|
|
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
On Mar 10, 2:13 pm, Willi wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote: Fish are killed when caught and released. Yes, of course, this happens. Yet, Plato, it does not matter because human's recreation justifies it. By that reasoning Socrates, humans can stress, maim and kill animals for pleasure alone, this includes dogs and cats. No, No Plato you must understand, Fish are different. Why are they different Socrates and where will we draw the line? That is a question that if taken to the extreme, wouldn't allow us to do much or anything "for pleasure alone." We play a game of baseball, we kill living things. We go for a walk in the park, we kill living things. Where do YOU draw the line? Insects, one celled animals, Or why stop at animals, how about plants? Or even bacteria and viruses? We ALL draw a line somewhere. Willi Agreed. Drawing that line. It's a very interesting and exceedingly difficult thing to try and do. For one, it's not clear that there's even a line for a demarcation of where we would 'wantonly' stress, maim or kill an organism. I'm not sure what other organisms we even do that for (to?) to be honest. But, if there is a line of what organisms we'd wantonly stress, maim or kill I'm not sure how to draw it. What is 'above' or 'below' any such line? Is a bird above or below a fish? Is a fish above or below a reptile? What about a bat? So "mammals" wouldn't be an organizational boundary either I'd think. This gets to a really, really meaty question and I'm glad to ask you. Why do we only 'fish' for fish? Your pal, Halfordian Golfer |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... Agreed. Drawing that line. It's a very interesting and exceedingly difficult thing to try and do. For one, it's not clear that there's even a line for a demarcation of where we would 'wantonly' stress, maim or kill an organism. I'm not sure what other organisms we even do that for (to?) to be honest. But, if there is a line of what organisms we'd wantonly stress, maim or kill I'm not sure how to draw it. What is 'above' or 'below' any such line? Is a bird above or below a fish? Is a fish above or below a reptile? What about a bat? So "mammals" wouldn't be an organizational boundary either I'd think. This gets to a really, really meaty question and I'm glad to ask you. Why do we only 'fish' for fish? I guess you've never been to a rodeo. Or a bull fight, or a cock fight, or a dog fight. Heck, have you ever seen someone break a horse? That animal looks pretty stressed. How do you view all the various "training" that pets go through for our companionship? Tim, why are you so singleminded about C&R? What do you hope to accomplish? Danl |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
On Mar 10, 6:37 pm, "Danl" danlfinn@*remove this*intergate.com
wrote: "Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... Agreed. Drawing that line. It's a very interesting and exceedingly difficult thing to try and do. For one, it's not clear that there's even a line for a demarcation of where we would 'wantonly' stress, maim or kill an organism. I'm not sure what other organisms we even do that for (to?) to be honest. But, if there is a line of what organisms we'd wantonly stress, maim or kill I'm not sure how to draw it. What is 'above' or 'below' any such line? Is a bird above or below a fish? Is a fish above or below a reptile? What about a bat? So "mammals" wouldn't be an organizational boundary either I'd think. This gets to a really, really meaty question and I'm glad to ask you. Why do we only 'fish' for fish? I guess you've never been to a rodeo. Or a bull fight, or a cock fight, or a dog fight. Heck, have you ever seen someone break a horse? That animal looks pretty stressed. How do you view all the various "training" that pets go through for our companionship? Tim, why are you so singleminded about C&R? What do you hope to accomplish? Danl Bull Fighting | C&R Cock Fighting | Dog Fighting Rodeo Calf Roping Horse Breaking Excellent Comparisons. Remember you came up with the list, not me. No, I have never been to a dog fight though I think I'd get pretty upset at one. I don't think breaking a horse should be on that same list if, for no other reason, the "just for fun" clause is non-specific. Horses are very useful and excellent companions. Rodeo I'd say is questionable and somewhere in between, however. Still, I struggle to think of any other animal we actually impale with a hook in the anatomy somewhere and then drag to us, for no damned good reason except it's really fun. Can you? Your pal, Halfordian Golfer |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
On Mar 10, 6:37 pm, "Danl" danlfinn@*remove this*intergate.com
