lacourse.

MC

Twist..... Push.... Turn... Push....

d;o)

Fishing for stocked fish.
 

On Sep 16, 10:16 am, Mike wrote:
Considerations on angling for stock fish.

I have a numbre of objections to angling for stocked rainbow trout.
These are based entirely on the facts known to me, and are not a
result of "snobbery" or any other such silly considerations, as some
people seem to assume.

1. The use of such fish is a massive drain on the environment.

2. There is no sensible comparison whatsoever between such fish and
any wild fish.

3. Although such fish may appear outwardly similar to wild fish,
after a period in suitable conditions, they do not behave like wild
fish. In many cases being almost tame, and can be caught easily using
various tricks, or completely outlandish concoctions such as power
bait, to which they have been accustomed artificailly. They may also
be easily caught using crushed trout pellets. Many of the flies used
to catch such fish have no counterparts in nature, and are taken by
the fish mainly as a result of their extreme conditioning during
rearing to react to food items in a particular manner. They have been
been conditioned to do so, and rarely possess even a fraction of the
wariness of wild fish. Especialy when in shoals, which they often
maintain until they are caught or die, they are extremely competitive.

4. In the majority of cases, these fish are badly contaminated with
accumulated poisons and toxins. This is also a result of being fed on
processed fishmeal, which concentrates various toxins, mainly in the
fatty cells of such fish, and also the chenical and other complex drug
residues used in their production.

5. I find the production of such animals purely for the purpose of
playing with them distasteful. They are produced at great cost,
damage, and danger to the environment, purely for the personal
gratification of anglers who wish to fish for them. This is not at all
the same thing as directly farming a food source.

6 As a result of the concentration on such practices, rivers and other
natural environments are being more and more negelected, and even
considered "inferior", because nothing even remotely resembling the
number and amount of fish can be caught there, and anglers
expectations have as a result of this, been raised far beyond what is
normal, or even remotely sensible in this regard. massive amounts of
money and resources are being wasted in order to provide personal and
"convenient" gratification to anglers, which would be far better spent
on improving the environment, and not in activel destroying it.

7. Also as a result of conditioning, many of these fish will only
feed at certain times, corresponding to the feeding times in the
hatcheries and feeding stews in which they were reared. Such aberrant
behaviour is often referred to as "the evening rise". In some places
where the fish have time to become acclimatised, ( although they never
entirely lose their conditioning), this may even be the case, but it
is mainly the result of conditioning to feed at a certain time.

There are a number of other reasons as well, but those are the main
ones.

TL
MC

Good post Mike. There is definitely counter points to be,
respectfully, made.

1) In Colorado, there is an exceptional fishery in the mountain and
plain lakes that, up until a 100 years ago were completely devoid of
fish. A lot of private hatcheries stocked the water including the
famous boulder rod and gun club. This activity *created* teh fishery.

2) There is also the consideration that stocked trout in places like
St. Vrain State Park, old gravel quarries, absorb a tremendous amount
of recreational pressure.

3) The license revenue generated from stocked trout draws interest and
moneys for research.

4) 100% of the Brown, Rainbow and Brook trout fishery is the
descendant result of stocking programs.

5) In many cases the very nicest fish you catch, one full of color,
fight and firm healthy trout is simply the multiple year hold over.

Personally, I get the Jones to bang a few stockers and eat them at
least once or twice a season. Some of the new diets makes the flesh
orange and the fish relatively tasty, especially brined and smoked.

I'm not too proud to crack a cool one and take a few of the stocked
trout out of he

http://parks.state.co.us/Parks/StVrain/

In fact, they did something pretty cool out there last year. What used
to be the back ponds that you could drive all around have been closed
off as hiking access only. If you walk a mile or two you can leave
just about all the rest of the fishermen.
Best regards,

Tim

Fishing for stocked fish.
 

On Sep 16, 7:09 pm, Halfordian Golfer wrote:
On Sep 16, 10:16 am, Mike wrote:



Considerations on angling for stock fish.