wrote: Tim, why are you so singleminded about C&R? What do you hope to accomplish? Because I think fishing should not reduce a wild animal to the status of golf ball. Because I would like to heighten people's awareness of the fact that the fish is a wonderful wild animal that is fighting for its life every day and that we should never, ever take that for granted. Because I would like to retain the heritage of the fisherman. Because I like to eat trout when I'm camping. Because I think pure C&R is an easy target for animal rights groups and that it probably should be. The last bit I want to understand and learn about and explore as much as possible because it is interesting and a worthy goal. |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... Still, I struggle to think of any other animal we actually impale with a hook in the anatomy somewhere and then drag to us, for no damned good reason except it's really fun. Can you? Your pal, Halfordian Golfer Tim, you're very, very obviously just splitting hairs. I do not think you're being forthright in your side of this "debate". A rodeo is nowhere "in between". So, I'll leave you to your soapbox with this last question. For the sake of your question, how different is fishing from horseback riding, assuming the horseback riding is , as it almost always is, for fun rather than work? Hook in mouth: bit in mouth. Drag to us: drag all over Hell's half acre. No damned good reason for either except for our fun and amusement. BTW, I tend not to drive nails into a fishes fins (horse's feet). The amount of time the fish needs to be in my domain of influence for my pleasure is a few seconds to a couple of minutes: the horse needs to give his entire lifetime whether I ride him daily, monthly, or never. Point is, we humans "stress" lots of animals, including other humans, in our normal daily lives. It's not unusual. It's human. You, for whatever your reasons might be, single out C&R for fish as something totally different. It's not. Hey, I tried to have a conversation. My mistake. EOT Take care, Danl |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
On Mar 10, 7:34 pm, "Danl" danlfinn@*remove this*intergate.com
wrote: "Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... Still, I struggle to think of any other animal we actually impale with a hook in the anatomy somewhere and then drag to us, for no damned good reason except it's really fun. Can you? Your pal, Halfordian Golfer Tim, you're very, very obviously just splitting hairs. I do not think you're being forthright in your side of this "debate". A rodeo is nowhere "in between". So, I'll leave you to your soapbox with this last question. For the sake of your question, how different is fishing from horseback riding, assuming the horseback riding is , as it almost always is, for fun rather than work? Hook in mouth: bit in mouth. Drag to us: drag all over Hell's half acre. No damned good reason for either except for our fun and amusement. BTW, I tend not to drive nails into a fishes fins (horse's feet). The amount of time the fish needs to be in my domain of influence for my pleasure is a few seconds to a couple of minutes: the horse needs to give his entire lifetime whether I ride him daily, monthly, or never. Point is, we humans "stress" lots of animals, including other humans, in our normal daily lives. It's not unusual. It's human. You, for whatever your reasons might be, single out C&R for fish as something totally different. It's not. Hey, I tried to have a conversation. My mistake. EOT Take care, Danl Hi Danl, Not sure what you mean by your last sentence. The dialogue was just getting started and I certainly made a specific and on-topic point. You bring up horses. I know horses are used and rewarded in the form of a pretty good life and a lot of love. Where they are not the horses are confiscated and the owner on the 10 O:Clock news. They work hard for their living and their nurture. Not unlike humans. Your pal, Halfordian Golfer |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
On Mar 10, 7:34 pm, "Danl" danlfinn@*remove this*intergate.com
wrote: [snip] Tim, you're very, very obviously just splitting hairs. I do not think you're being forthright in your side of this "debate". A rodeo is nowhere "in between". So Calf Roping is where? With horseback riding or with dog fighting? Again, very interesting that you compared these things to C&R fishing. I was thinking something that has a tremendous amount in common with it, historical and social...fox hunting. Where does C&R compare to fox hunting? Your pal, Halfordian Golfer |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
|
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 18:52:17 -0700 (PDT), Halfordian Golfer
wrote: You bring up horses. I know horses are used and rewarded in the form of a pretty good life and a lot of love. Where they are not the horses are confiscated and the owner on the 10 O:Clock news. They work hard for their living and their nurture. Not unlike humans. He brought up horses and what we do to them. There is little difference what we do to a horse for the sake of riding them than we do catching a fish. Bridle/bit easily equates to hook - nails in the hooves has no equal in the fish world, and like Dan'l says, we domesticate the horse and ride him all the time for our *pleasure*. It must suck to be a horse compared to a brook trout. You live in horse country; how's come you aren't out there complaining about all them cowpokes poking horses? Eh? Give up fishing, Tim. It is your only solution. Dave |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
Please cofine your remarks to stay on topic
In case you forgot fish and fishing or you will be banned to ROFF where you were spawned from Fred |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
|
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
On Mar 10, 9:48 pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 18:52:17 -0700 (PDT), Halfordian Golfer wrote: You bring up horses. I know horses are used and rewarded in the form of a pretty good life and a lot of love. Where they are not the horses are confiscated and the owner on the 10 O:Clock news. They work hard for their living and their nurture. Not unlike humans. He brought up horses and what we do to them. There is little difference what we do to a horse for the sake of riding them than we do catching a fish. Bridle/bit easily equates to hook - nails in the hooves has no equal in the fish world, and like Dan'l says, we domesticate the horse and ride him all the time for our *pleasure*. It must suck to be a horse compared to a brook trout. You live in horse country; how's come you aren't out there complaining about all them cowpokes poking horses? Eh? Give up fishing, Tim. It is your only solution. Dave I guess you're right Dave, about the horses, that is. I didn't realize the similarities until now. Q. What do horses and catch and release trout have in common? A. They're both domesticated animals. Halfordian Golfer It is impossible to catch and release a wild trout. |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
... Below is the entire email thread I had with Forrest Bonney with the Maine F&G. He gave me explicit approval to repost it here. Please note that I post it in its entirety and without qualification or opinion. It is my sincere hope that this is useful. ... I don't know about useful but it proves Louie was absolutely correct about C&R in the Rapid River. Most of us knew that already of course. And it also shows you're an obsessed crackpot, but then most of us knew that already too. So that's two instances you've been given where "pure C&R" is the best fishery management tool for a particular fishery, the brook trout fishery on the Rapid River in Maine and the smallmouth fishery of the Sylvania Wilderness in Michigan. Hope, but seriously doubts, this helps. -- Ken Fortenberry |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
On Mar 11, 9:40 am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: I don't know about useful but it proves Louie was absolutely correct about C&R in the Rapid River. Most of us knew that already of course. And it also shows you're an obsessed crackpot, but then most of us knew that already too. So that's two instances you've been given where "pure C&R" is the best fishery management tool for a particular fishery, the brook trout fishery on the Rapid River in Maine and the smallmouth fishery of the Sylvania Wilderness in Michigan. Hope, but seriously doubts, this helps. -- Ken Fortenberry I basically agree, except about the personal attacks. No doubt, all of Louie's knowledge, insight and passion for this wonderful place is spot on and it's been a privilege to learn more about. I acknowledge the 'status quo' in the response. You have to pretty much expect this. To be objective, however, it is also true that the pure C&R regulations on the Rapid went from 60 to 0 as the result of social as opposed to biological management rationales. Good stuff Maynard. There is a fascinating question in this. Is it the big brook trout that is causing a recruitment problem? Man, those bruisers must vacuum up a lot of fry. Dave says he doesn't really see that many big bass. Forrest says electroshocking found bass in the bed. Willi - say what you will about tedium man but Columbo don't get better than this. Your pal, Halfordian Golfer |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 18:52:17 -0700 (PDT), Halfordian Golfer
wrote: You bring up horses. I know horses are used and rewarded in the form of a pretty good life and a lot of love. Where they are not the horses are confiscated and the owner on the 10 O:Clock news. They work hard for their living and their nurture. Not unlike humans. Ever been to a rodeo and seen a bronc come up lame after a ride? When they drag it off on a pipe rail gate to the back 40, those cops that go along are not there to protect the horsie from too much love. -- Charlie... http://www.chocphoto.com |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
I believe Forest is wrong with his dates: I didn't start fishing the
Rapid until 1988 and it was NOT c&r then. You could kill 1 brook trout or 1 salmon/day. I think he meant 1996. Dave |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote: I don't know about useful but it proves Louie was absolutely correct about C&R in the Rapid River. Most of us knew that already of course. And it also shows you're an obsessed crackpot, but then most of us knew that already too. So that's two instances you've been given where "pure C&R" is the best fishery management tool for a particular fishery, the brook trout fishery on the Rapid River in Maine and the smallmouth fishery of the Sylvania Wilderness in Michigan. Hope, but seriously doubts, this helps. I basically agree, except about the personal attacks. ... Now you're whining about personal attacks ? What did you expect from a stark and wanton killer of wildlife who has not a "spank" of conscience, you crazy piece of **** ? Your pal, I am not your pal. -- Ken Fortenberry |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:02:57 -0700 (PDT), Halfordian Golfer
wrote: Is it the big brook trout that is causing a recruitment problem? Man, those bruisers must vacuum up a lot of fry. Dave says he doesn't really see that many big bass. Forrest says electroshocking found bass in the bed. Forrect was at the meeting where the biologist explained about getting rid of bass in a particular pond. The bass in the Rapid are there to stay. How badly they will impact the fisherey is not known at this time, but to all the people that are trying to rid the river of the bass, al I can say is, "Good luck." If I catch a smallmouth in the river, I will dispatch it without much pity. I haven't seen *any* big bass, but I have been told that some have been taken and killed. The bad news is that smallmouth have been caught in Cupsuptic Lake (a part of Mooselookmaguntic), probably as a result of illegal stocking by some fool. Catch and kill all you want with the bass (or, ftm, any fish in the lakes), but leave the brook trout of the Rapid alone. Let them thrive as best they can. Dave |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