I have a numbre of objections to angling for stocked rainbow trout.
These are based entirely on the facts known to me, and are not a
result of "snobbery" or any other such silly considerations, as some
people seem to assume.

1. The use of such fish is a massive drain on the environment.

2. There is no sensible comparison whatsoever between such fish and
any wild fish.

3. Although such fish may appear outwardly similar to wild fish,
after a period in suitable conditions, they do not behave like wild
fish. In many cases being almost tame, and can be caught easily using
various tricks, or completely outlandish concoctions such as power
bait, to which they have been accustomed artificailly. They may also
be easily caught using crushed trout pellets. Many of the flies used
to catch such fish have no counterparts in nature, and are taken by
the fish mainly as a result of their extreme conditioning during
rearing to react to food items in a particular manner. They have been
been conditioned to do so, and rarely possess even a fraction of the
wariness of wild fish. Especialy when in shoals, which they often
maintain until they are caught or die, they are extremely competitive.

4. In the majority of cases, these fish are badly contaminated with
accumulated poisons and toxins. This is also a result of being fed on
processed fishmeal, which concentrates various toxins, mainly in the
fatty cells of such fish, and also the chenical and other complex drug
residues used in their production.

5. I find the production of such animals purely for the purpose of
playing with them distasteful. They are produced at great cost,
damage, and danger to the environment, purely for the personal
gratification of anglers who wish to fish for them. This is not at all
the same thing as directly farming a food source.

6 As a result of the concentration on such practices, rivers and other
natural environments are being more and more negelected, and even
considered "inferior", because nothing even remotely resembling the
number and amount of fish can be caught there, and anglers
expectations have as a result of this, been raised far beyond what is
normal, or even remotely sensible in this regard. massive amounts of
money and resources are being wasted in order to provide personal and
"convenient" gratification to anglers, which would be far better spent
on improving the environment, and not in activel destroying it.

7. Also as a result of conditioning, many of these fish will only
feed at certain times, corresponding to the feeding times in the
hatcheries and feeding stews in which they were reared. Such aberrant
behaviour is often referred to as "the evening rise". In some places
where the fish have time to become acclimatised, ( although they never
entirely lose their conditioning), this may even be the case, but it
is mainly the result of conditioning to feed at a certain time.

There are a number of other reasons as well, but those are the main
ones.

TL
MC

Good post Mike. There is definitely counter points to be,
respectfully, made.

1) In Colorado, there is an exceptional fishery in the mountain and
plain lakes that, up until a 100 years ago were completely devoid of
fish. A lot of private hatcheries stocked the water including the
famous boulder rod and gun club. This activity *created* teh fishery.

2) There is also the consideration that stocked trout in places like
St. Vrain State Park, old gravel quarries, absorb a tremendous amount
of recreational pressure.

3) The license revenue generated from stocked trout draws interest and
moneys for research.

4) 100% of the Brown, Rainbow and Brook trout fishery is the
descendant result of stocking programs.

5) In many cases the very nicest fish you catch, one full of color,
fight and firm healthy trout is simply the multiple year hold over.

Personally, I get the Jones to bang a few stockers and eat them at
least once or twice a season. Some of the new diets makes the flesh
orange and the fish relatively tasty, especially brined and smoked.

I'm not too proud to crack a cool one and take a few of the stocked
trout out of he

http://parks.state.co.us/Parks/StVrain/

In fact, they did something pretty cool out there last year. What used
to be the back ponds that you could drive all around have been closed
off as hiking access only. If you walk a mile or two you can leave
just about all the rest of the fishermen.
Best regards,

Tim

Dang, I sure wish I would have proof-read that.

Fishing for stocked fish.
 

On 17 Sep, 03:09, Halfordian Golfer wrote:
On Sep 16, 10:16 am, Mike wrote:



Good post Mike. There is definitely counter points to be,
respectfully, made.