On Mar 11, 11:20 am, Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:02:57 -0700 (PDT), Halfordian Golfer wrote: Is it the big brook trout that is causing a recruitment problem? Man, those bruisers must vacuum up a lot of fry. Dave says he doesn't really see that many big bass. Forrest says electroshocking found bass in the bed. Forrect was at the meeting where the biologist explained about getting rid of bass in a particular pond. The bass in the Rapid are there to stay. How badly they will impact the fisherey is not known at this time, but to all the people that are trying to rid the river of the bass, al I can say is, "Good luck." If I catch a smallmouth in the river, I will dispatch it without much pity. I haven't seen *any* big bass, but I have been told that some have been taken and killed. The bad news is that smallmouth have been caught in Cupsuptic Lake (a part of Mooselookmaguntic), probably as a result of illegal stocking by some fool. Catch and kill all you want with the bass (or, ftm, any fish in the lakes), but leave the brook trout of the Rapid alone. Let them thrive as best they can. Dave I hear ya. The thing is....if the brookies are getting big and the bass are not...is it possible...go with me here man...that the big brook trout you're letting go are eating a lot of the fry contributing to the decrease in recruitment seen? It must be contributory? Thoughts? How many baby trout does a 5 pounder eat a day? Your pal, Halfordian Golfer |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
I basically agree, except about the personal attacks. No doubt, all of Louie's knowledge, insight and passion for this wonderful place is spot on and it's been a privilege to learn more about. I acknowledge the 'status quo' in the response. You have to pretty much expect this. To be objective, however, it is also true that the pure C&R regulations on the Rapid went from 60 to 0 as the result of social as opposed to biological management rationales. Good stuff Maynard. There is a fascinating question in this. Is it the big brook trout that is causing a recruitment problem? Man, those bruisers must vacuum up a lot of fry. Dave says he doesn't really see that many big bass. Forrest says electroshocking found bass in the bed. Willi - say what you will about tedium man but Columbo don't get better than this. Your pal, Halfordian Golfer It's your moral lamenting that I find tedious. Although you may find this offensive, to me, it smacks of the discourse of a newly, born again Christian. The thread has now evolved into a discussion of fishery management techniques which is something that does interests me. Maybe the thread should be renamed? One of the things I find most interesting is the different approaches taken by the fishery departments across the Country. With most, there is a balance between the biology and the political, with states leaning more one way or the other. I bemoan the fact that Colorado tilts toward the political. In Colorado, the one positive thing outcome of whirling disease, is that it forced the DOW to take a more biologically sound approach to their fisheries. Now that they have "clean" hatcheries and a whirling disease strain of Rainbows, we'll see what happens. Willi |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
At least I am not and ass like you
- and a fat and stupid one at that Waddle off with your bottle of scotch and shut the **** up Come back when you learn how to be civil But I do not think that you can do that ! Cease and desist putting down everyone who thinks differently than you That is not doo difficult because you are not a very deep thinker = just a stupid old **** who knows no better Dave: Continue your drunken stupor -Pehaps you should smoke a joint or shoot some dope Try a speedball - At your age it would be good for all of us if you passed on into the netherworld from a heart attack But your drinking also is not improving your health It would certainly be beneficial to these groups It could not hurt an jackass w no personality and a cheap one at that Goodby and good riddnace I donot have time for your snivekling and sniping BS Plonk again Love Fred Fred |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:36:11 GMT, wrote:
Plonk again Hhahahahahaha that sez alot, Fred. You are either drunk or spaced out on something. Going to Chile soon - within hours. You still have time to hope that the plane crashes. d;o) Dave, Doctor to the Demented (down now to 208 lbs, lookin' and feelin' great. ) |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:38:23 -0700 (PDT), Halfordian Golfer
wrote: The thing is....if the brookies are getting big and the bass are not...is it possible...go with me here man...that the big brook trout you're letting go are eating a lot of the fry contributing to the decrease in recruitment seen? It must be contributory? Thoughts? How many baby trout does a 5 pounder eat a day? You are bound and determined that you are gonna kill those big brookies, right, Tim. d;o) What decrease in "recruitment"? If you look back at my posts (somewhere in this tedious mess of c&k nonsense) you will find where I said that I was very happy to see many small (6 to 14) inch trout last year. And lots of them. It was a sign that the bass have yet to have a terribly bad effect on the trout/salmon population. I imagine that a five pound brook trout eats a lot of baby brook trout. They coexist together quite nicely. I imagine a 27 inch landlocked salmon eats lots of salmon and brook trout. They coexits together quite nicely. There have been some big bass taken. I have not seen any, but have heard stories from reliable sources that big bass have been removed from the river. THEY are more of a threat to the small trout/salmon population than big brookies are. Dave |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
On Mar 11, 2:23 pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:38:23 -0700 (PDT), Halfordian Golfer wrote: The thing is....if the brookies are getting big and the bass are not...is it possible...go with me here man...that the big brook trout you're letting go are eating a lot of the fry contributing to the decrease in recruitment seen? It must be contributory? Thoughts? How many baby trout does a 5 pounder eat a day? You are bound and determined that you are gonna kill those big brookies, right, Tim. d;o) What decrease in "recruitment"? If you look back at my posts (somewhere in this tedious mess of c&k nonsense) you will find where I said that I was very happy to see many small (6 to 14) inch trout last year. And lots of them. It was a sign that the bass have yet to have a terribly bad effect on the trout/salmon population. I imagine that a five pound brook trout eats a lot of baby brook trout. They coexist together quite nicely. I imagine a 27 inch landlocked salmon eats lots of salmon and brook trout. They coexits together quite nicely. There have been some big bass taken. I have not seen any, but have heard stories from reliable sources that big bass have been removed from the river. THEY are more of a threat to the small trout/salmon population than big brookies are. Dave I was reading that a fish that has become piscavorius by their first year they will be larger and stay larger than other fish in the same year class. I also know that brook trout have voracious appetites. Sounds like it's healthy enough that a slot limit would be perfect. Congratulations on the weight loss and have a great trip! We'll hold down the fort. Your pal, Halfordian Golfer |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality ofLife
I was reading that a fish that has become piscavorius by their first year they will be larger and stay larger than other fish in the same year class. I also know that brook trout have voracious appetites. Sounds like it's healthy enough that a slot limit would be perfect. Your argument that the harvesting of "large fish" is good for the fishery has been disputed. There are a number of new studies that have shown that harvesting the larger fish leads to a population of small and more timid fish. With a quick Google I wasn't able to find the studies themselves but here's a discussion of two of them. http://whyfiles.org/shorties/108big_fish/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23340940/ Willi |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality ofLife
On Mar 11, 3:01 pm, Willi wrote:
I was reading that a fish that has become piscavorius by their first year they will be larger and stay larger than other fish in the same year class. I also know that brook trout have voracious appetites. Sounds like it's healthy enough that a slot limit would be perfect. Your argument that the harvesting of "large fish" is good for the fishery has been disputed. There are a number of new studies that have shown that harvesting the larger fish leads to a population of small and more timid fish. With a quick Google I wasn't able to find the studies themselves but here's a discussion of two of them. http://whyfiles.org/shorties/108big_fish/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23340940/ Willi Appreciate the links. Good reads. The first study, you have to read all the way down to see the contraindications. This is a very, very small survey in a fairly unusual lab setup. That said, there is a lot of data to back up this theory that, removing the fastest growing fish yields slower growing year classes. One issue I have with applying this logic too much to the fishery management equation we're talking about is that it might not mean that much, compared to the situations of the studies. That is that once a large minimum was introduced you'd have a ton of fish just under the slot that would be of varying age. This would be a good thing. The other significant and as directly and equally important complexity, especially in this equation, is the fact that it is the fish that are piscavorius early are the largest and fastest growing fish in the year class. If we protect the largest and fastest growing fish it would be predictable that we'd see a dip in recruitment. Maybe this is what is mistaken in some of these studies? http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi...1999.tb02064.x Halfordian Golfer |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 13:42:14 -0700 (PDT), Halfordian Golfer