1) In Colorado, there is an exceptional fishery in the mountain and
plain lakes that, up until a 100 years ago were completely devoid of
fish. A lot of private hatcheries stocked the water including the
famous boulder rod and gun club. This activity *created* teh fishery.

2) There is also the consideration that stocked trout in places like
St. Vrain State Park, old gravel quarries, absorb a tremendous amount
of recreational pressure.

3) The license revenue generated from stocked trout draws interest and
moneys for research.

4) 100% of the Brown, Rainbow and Brook trout fishery is the
descendant result of stocking programs.

5) In many cases the very nicest fish you catch, one full of color,
fight and firm healthy trout is simply the multiple year hold over.

Personally, I get the Jones to bang a few stockers and eat them at
least once or twice a season. Some of the new diets makes the flesh
orange and the fish relatively tasty, especially brined and smoked.

I'm not too proud to crack a cool one and take a few of the stocked
trout out of he

http://parks.state.co.us/Parks/StVrain/

In fact, they did something pretty cool out there last year. What used
to be the back ponds that you could drive all around have been closed
off as hiking access only. If you walk a mile or two you can leave
just about all the rest of the fishermen.
Best regards,

Tim

If stocking is done with fry, or even fingerlings, in a natural
manner, and these fish are allowed to grow naturally, it can be, and
often is, extremely beneficial. Grown on stock fish rarely are, they
are a massive drain on resources. If that same money and effort was
invested in improving the environment, there would be far fewer
problems.

The argument that stocked fish relieve pressure on wild fish is an
attractive and plausible one, but when one considers the three pounds
minimum of wild fish protein required to produce one pound of stock
fish, it crumbles completely. This ratio n is actually often a great
deal higher. Robbing Peter to pay Paul, never works.

I have not eaten a stocked fish for nearly forty years now, and I
never will. I don´t eat any of the farmed stuff on offer either. I
know how it is produced, and have seen quite a few analyses of the
stuff.

Whatever, I am quite obviously wasting my time here.

TL
MC

Fishing for stocked fish.
 

stuff.

Whatever, I am quite obviously wasting my time here.

TL
MC

That was not a reflection on your post Tim, just a general
observation.

TL
MC

Fishing for stocked fish.
 

Mike wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Yeah, that's what I thought. Only those who already agree with
His Loony Mikeness have any point discussing the matter at all.
LOL !! Please, do carry on.

Just what I thought as well, another one of your ploys so that you
could post more silly propaganda. The truth is, you are an ignorant
****bag, who does not want to discuss anything at all. You waste people
´s time, attack them personally. and simply ignore the facts.

If you can refute anything I have written, with lists or otherwise,
then do so. otherwise **** off and stop playing silly games. There are
people who may find this interesting and informative,

If you had bothered to read the three links you quickly
Googled up as a response to your response you would know
that you yourself have already refuted much of your loony
nonsense about the farm-raised rainbow trout at my grocery
store being poison and toxic.

I find that interesting and informative but I rather doubt
you will. LOL !!

--
Ken Fortenberry

Fishing for stocked fish.
 

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 17:06:37 -0700, Mike
wrote:

On 17 Sep, 01:38, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Mike wrote:
And this , which is the newest edition publicly available, as a direct
PDF download;

http://www.cefas.co.uk/publications/...s/ffn3_web.pdf

Let´s see what Kenny boy makes of "conflating" all that. If he bothers
to read it at all.

Perhaps you'd like to indicate which of those 102 pages is
supposed to convince me that the farm-raised rainbow trout
sitting on ice in the seafood section of my local grocery
store is full of poisons and toxins. Every list I can find
of safe to eat commercial fish in the US lists farm-raised
rainbow trout as among the safest.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Well now Kenny boy, at the risk of falling foul of another of your
stupid tactics, what we are discussing here is primarily European
stocked fish, because that is what I know about.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Apparently, you've morphed into a nappy-headed cause
Nazi homo ho, and like most cause Nazis, you know damned little about
your "cause"...