wrote: Sounds like it's healthy enough that a slot limit would be perfect. Tim, your motives are so obvious in all of this. You want to kill a trout. You don't care what the impact is. You just *have* to kill a trout. The river is existing quite nicely now. No kill on the brook trout will keep the river safe. Have you ever been to Labrador, Tim? The brook trout there grow to 10 lbs. They coexist with northern pike, landlocked salmon, laketrout (all piscivorous species), and whitefish. |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Qualityof Life
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
On Mar 11, 3:01 pm, Willi wrote: I was reading that a fish that has become piscavorius by their first year they will be larger and stay larger than other fish in the same year class. I also know that brook trout have voracious appetites. Sounds like it's healthy enough that a slot limit would be perfect. Your argument that the harvesting of "large fish" is good for the fishery has been disputed. There are a number of new studies that have shown that harvesting the larger fish leads to a population of small and more timid fish. With a quick Google I wasn't able to find the studies themselves but here's a discussion of two of them. http://whyfiles.org/shorties/108big_fish/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23340940/ Willi Appreciate the links. Good reads. The first study, you have to read all the way down to see the contraindications. This is a very, very small survey in a fairly unusual lab setup. That said, there is a lot of data to back up this theory that, removing the fastest growing fish yields slower growing year classes. One issue I have with applying this logic too much to the fishery management equation we're talking about is that it might not mean that much, compared to the situations of the studies. That is that once a large minimum was introduced you'd have a ton of fish just under the slot that would be of varying age. This would be a good thing. The other significant and as directly and equally important complexity, especially in this equation, is the fact that it is the fish that are piscavorius early are the largest and fastest growing fish in the year class. If we protect the largest and fastest growing fish it would be predictable that we'd see a dip in recruitment. Maybe this is what is mistaken in some of these studies? http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi...1999.tb02064.x Halfordian Golfer There are more studies. It seems to be an area that's an "in" thing to study right now. Most of the studies I looked at indicate that removing the largest fish changes the genetics. It just makes sense that removing the fish with the genes that result in large sizes will result in smaller fish over time. It's possible that some of the stunted populations of Brookies we have out West were selected for by years of keeping the larger fish. That likely could results in fish that reach a maximum size smaller than what most anglers are willing to keep. It's been MANY years since Brookies have been stocked and maybe the genes for producing larger fish are gone in many populations. I have a property in southern Colorado that has a small stream on it. It has VERY small Brookies that will spawn at three and four inches. The largest fish I've ever seen was about 6 inches. If there were Rainbows, Browns or Cutts in this stream instead of the Brookies, the fish would be considerably bigger. I know you've seen these stunted populations and often they're not due just to stream size and fertility. I'm not sure why you always want to target the largest fish for removal? Willi |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi...1999.tb02064.x What's interesting about the abstract in this URL, (if I understand it correctly) the fish that start eating other fish vary from a size of 17.5 cm to 36 cm and an age of 3 to 9 years old. A slot limit of that range would be devastating. Plus you would be catching and keeping fish that were both fish and insect eaters. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems pretty clear to me. JT |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality ofLife
On Mar 11, 4:24 pm, "JT" wrote:
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi...-8649.1999.tb0... What's interesting about the abstract in this URL, (if I understand it correctly) the fish that start eating other fish vary from a size of 17.5 cm to 36 cm and an age of 3 to 9 years old. A slot limit of that range would be devastating. Plus you would be catching and keeping fish that were both fish and insect eaters. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems pretty clear to me. JT I'm confused by what you're saying? What slot limit would be devastating? Can you provide a bit more context? I ask because folks seem to always forget that there is still a daily bag and possession limit. Thanks, TBone |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... I'm confused by what you're saying? What slot limit would be devastating? Can you provide a bit more context? I ask because folks seem to always forget that there is still a daily bag and possession limit. Thanks, TBone In the URL you provided, they said fish as young as 3 years old and 17.5 cm to fish 9 years old and 36 cm become piscivory (roughly fish 7 to 14 1/4 inches). Quote: "Brown trout switched to piscivory from 3 years onwards, and a body length of 17·5 cm, according to back calculation from scales. Fast growers switched to piscivory at a younger age and smaller size than slow growers. The most slow-growing trout switched to fish feeding at 9 years old and a mean body length of 36 cm." What I'm saying is the size range of fish that are eating fry is much too large. In no way could you effectively put a slot limit in play that would not take fish from both groups (piscivory & invertebrate feeders). If you put a catch and keep slot limit anywhere in the range, you are going to be taking fish that are reproducing invertebrate feeders only. Based on your previous posts, you suggested that taking the fish that are eating the fry would help with recruitment. So, I'm curious what you would suggest as a slot limit for Brown trout based on these findings in Lake Femund? HTH, JT |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality ofLife
On Mar 12, 10:51 am, "JT" wrote:
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... I'm confused by what you're saying? What slot limit would be devastating? Can you provide a bit more context? I ask because folks seem to always forget that there is still a daily bag and possession limit. Thanks, TBone In the URL you provided, they said fish as young as 3 years old and 17.5 cm to fish 9 years old and 36 cm become piscivory (roughly fish 7 to 14 1/4 inches). Quote: "Brown trout switched to piscivory from 3 years onwards, and a body length of 17·5 cm, according to back calculation from scales. Fast growers switched to piscivory at a younger age and smaller size than slow growers. The most slow-growing trout switched to fish feeding at 9 years old and a mean body length of 36 cm." What I'm saying is the size range of fish that are eating fry is much too large. In no way could you effectively put a slot limit in play that would not take fish from both groups (piscivory & invertebrate feeders). If you put a catch and keep slot limit anywhere in the range, you are going to be taking fish that are reproducing invertebrate feeders only. Based on your previous posts, you suggested that taking the fish that are eating the fry would help with recruitment. So, I'm curious what you would suggest as a slot limit for Brown trout based on these findings in Lake Femund? HTH, JT Hi JT, don't have enough data to say for sure. Let's say 1 fish over 35cm angler must quit fishing. One thing you really must accept JT is that C&R is incredibly rare. I'd suggest less than .5% of all waters are mandated C&R. So, the restrictive regulations and limited harvest must work. Correct? Halfordian Golfer Thanks, Tim |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... Let's say 1 fish over 35cm angler must quit fishing. You will quite possibly have to release several fish before you catch one that is 35 cm if you even catch one of that size. How do you feel about that and how can you actually fish waters with this regulation given your beliefs about mortality and C&R fishing? One thing you really must accept JT is that C&R is incredibly rare. I agree, C&R is rare, I wish that wasn't the case. When I was a young boy and my Dad was teaching me how to flyfish along with C&R, we could go down to the local river and catch several fish in an evening. At the time, there were catch limits in place. Over the years the fishing declined to the point that it was tough to catch a fish. The regulations have since change to C&R and the river is once again coming back. It's very similar to the story that Dave tells about the Rapid River. I'd suggest less than .5% of all waters are mandated C&R. So, the restrictive regulations and limited harvest must work. Correct? Yes, I think "limited" harvest will preserve a fishery to a point, however I contend that C&R would be more effective. And based on your theory about recruitment, I don't think you can deny the URL you provide shoots holes in that theory. JT |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality ofLife
On Mar 12, 1:46 pm, "JT" wrote:
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... Let's say 1 fish over 35cm angler must quit fishing. You will quite possibly have to release several fish before you catch one that is 35 cm if you even catch one of that size. How do you feel about that and how can you actually fish waters with this regulation given your beliefs about mortality and C&R fishing? One thing you really must accept JT is that C&R is incredibly rare. I agree, C&R is rare, I wish that wasn't the case. When I was a young boy and my Dad was teaching me how to flyfish along with C&R, we could go down to the local river and catch several fish in an evening. At the time, there were catch limits in place. Over the years the fishing declined to the point that it was tough to catch a fish. The regulations have since change to C&R and the river is once again coming back. It's very similar to the story that Dave tells about the Rapid River. I'd suggest less than .5% of all waters are mandated C&R. So, the restrictive regulations and limited harvest must work. Correct? Yes, I think "limited" harvest will preserve a fishery to a point, however I contend that C&R would be more effective. And based on your theory about recruitment, I don't think you can deny the URL you provide shoots holes in that theory. JT In your first example this is simply culling or Selective Harvest. It is the backbone of our management strategies and has been for a long time. Every single lobster that comes on a lobsterman's boat is measured. Some go in the well, some go back to grow up. One of the reasons for this discourse is to distinguish clearly between the two. Most fisheries managers are referring to selective harvest when they say catch and release. Anyway, it comes back to intent. Limited harvest will preserve a fishery forever, not to a point. Pure C&R creates incident mortality. Selective harvest can target this, so it's more useful as a management tool. That said, any fishery which can not withstand the mortality incident to pure C&R (which is always the same or more impactful than restricted angling) should be closed to fishing. I have seen the endgame of Catch and Release and it's not pretty. You'll recognize him. He is a man with plaid waders holding up a one- eyed lipless re-catch splashing through the hole you're fishing screaming "Aye and that makes thirrrrrrrrrty, you're buyin' the dinner" loud enough that it rattles the lichen off the rocks. Your pal, Halfordian Golfer |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Qualityof Life