That is what the subject matter is, and your views on American
stocked or farmed fish, though doubtless interesting, if uninformed,
are not entirely relevant at the moment. No reason why one should
not include them specifically if people wish to.

Having said that, farmed salmonids from anywhere in the world all
suffer from the same problems, because they are all reared in the
same manner using the same feed, and with all the same attendant
problems. Even cursory research will prove that, even to your
satisfaction. There is no other way to do it.

I have no idea what lists you might be referring to, but whatever they
might be, they are in error, because fish which are fed on fishmeal,
and there is no alternative to fishmeal for salmonid farming,
regardless of whether it is for marine or freshwater farming,

Er, wrong, wrong, wrong, at least according to actual textbooks,
bo-o-o-o-r-r-r-ring papers and the like, as well as feed producers and
fish farmers...you know, people that actually know something about that
of which they are writing. For example, a look at Stickley (Encycl. of
Aqua., Wiley, 2000, pp 717, 773) or "Fishmeal and Fish oil Facts and
Figures", GAFTA, shows that fish meal is, at most, 62% of the feed
(fingerlings), with 50% being more the average. 30% is more the US
average for trout, with 45% (salmon) and 35% (trout) being the average
in Europe. In fact, wheat and/or soy products often make up more of
the feed than fish meal. And fresh or salt water does play a role in
protein requirements, and as such and currently, freshwater feed is even
lower in fish meal content. Moreover, there are several alternatives to
both fish meal and fish oil in current use and some of the folks cited
at sites you yourself have posted indicate that, well, lessee: "the use
of fishmeal...in aquaculture...would actually decrease between 2005 and
2010" (As a percent of total ingredients). Fishmeal percentage as an
ingredient is down from 2000, as is overall percentage usage by the
salmonid sector.

There are several ways to "farm" fish, (and BTW, fish farming is
aquaculture, but not all aquaculture is fish farming), they are not
"reared in the same manner," and they do not have "all the same
attendant problems."

And the EU uses more fishmeal for land livestock than for aquaculture
(2/3 to 1/3).

Finally, near as can be figured, what started your latest spew of
incorrect pompous bull**** was a guy in England posting a simple trip
report about a particular stocked lake in England (not Europe), to which
you have not returned since running away many years ago nor to which you
have any interest in returning, at least according to you. You then
posted a pantload in response to a question about fishing in England and
were very politely told you didn't know what the **** you were talking
about, again by someone who lives in England. IAC, the OP's lake isn't
a farmop and the management of the lake in question apparently doesn't
feed the stocked fish, pointing out on the website (but not the specific
page) you yourself posted that the naturally-occurring insect population
accounts for the rapid growth, and claims, basically, they are the
best-tasting fish in the UK or something.

accumulate more toxins than any other fish, most especially dioxins
and PCB´s . This is a direct result of feeding fishmeal,

No, it isn't.

and is also
independent and regardless of the drugs and chemicals which are used
in all intensive farming operations.

So, if I were you, I would look for some other information than that
on the lists you have found. Or, you can just believe what it says on
your lists, and continue poisoning yourself. It is no skin off my
nose.

If you wish to believe your lists, then there is little point in you
discussing the matter at all, now is there?

MC

Now go back to ****ing up TVs and cattle fencing, hanging out in train
stations, and writing the FBI...

R

Fishing for stocked fish.
 

On 17 Sep, 05:04, wrote:

Seems you did some research. Makes no difference, the wild protein to
fishmeal conversion ratio is the same, regardless of the percentage of
the fishmeal in the feed, and the various feed percentages are taken
into account when calculating THE AMOUNT OF FISHMEAL required to
achieve a certain poundage of farmed fish, this is regardless of the
rest of the feed involved.

If you had been somewhat more thorough, you would have discovered
that, and also that one can not grow on farmed salmonids without the
fish meal. The lipids in meal or oil additives are essential.

So **** you as well sonny boy.

MC