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Limited harvest will preserve a fishery forever, not to a point. Pure C&R creates incident mortality. Selective harvest can target this, so it's more useful as a management tool. That said, any fishery which can not withstand the mortality incident to pure C&R (which is always the same or more impactful than restricted angling) should be closed to fishing. Why do you seem to have the desire to "cull" large fish? Can you cite ANY study that shows that taking out large fish improves the fishery? I cited two (and can find more) that show that the taking of large fish has a detrimental effect. Willi |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Qualityof Life
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
... Limited harvest will preserve a fishery forever, not to a point. Pure C&R creates incident mortality. Selective harvest can target this, so it's more useful as a management tool. That said, any fishery which can not withstand the mortality incident to pure C&R (which is always the same or more impactful than restricted angling) should be closed to fishing. ... You're not making sense. The only difference between C&R and selective harvest is C&R kills less fish. The only thing slot limits/selective harvest addresses is the size of the fish harvested, it does not address incidental death due to catch and release which is exactly the same in both cases. -- Ken Fortenberry |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:53:16 -0700 (PDT), Halfordian Golfer
wrote: One thing you really must accept JT is that C&R is incredibly rare. I'd suggest less than .5% of all waters are mandated C&R. So, the restrictive regulations and limited harvest must work. Correct? It is not the state mandating or using C&R, but the individual fishermen. WE know C&R is a valuable tool in preserving a water. Kill the fish and you end up with stockers. It is not difficult to understand that, yet you seem to have this great hang-up about it. Mortality is *final*. There is nothing left after you kill a beautiful fish. No one else can catch it and marvel at its beauty and strength. You should not fish in a river that has wild fish, Tim. You should stick to put and take fisheries. Dave |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality ofLife
On Mar 12, 3:22 pm, Willi wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote: Limited harvest will preserve a fishery forever, not to a point. Pure C&R creates incident mortality. Selective harvest can target this, so it's more useful as a management tool. That said, any fishery which can not withstand the mortality incident to pure C&R (which is always the same or more impactful than restricted angling) should be closed to fishing. Why do you seem to have the desire to "cull" large fish? Can you cite ANY study that shows that taking out large fish improves the fishery? I cited two (and can find more) that show that the taking of large fish has a detrimental effect. Willi Never said that. I am interested in culling the fish that makes the most sense for the given situation and large fish are good candidates because they start to create negative yield from a fishery. Slots on both sides with restricted bags and restricted fishing, instead of C&R and watch the quality of the fishery soar. Your pal, TBone |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality ofLife
On Mar 12, 3:47 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: Halfordian Golfer wrote: ... Limited harvest will preserve a fishery forever, not to a point. Pure C&R creates incident mortality. Selective harvest can target this, so it's more useful as a management tool. That said, any fishery which can not withstand the mortality incident to pure C&R (which is always the same or more impactful than restricted angling) should be closed to fishing. ... You're not making sense. The only difference between C&R and selective harvest is C&R kills less fish. The only thing slot limits/selective harvest addresses is the size of the fish harvested, it does not address incidental death due to catch and release which is exactly the same in both cases. -- Ken Fortenberry I've demonstrated the fallacy of this argument 100 times. Look at it this way. I fish 4 times a year. I kill 2 each time. That means I've killed 8 fish. Contrast that to the angler who fishes 50 times and averages 20 fish an outing. That's 1000 fish hooked and hauled. Assuming 1% mortality (probably way more when you consider the accumulated nature of stress) and you've killed 10 fish minimum. Assume I had to hook 100 to catch my 8 so I killed 9. Unlimited C&R kills more than restricted C&K and that's just a fact whether you like it or not. Halfordian Golfer |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:48 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter