|
|
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality ofLife
On Mar 12, 4:04 pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:
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 People en masse do a lot of stupid things. People en masse put a shrub in the whitehouse. People en masse have lobbies and special interests. I'll listen to the fisheries managers thank you very much. As Forrest said, C&R on the Rapid is a Social invention, not a biological one. If you want to argue that, than you take the time to write him. Have a great trip. I thought you'd already left? Your pal, Halfordian Golfer |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Qualityof Life
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote: 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. I've demonstrated the fallacy of this argument 100 times. LOL !! Yet another crackpot claim. 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. Why not contrast 4 times a year with 4 times a year or 50 times a year with 50 times a year ? You don't make sense. -- Ken Fortenberry |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
On Mar 5, 6:59 pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 15:40:16 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer wrote: Maybe I'm not sure what the word "wild" means. buzzer We have a winner in the loges, Doctor. OK Dr. maybe you can help. Here's my problem (relaxing on the alt flyfishing couch)...I always thought the word "wild" was an antonym for "domesticated" and that it was a 'relative' term describing the degree from which something is disassociated from man. There are like 18 definitions but, really, it means not cultivated or domesticated by man. Yet, it seems everyone else around here thinks it means something else because they keep talking about wild trout that live in the freeking park and have humans elbow to elbow hooking them in to pet them. That's not wild man. So they say they mean "streamborn" well, that's not one of the meanings I've been able to find and, well, it would have to include whitlock-vibert boxes and such but then danged that hand of man...that's not wild. So I calm down and say, "OK fine, I accept that definition" and then they say that they're catch and releasing "wild" rainbow trout. Get that...wild rainbow trout...in Colorado! Let me tell you brother...thay got here by stocking and now they threaten the indiginous fish, so...is that what they mean by wild? And ya know what Doc...a 3 year rainbow holdover is pretty damned hard to tell from one that was borne in the stream. And what about fry and fingerlings? No, I think they mean that we should C&R release indiginous species. That's kind of what this guy Louis keeps saying... Dr. to Tim: Have you thought about applying your own C&K ethic to non- indiginous salmonids in Colorado? I mean kill and eat every brook trout, brown trout and rainbow trout in Colorado you catch, as well as every Bass you see, but...if it's a Cutthroat, let it go. In that way you'd be helping the indiginous fish, setting an excellent conservation ethic for your children and grandchildren and having some delicious campside meals. Will you try that and let me know if you feel better? Halfordian Golfer |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality ofLife
On Mar 12, 5:10 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: Halfordian Golfer wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: 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. I've demonstrated the fallacy of this argument 100 times. LOL !! Yet another crackpot claim. 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. Why not contrast 4 times a year with 4 times a year or 50 times a year with 50 times a year ? You don't make sense. -- Ken Fortenberry Because that would ignore the statistics. The vast majority of licensed anglers fish less than that, once or twice a year....and they're really not very good at it. When I lived in a tourist area people were shocked to learn that I caught fish period but would be shocked to know how many. They fish all weekend by the campground and don't catch anything. That is the average, statistical, license holder. Flyfishermen, statistically, fish more days, longer and are more effective. -- Halfordian Golfer |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:27:18 -0700 (PDT), Halfordian Golfer
wrote: Dr. to Tim: Have you thought about applying your own C&K ethic to non- indiginous salmonids in Colorado? I mean kill and eat every brook trout, brown trout and rainbow trout in Colorado you catch, as well as every Bass you see, but...if it's a Cutthroat, let it go. In that way you'd be helping the Tim, my fishing does not bother my ethics. I *know* that catch and release works - saw it with my very own eyes. And, it continues to work. Now, whenever I catch a laketrout (called togue) that has found his way into the river, if he is big enough, I will keep it. I have in the past. And if I catch a bass big enough to eat, I will keep it. Otherwise the bass will be slit open and returned to the river. Dave |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Qualityof Life
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote: Why not contrast 4 times a year with 4 times a year or 50 times a year with 50 times a year ? You don't make sense. Because that would ignore the statistics. The vast majority of licensed anglers fish less than that, once or twice a year....and they're really not very good at it. You're still not making sense. If what you say is true, (as if ;-), then you should be comparing once or twice C&R with once or twice selective harvest and not fifty versus four. Let me guess, you are not now, nor have you ever been a fisheries biologist or a trained scientist of any stripe. Right ? LOL !! -- Ken Fortenberry |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:57:55 -0700 (PDT), Halfordian Golfer
wrote: Unlimited C&R kills more than restricted C&K and that's just a fact whether you like it or not. Before I leave, I have to say that your statement above makes no sense. I have seen C&K devistate a river, and I have watched the fish gradually come back after C&R was implemented. It is NOT a fact. I've seen catch and kill rape a river almost to the point of complete failure of a species. Catch and release *DOES NOT* kill more fish than catch and kill. If saving the unique strain of brook trout on the Rapid as a political/social move, then I am all for it. The meat gatherers were doing a job on that river and now it is once again a beautiful place to fish. Color me gone fishing for big bows and browns.......... |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Qualityof Life
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
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 Do you have any studies that show that harvest increases the quality of a trout fishery? Willi |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality ofLife
On Mar 12, 6:20 pm, Willi wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote: 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 Do you have any studies that show that harvest increases the quality of a trout fishery? Willi Yes. I love to flyfish every place that allows it but can hardly stomach the places that don't allow it. Think about it. Would you rather fish: the X Fork of the You Know....or the Frying Pan? The Roaring Fork, or the Frying Pan? The Elk or the Taylor Reservior Tail Water? A Wyoming Beaver pond or Cheesman Canyon? I say that tongue in cheek but, it's also intended to ring somewhat true, but you must define quality for it to make any sense at all and quality for me includes isolation and fish that act wild. Don't take it from me, though, take it from John Gierach who talks about when the St. Vrain became famous for a short period of time when it became C&R. The parking lot filled up with cars but the fishing was, more or less, as it always had been. When it was made normal again, the cars left and it stayed the fair to middling creek that it is. This is with a 4 fish limit now: the fishing can be excellent. If it were to get crummy, or if we wanted to tweak it, we could make it 2. This is with no size restrictions, we could add one. Also, these are browns. Very wary. Your pal, Halfordian Golfer Your pal, Halfordian Golfer Seriously. I say that tongue in cheek but, it's also intended to ring somewhat true, but you must define quality for it to make any sense at all and quality for me includes isolation and fish that act wild. Don't take it from me, though, take it from John Gierach who talks about when the St. Vrain became famous for a short period of time when it became C&R. The parking lot filled up with cars but the fishing was, more or less, as it always had been. When it was made normal again, the cars left and it stayed the fair to middling creek that it is. This is with a 4 fish limit now: the fishing can be excellent. If it were to get crummy, or if we wanted to tweak it, we could make it 2. This is with no size restrictions, we could add one. Also, these are browns. Very wary. Your pal, Halfordian Golfer Your pal, Halfordian Golfer |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Qualityof Life
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Do you have any studies that show that harvest increases the quality of a trout fishery? Willi Yes. I love to flyfish every place that allows it but can hardly stomach the places that don't allow it. Think about it. Would you rather fish: the X Fork of the You Know....or the Frying Pan? The Roaring Fork, or the Frying Pan? The Elk or the Taylor Reservior Tail Water? A Wyoming Beaver pond or Cheesman Canyon? I say that tongue in cheek but, it's also intended to ring somewhat true, but you must define quality for it to make any sense at all and quality for me includes isolation and fish that act wild. Don't take it from me, though, take it from John Gierach who talks about when the St. Vrain became famous for a short period of time when it became C&R. The parking lot filled up with cars but the fishing was, more or less, as it always had been. When it was made normal again, the cars left and it stayed the fair to middling creek that it is. This is with a 4 fish limit now: the fishing can be excellent. If it were to get crummy, or if we wanted to tweak it, we could make it 2. This is with no size restrictions, we could add one. Also, these are browns. Very wary. Your pal, Halfordian Golfer I agree that in Colorado, the designation of C&R (or most special regs INCLUDING your "selective" harvest with its slot limits) often leads to over crowding and I tend not to fish those waters for that reason. But that DOESN'T answer my question. In some of your posts you assert or at least imply that "selective" harvest will improve the quality of a fishery (those large fish eaters etc). Can you show ANY study that showed that harvest of any type improved the quality of a self sustaining trout fishery? I can show you study after study that demonstrate that reducing harvest can improve a fishery. Willi |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality ofLife
On Mar 12, 7:40 pm, Willi wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote: Do you have any studies that show that harvest increases the quality of a trout fishery? Willi Yes. I love to flyfish every place that allows it but can hardly stomach the places that don't allow it. Think about it. Would you rather fish: the X Fork of the You Know....or the Frying Pan? The Roaring Fork, or the Frying Pan? The Elk or the Taylor Reservior Tail Water? A Wyoming Beaver pond or Cheesman Canyon? I say that tongue in cheek but, it's also intended to ring somewhat true, but you must define quality for it to make any sense at all and quality for me includes isolation and fish that act wild. Don't take it from me, though, take it from John Gierach who talks about when the St. Vrain became famous for a short period of time when it became C&R. The parking lot filled up with cars but the fishing was, more or less, as it always had been. When it was made normal again, the cars left and it stayed the fair to middling creek that it is. This is with a 4 fish limit now: the fishing can be excellent. If it were to get crummy, or if we wanted to tweak it, we could make it 2. This is with no size restrictions, we could add one. Also, these are browns. Very wary. Your pal, Halfordian Golfer I agree that in Colorado, the designation of C&R (or most special regs INCLUDING your "selective" harvest with its slot limits) often leads to over crowding and I tend not to fish those waters for that reason. But that DOESN'T answer my question. In some of your posts you assert or at least imply that "selective" harvest will improve the quality of a fishery (those large fish eaters etc). Can you show ANY study that showed that harvest of any type improved the quality of a self sustaining trout fishery? I can show you study after study that demonstrate that reducing harvest can improve a fishery. Willi Willi you just said that reducing harvest can improve a fishery. So can increasing harvest. This is as old as the hills. Don't make me spell out "S-T-U-N-T-E-D" again. There is no question about it. Putting two and two together, I think the question you really mean to ask is: Do pure C&R regulations increase the quality of angling in a self-sustaining trout fishery: I think this can be a great thread but, before I can even begin to answer that WIlli, we will have to describe "quality". Does the definition: Large numbers of eager and aggressive large rainbow trout satisfy you? If so than fishing in a hatchery raceway or texas stock pond is a quality experience. Does the definition include: Fishing involves solitude, scenery and a few fish for dinner? Does the definition include: Fish caught are unscarred from previous human encounters? Does the definition include: Fish caught are free from disease and free from dangerous chemicals? Does the definition include: Fish caught have firm colored tasty flesh? Does the definition include: Fish caught are appropriate for the area and do not threaten the ecosystem of that area? Does the definition include: Fish can be caught using lures in addition to flies? Please define quality and give me some comparisons. If you want make a list of places we both know and we'll rank them with an overall quality score? This is going to be hard, so get ready. For example any fishery that does not allow harvest has, by definition, very little quality to an angler but might be extremely high quality to a sportsman. Thanks, Halfordian Golfer |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Qualityof Life
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
nonsense snipped This is going to be hard, so get ready. For example any fishery that does not allow harvest has, by definition, very little quality to an angler but might be extremely high quality to a sportsman. Amazing. Willi, do you *still* think TBone has a coherent argument or even a sane argument ? It's nothing but double talk, nonsense and distortion with the occasional ad hominem for good measure. Just like I said. EOT -- Ken Fortenberry |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... 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. Apples and oranges, this is a horrible analogy and has nothing to do with C&R trout fishing. 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 disagree to a point, I think C&R is more effective. Question: It's okay to catch and release several fish before you catch a fish that meets a slot limit? What about the incident mortality in all the fish you release before catching a keeper!? 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. In my thirty plus years of flyfishing, I have never seen anything like this... Although I do remember a time when I was in my teens, I was fishing a small lake by myself. There were three gals in their twenty skinny dipping and jumping off the rocks about 50 yards away, they were quite loud and the water was obviously fairly cold. ;) I didn't catch a thing that day! JT |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality ofLife
On Mar 13, 8:22 am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: Halfordian Golfer wrote: nonsense snipped This is going to be hard, so get ready. For example any fishery that does not allow harvest has, by definition, very little quality to an angler but might be extremely high quality to a sportsman. Amazing. Willi, do you *still* think TBone has a coherent argument or even a sane argument ? It's nothing but double talk, nonsense and distortion with the occasional ad hominem for good measure. Just like I said. EOT -- Ken Fortenberry I take it you do not like my definitions: sportsman - someone who fishes solely for sport angler - someone who fishes to eat fish. Please subsitute any terms that are acceptable to you and contribute to the discussion. We've been here, it's just semantics and you know it. If I'd used the word subsistence fisherman you would have complained about that. A good place to start in fisheries management is a definition of quality fishery. Do you have anything to add to that definition? Halfordian Golfer |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... 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. This is weak, you talk about my calculations being off base! Are you going to set the number of times I can go fish a stream each year too. That's what you would have to do given your example. Ridiculous and you know it! JT |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Qualityof Life
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
I agree that in Colorado, the designation of C&R (or most special regs INCLUDING your "selective" harvest with its slot limits) often leads to over crowding and I tend not to fish those waters for that reason. But that DOESN'T answer my question. In some of your posts you assert or at least imply that "selective" harvest will improve the quality of a fishery (those large fish eaters etc). Can you show ANY study that showed that harvest of any type improved the quality of a self sustaining trout fishery? I can show you study after study that demonstrate that reducing harvest can improve a fishery. Willi Willi you just said that reducing harvest can improve a fishery. So can increasing harvest. This is as old as the hills. Don't make me spell out "S-T-U-N-T-E-D" again. There is no question about it. I think this can be a great thread but, before I can even begin to answer that WIlli, we will have to describe "quality". I think you know what I was asking but haven't answered it because you can't. 1. Show me a study that shows that angler harvest of ANY type increases the pounds per acre in a self sustaining trout population. I can show you numerous studies that show decreased harvest accomplishes this. 2. Show me a study that shows that angler harvest of ANY type has been demonstrated to increase the average size of a trout in a self sustaining population. I can show you numerous studies that show decreased harvest accomplishes this. 3. Show me a study that shows that angler harvest of ANY type has reduced stunting in a self sustaining trout population. I think that harvest over time has helped cause this. Some of your past posts have stated or implied that harvest will do the above. Show some proof. Willi |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality ofLife
On Mar 13, 9:43 am, Willi wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote: I agree that in Colorado, the designation of C&R (or most special regs INCLUDING your "selective" harvest with its slot limits) often leads to over crowding and I tend not to fish those waters for that reason. But that DOESN'T answer my question. In some of your posts you assert or at least imply that "selective" harvest will improve the quality of a fishery (those large fish eaters etc). Can you show ANY study that showed that harvest of any type improved the quality of a self sustaining trout fishery? I can show you study after study that demonstrate that reducing harvest can improve a fishery. Willi Willi you just said that reducing harvest can improve a fishery. So can increasing harvest. This is as old as the hills. Don't make me spell out "S-T-U-N-T-E-D" again. There is no question about it. I think this can be a great thread but, before I can even begin to answer that WIlli, we will have to describe "quality". I think you know what I was asking but haven't answered it because you can't. 1. Show me a study that shows that angler harvest of ANY type increases the pounds per acre in a self sustaining trout population. I can show you numerous studies that show decreased harvest accomplishes this. 2. Show me a study that shows that angler harvest of ANY type has been demonstrated to increase the average size of a trout in a self sustaining population. I can show you numerous studies that show decreased harvest accomplishes this. 3. Show me a study that shows that angler harvest of ANY type has reduced stunting in a self sustaining trout population. I think that harvest over time has helped cause this. Some of your past posts have stated or implied that harvest will do the above. Show some proof. Willi Willi, The article I posted a link to in the slot limit's power to respond tailor made to any management scenario sums it up nicely. It is very current, on topic, facual and demonstrates the state of the art to accomplish the goals you've outlined above. Anyway, here's a couple. This is pretty much understood so I guess I don't understand where you're coming from. Culling fish results in more and larger fish. Period. http://saltfishing.about.com/od/envi.../aa060905a.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0624132617.htm Best regards, Halfordian Golfer |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality ofLife
On Mar 13, 8:52 am, "JT" wrote:
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... 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. This is weak, you talk about my calculations being off base! Are you going to set the number of times I can go fish a stream each year too. That's what you would have to do given your example. Ridiculous and you know it! JT In reality the numbers are actually a little skewed in your favor I think. The overwhelming number of licensees don't catch anything. Long been said 1% of the anglers catch 99% of the fish. These are just facts. Why not write a letter to CDOW and get his/her opinion. Love to see it. On that last note, that's actually a great question JT one I asked in one of the polls. It brings up the 365 Book but we'll talk about that in its own thread. Your pal, Halfordian Golfer |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Qualityof Life
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
I try for the last time making it a bit more specific (I think you understand where I'm coming from and just don't want to address it): 1. Show me a study that shows that increased angler harvest of trout ANY type increases the pounds per acre in a self sustaining trout population. I can show you numerous studies that show decreased harvest accomplishes this. 2. Show me a study that shows that increased angler harvest of trout ANY type has been demonstrated to increase the average size of a trout in a self sustaining population. I can show you numerous studies that show decreased harvest accomplishes this. 3. Show me a study that shows that angler harvest of trout ANY type has reduced stunting in a self sustaining trout population. I think that harvest over time has helped cause this. NONE of the studies you have cited show this. Willi |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality ofLife
On Mar 13, 11:20 am, Willi wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote: I try for the last time making it a bit more specific (I think you understand where I'm coming from and just don't want to address it): 1. Show me a study that shows that increased angler harvest of trout ANY type increases the pounds per acre in a self sustaining trout population. I can show you numerous studies that show decreased harvest accomplishes this. 2. Show me a study that shows that increased angler harvest of trout ANY type has been demonstrated to increase the average size of a trout in a self sustaining population. I can show you numerous studies that show decreased harvest accomplishes this. 3. Show me a study that shows that angler harvest of trout ANY type has reduced stunting in a self sustaining trout population. I think that harvest over time has helped cause this. NONE of the studies you have cited show this. Willi Hi Willi, The wildlife guys manage this equation every single day. If you want to look at the specific regulations for maximum sustained yield of the fisheries in Colorado, simply open the pamphlet. What you're looking for does not live more simply than this. Fisheries management has always been about maintaining the maximal harvest that sustains the populations of fishes. You can throw a bunch of radish seeds in the garden and get a lush growth of green, but to get a radish that is worth eating you must thin down the radishes around it. Which will yield more biomass? While it is incredibly difficult to say, and would involve math well beyond what you and I and the average farmer can converse. But, we know that we need 1 inch radishes and to get them we kill everything within 1/2 of the sprout. Pond and fisheries management is the identical concept. Do you want a million 1/4 inch trout, 1,000 12" trout or 100 24" trout? The guys down at the shop get to answer that every day and I think they do a good job. The general bag limit is 4 trout any size. We can send urls to reports until the cows come home, but this is empirical. If you think you have a report or 2 of 1 or 3 above please post the URL so I see what you're comparing. Your pal, Halfordian Golfer |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... On Mar 13, 8:52 am, "JT" wrote: "Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... 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. This is weak, you talk about my calculations being off base! Are you going to set the number of times I can go fish a stream each year too. That's what you would have to do given your example. Ridiculous and you know it! JT In reality the numbers are actually a little skewed in your favor I think. The overwhelming number of licensees don't catch anything. Long been said 1% of the anglers catch 99% of the fish. These are just facts. Why not write a letter to CDOW and get his/her opinion. Love to see it. On that last note, that's actually a great question JT one I asked in one of the polls. It brings up the 365 Book but we'll talk about that in its own thread. Your pal, Halfordian Golfer Avoiding this Question? It's okay to catch and release several fish before you catch a fish that meets a slot limit? What about the incident mortality in all the fish you release before catching a keeper!? JT |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Qualityof Life
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
On Mar 13, 11:20 am, Willi wrote: Halfordian Golfer wrote: I try for the last time making it a bit more specific (I think you understand where I'm coming from and just don't want to address it): 1. Show me a study that shows that increased angler harvest of trout ANY type increases the pounds per acre in a self sustaining trout population. I can show you numerous studies that show decreased harvest accomplishes this. 2. Show me a study that shows that increased angler harvest of trout ANY type has been demonstrated to increase the average size of a trout in a self sustaining population. I can show you numerous studies that show decreased harvest accomplishes this. 3. Show me a study that shows that angler harvest of trout ANY type has reduced stunting in a self sustaining trout population. I think that harvest over time has helped cause this. NONE of the studies you have cited show this. Willi Hi Willi, The wildlife guys manage this equation every single day. If you want to look at the specific regulations for maximum sustained yield of the fisheries in Colorado, simply open the pamphlet. What you're looking for does not live more simply than this. Fisheries management has always been about maintaining the maximal harvest that sustains the populations of fishes. You can throw a bunch of radish seeds in the garden and get a lush growth of green, but to get a radish that is worth eating you must thin down the radishes around it. Which will yield more biomass? While it is incredibly difficult to say, and would involve math well beyond what you and I and the average farmer can converse. But, we know that we need 1 inch radishes and to get them we kill everything within 1/2 of the sprout. Pond and fisheries management is the identical concept. Do you want a million 1/4 inch trout, 1,000 12" trout or 100 24" trout? The guys down at the shop get to answer that every day and I think they do a good job. The general bag limit is 4 trout any size. We can send urls to reports until the cows come home, but this is empirical. If you think you have a report or 2 of 1 or 3 above please post the URL so I see what you're comparing. Your pal, Halfordian Golfer I GIVE UP TIM. I thought I was very specific. I can show you voluminous studies that show that reduced harvest increases the number of "catchable" and large trout as well as increasing the total trout biomass in a stream. Just like in the study YOU cited: http://www.wnrmag.com/stories/2007/oct07/fishery.htm that showed that reduced limits "improved" the fishery. I asked you to show me ONE study that shows that increased harvest of trout (of any type) increases these numbers in a self sustaining trout stream or ONE study that shows that increased harvest reduced stunting in a trout stream. I'm asking for a straight forward concrete thing, not a philosophical rambling or YOUR ideas or YOUR analysis. Either I'm terrible at explaining myself, or you're purposefully being dense because you can't provide any studies (which I think is the case) or whatever. Like I said - I GIVE UP. Willi |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Qualityof Life
Willi wrote:
I GIVE UP TIM. snip Like I said - I GIVE UP. You lasted longer than most. Your trouble was in assuming he was seriously trying to discuss something rather than realizing his whole so-called argument was nothing but double talk and quasi-religion. I told you so. (Why do people say they hate saying that ? I *love* saying that. ;-) -- Ken Fortenberry |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality ofLife
On Mar 13, 1:40 pm, "JT" wrote:
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... On Mar 13, 8:52 am, "JT" wrote: "Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... 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. This is weak, you talk about my calculations being off base! Are you going to set the number of times I can go fish a stream each year too. That's what you would have to do given your example. Ridiculous and you know it! JT In reality the numbers are actually a little skewed in your favor I think. The overwhelming number of licensees don't catch anything. Long been said 1% of the anglers catch 99% of the fish. These are just facts. Why not write a letter to CDOW and get his/her opinion. Love to see it. On that last note, that's actually a great question JT one I asked in one of the polls. It brings up the 365 Book but we'll talk about that in its own thread. Your pal, Halfordian Golfer Avoiding this Question? It's okay to catch and release several fish before you catch a fish that meets a slot limit? What about the incident mortality in all the fish you release before catching a keeper!? JT I answered that directly 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. You said that it was not the same with lobsters. It is. Your pal, Halfordian Golfer |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality ofLife
On Mar 13, 1:55 pm, Willi wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote: On Mar 13, 11:20 am, Willi wrote: Halfordian Golfer wrote: I try for the last time making it a bit more specific (I think you understand where I'm coming from and just don't want to address it): 1. Show me a study that shows that increased angler harvest of trout ANY type increases the pounds per acre in a self sustaining trout population. I can show you numerous studies that show decreased harvest accomplishes this. 2. Show me a study that shows that increased angler harvest of trout ANY type has been demonstrated to increase the average size of a trout in a self sustaining population. I can show you numerous studies that show decreased harvest accomplishes this. 3. Show me a study that shows that angler harvest of trout ANY type has reduced stunting in a self sustaining trout population. I think that harvest over time has helped cause this. NONE of the studies you have cited show this. Willi Hi Willi, The wildlife guys manage this equation every single day. If you want to look at the specific regulations for maximum sustained yield of the fisheries in Colorado, simply open the pamphlet. What you're looking for does not live more simply than this. Fisheries management has always been about maintaining the maximal harvest that sustains the populations of fishes. You can throw a bunch of radish seeds in the garden and get a lush growth of green, but to get a radish that is worth eating you must thin down the radishes around it. Which will yield more biomass? While it is incredibly difficult to say, and would involve math well beyond what you and I and the average farmer can converse. But, we know that we need 1 inch radishes and to get them we kill everything within 1/2 of the sprout. Pond and fisheries management is the identical concept. Do you want a million 1/4 inch trout, 1,000 12" trout or 100 24" trout? The guys down at the shop get to answer that every day and I think they do a good job. The general bag limit is 4 trout any size. We can send urls to reports until the cows come home, but this is empirical. If you think you have a report or 2 of 1 or 3 above please post the URL so I see what you're comparing. Your pal, Halfordian Golfer I GIVE UP TIM. I thought I was very specific. I can show you voluminous studies that show that reduced harvest increases the number of "catchable" and large trout as well as increasing the total trout biomass in a stream. Just like in the study YOU cited: http://www.wnrmag.com/stories/2007/oct07/fishery.htm that showed that reduced limits "improved" the fishery. I asked you to show me ONE study that shows that increased harvest of trout (of any type) increases these numbers in a self sustaining trout stream or ONE study that shows that increased harvest reduced stunting in a trout stream. I'm asking for a straight forward concrete thing, not a philosophical rambling or YOUR ideas or YOUR analysis. Either I'm terrible at explaining myself, or you're purposefully being dense because you can't provide any studies (which I think is the case) or whatever. Like I said - I GIVE UP. Willi I'm trying to understand your question which is why I asked you to provide the URLs for case 1 and 3 because I'm just not getting what you're trying to say. If you look at the letter to the DOW regarding regulations and shunted fish, you'll see that I don't have a good answer except to kill brook trout in colorado and stock the crap out of cutts. But the first question...it's way too nebulous. It's like you're trying to get me to say that killing a fish will increase the biomass when I explained clearly that given predation and natural cycles it gets incredibly complex to say which years will produce more fish, which food is the dominant prey, which fertilizers are entering the system and more. Even to the extent that killing them accross all year classes is sometimes the best approach (i.e. the general bag limits) to maintaining "maximum yield" in a lot of cases, a minimum, maximum or slot in some others but that pure C&R is simply a slot set to random, except that incidental mortality is not kind to the very young and the very old. Please post the URL to a study you're trying to prove so I can see what you mean. Thanks, Tim |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... On Mar 13, 1:40 pm, "JT" wrote: "Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... On Mar 13, 8:52 am, "JT" wrote: "Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... 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. This is weak, you talk about my calculations being off base! Are you going to set the number of times I can go fish a stream each year too. That's what you would have to do given your example. Ridiculous and you know it! JT In reality the numbers are actually a little skewed in your favor I think. The overwhelming number of licensees don't catch anything. Long been said 1% of the anglers catch 99% of the fish. These are just facts. Why not write a letter to CDOW and get his/her opinion. Love to see it. On that last note, that's actually a great question JT one I asked in one of the polls. It brings up the 365 Book but we'll talk about that in its own thread. Your pal, Halfordian Golfer Avoiding this Question? It's okay to catch and release several fish before you catch a fish that meets a slot limit? What about the incident mortality in all the fish you release before catching a keeper!? JT I answered that directly 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. You said that it was not the same with lobsters. It is. It's not even close and I was asking it of you directly.... Answer it as if I was talking to you face to face while we were fishing next to each other on a stream. Not some double talk or BS about culling Lobster in a commercial fishing business. I'm waiting, JT |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality ofLife
On Mar 13, 2:39 pm, "JT" wrote:
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... On Mar 13, 1:40 pm, "JT" wrote: "Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... On Mar 13, 8:52 am, "JT" wrote: "Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... 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. This is weak, you talk about my calculations being off base! Are you going to set the number of times I can go fish a stream each year too. That's what you would have to do given your example. Ridiculous and you know it! JT In reality the numbers are actually a little skewed in your favor I think. The overwhelming number of licensees don't catch anything. Long been said 1% of the anglers catch 99% of the fish. These are just facts. Why not write a letter to CDOW and get his/her opinion. Love to see it. On that last note, that's actually a great question JT one I asked in one of the polls. It brings up the 365 Book but we'll talk about that in its own thread. Your pal, Halfordian Golfer Avoiding this Question? It's okay to catch and release several fish before you catch a fish that meets a slot limit? What about the incident mortality in all the fish you release before catching a keeper!? JT I answered that directly 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. You said that it was not the same with lobsters. It is. It's not even close and I was asking it of you directly.... Answer it as if I was talking to you face to face while we were fishing next to each other on a stream. Not some double talk or BS about culling Lobster in a commercial fishing business. I'm waiting, JT JT You asked this question. "It's okay to catch and release several fish before you catch a fish that meets a slot limit? What about the incident mortality in all the fish you release before catching a keeper!?" With all due respect, we've talked about this many, many times. In at least a dozen responses. Remember the thread about catching a keeper on the first catch and quitting? Remember the one about killing deer on the roadway on the way for the 0500 fishing date? Remember this one: "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." This is based on one simple fact: There are no limits imposed on C&R while there are hard and fast limits imposed when you kill and quit. Please let that sink in. Still, it's all about intent JT. With pure C&R you (we) stress, maim and injure a fish for the hell of it. In theory pure C&R fishing is no difference than chasing a deer with a snowmobile or paint ball hunting for deer. If it is significantly different, than please tell me why. TBone |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... JT You asked this question. "It's okay to catch and release several fish before you catch a fish that meets a slot limit? What about the incident mortality in all the fish you release before catching a keeper!?" With all due respect, we've talked about this many, many times. In at least a dozen responses. Remember the thread about catching a keeper on the first catch and quitting? You're still are side stepping my question. Answer the direct question. Remember the one about killing deer on the roadway on the way for the 0500 fishing date? Remember this one: "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." This argument is rediculous. Work the numbers where the other fisherman C&R'ed the same number of fish and fished the same number of days. This is based on one simple fact: There are no limits imposed on C&R while there are hard and fast limits imposed when you kill and quit. Please let that sink in. Let this sink in... If we go fishing and I catch and release 20 fish there is the "potential" based on studies (that you have posted) less than 1% of those fish will die.... If it takes you 20 fish to reach a slot limit so you can kill your keeper, it's certain that one fish died in that river system. How has that bettered the fishery? Still, it's all about intent JT. With pure C&R you (we) stress, maim and injure a fish for the hell of it. In theory pure C&R fishing is no difference than chasing a deer with a snowmobile or paint ball hunting for deer. If it is significantly different, than please tell me why. If there was a law/rule in place that said chasing and clubbing deer from a snow mobile was legal, then by God you would be all for it eh? If it's a moral issue for you, stay away from the C&R steams or hang up your flyrod. You have already mentioned how difficult it is for you to kill a fish, yet you are supporting C&K Your argument contradicts itself... I'm with Ken and Willi, I give up too! ;) JT |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality ofLife
On Mar 13, 4:34 pm, "JT" wrote:
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... JT You asked this question. "It's okay to catch and release several fish before you catch a fish that meets a slot limit? What about the incident mortality in all the fish you release before catching a keeper!?" With all due respect, we've talked about this many, many times. In at least a dozen responses. Remember the thread about catching a keeper on the first catch and quitting? You're still are side stepping my question. Answer the direct question. Remember the one about killing deer on the roadway on the way for the 0500 fishing date? Remember this one: "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." This argument is rediculous. Work the numbers where the other fisherman C&R'ed the same number of fish and fished the same number of days. This is based on one simple fact: There are no limits imposed on C&R while there are hard and fast limits imposed when you kill and quit. Please let that sink in. Let this sink in... If we go fishing and I catch and release 20 fish there is the "potential" based on studies (that you have posted) less than 1% of those fish will die.... If it takes you 20 fish to reach a slot limit so you can kill your keeper, it's certain that one fish died in that river system. How has that bettered the fishery? Still, it's all about intent JT. With pure C&R you (we) stress, maim and injure a fish for the hell of it. In theory pure C&R fishing is no difference than chasing a deer with a snowmobile or paint ball hunting for deer. If it is significantly different, than please tell me why. If there was a law/rule in place that said chasing and clubbing deer from a snow mobile was legal, then by God you would be all for it eh? If it's a moral issue for you, stay away from the C&R steams or hang up your flyrod. You have already mentioned how difficult it is for you to kill a fish, yet you are supporting C&K Your argument contradicts itself... I'm with Ken and Willi, I give up too! ;) JT JT, I answered your question directly. Several times. I hate to say this JT, but this *specific* question is usually one of the 1st or 2nd questions that come up every time in this debate. I don't know how else to answer you. All fishermen try really hard to minimize incidental loss while hunting or fishing. It happens. A friend of mine was hunting Elk alone and he shot a cow elk and wounded it. He was tracking it, saw it and shot it. It was then that he realized he had killed a second elk. This is a tough guy who was distraught about it. Once as kid I shot a sparrow hawk while dove hunting. Anyone with a shred of outdoors ethics is upset by this, but it happens and is unavoidable. And if I were starving, had a snowmobile and a club. Yes. Halfordian Golfer By the way, in order to survive, this is almost exactly how the indiginous people survived. |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:04:09 -0700 (PDT), Halfordian Golfer
wrote: By the way, in order to survive, this is almost exactly how the indiginous people survived. Indigenous people stampeded herds off cliffs, took the tasty bits, and left the rest to rot. They were few and we are many; we can't apply the same 'ethics' today, there isn't enough game. -- Charlie... http://www.chocphoto.com |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality ofLife
On Mar 13, 5:21 pm, Charlie Choc
wrote: On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:04:09 -0700 (PDT), Halfordian Golfer wrote: By the way, in order to survive, this is almost exactly how the indiginous people survived. Indigenous people stampeded herds off cliffs, took the tasty bits, and left the rest to rot. They were few and we are many; we can't apply the same 'ethics' today, there isn't enough game. -- Charlie...http://www.chocphoto.com The voice of reason. That is precisely it. Precisely why I can catch exactly 4 a day and have 8 in the cooler in Colorado. Why I can only fish with a single hook attached to a line. Why I need to keep my rod in my possession. Why I can only set trot lines out and, interestingly, why there are no minimum size, bag or posession limits on northern pike in Colorado. Your pal, Halfordian Golfer |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... JT, I answered your question directly. Several times. I hate to say this JT, but this *specific* question is usually one of the 1st or 2nd questions that come up every time in this debate. I don't know how else to answer you. All fishermen try really hard to minimize incidental loss while hunting or fishing. It happens. A friend of mine was hunting Elk alone and he shot a cow elk and wounded it. He was tracking it, saw it and shot it. It was then that he realized he had killed a second elk. This is a tough guy who was distraught about it. Once as kid I shot a sparrow hawk while dove hunting. Anyone with a shred of outdoors ethics is upset by this, but it happens and is unavoidable. And if I were starving, had a snowmobile and a club. Yes. Halfordian Golfer You still haven't answered my direct question because you know I'm right... Very well... BTW, I'm a hunter too... My family has hunted a certain area for years, we noticed the herds were diminishing. Guess what we did? We quit hunting the area for a few years to let the population recover. We didn't continue taking animals in an area just because the law said we could. Get a clue... EOT, JT Catch & Release fishing is a conservation effort to protect stream viability for future generations, while enjoying the sport of fishing. |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality ofLife
On Mar 14, 10:27 am, "JT" wrote:
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... JT, I answered your question directly. Several times. I hate to say this JT, but this *specific* question is usually one of the 1st or 2nd questions that come up every time in this debate. I don't know how else to answer you. All fishermen try really hard to minimize incidental loss while hunting or fishing. It happens. A friend of mine was hunting Elk alone and he shot a cow elk and wounded it. He was tracking it, saw it and shot it. It was then that he realized he had killed a second elk. This is a tough guy who was distraught about it. Once as kid I shot a sparrow hawk while dove hunting. Anyone with a shred of outdoors ethics is upset by this, but it happens and is unavoidable. And if I were starving, had a snowmobile and a club. Yes. Halfordian Golfer You still haven't answered my direct question because you know I'm right... Very well... BTW, I'm a hunter too... My family has hunted a certain area for years, we noticed the herds were diminishing. Guess what we did? We quit hunting the area for a few years to let the population recover. We didn't continue taking animals in an area just because the law said we could. Get a clue... EOT, JT Catch & Release fishing is a conservation effort to protect stream viability for future generations, while enjoying the sport of fishing. Your question is the most elementary one that is dismissed within 10 minutes of the conversation. Not sure why you hang on to it and not sure why you keep saying I don't answer your question when I have over and over and over. Answer: It is important and needs to be minimized and the fish handled with care and respect but it can't be helped anymore than we can prevent killing prairie dogs when we plow the fields to grow lettuce. THAT is my direct and complete answer. At my count something like the 7th time. Pure C&R Stresses, maims and kills fish, purely for sport. That much is completely, incontravertably, inarguably, wholly true. Most people at least acknowledge that bit, it is the fact that so many FF-ers simply don't get that and turn a rosed colored pastoral lens towards the issue, ostensibly because it filters out the blood. At least I accept this truth instead of pretending it does not exist. TBone |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality ofLife
On Mar 14, 10:27 am, "JT" wrote:
Catch & Release fishing is a conservation effort to protect stream viability for future generations, while enjoying the sport of fishing. Catch and release is the false profit of the fishing industry and has no biological imperative. Any fishery that can not withstand some harvest, including the incidental mortality from catch and released, should be closed. TBone |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Qualityof Life
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Your question is the most elementary one that is dismissed within 10 minutes of the conversation. Not sure why you hang on to it and not sure why you keep saying I don't answer your question when I have over and over and over. Tim this is as a friend. "No one" wants to "play with you" anymore because when people ask you a question, you DON'T answer the question they ask. You may think you do: but you answer the question you want to answer, not the specific question that is asked or you answer like a politician who is asked a question he/she does want to answer and deflects it off on a tangent or you ignore the question because you don't have a good answer or......... If you want people to keep conversing with you, especially on this topic that is so emotional for you, you need to DISCUSS it with people not preach to them. That means you need to READ what people write and think about what they are asking and respond to what THEY are asking/saying and not just use it as a launching point to preach "the cause." FWIW Willi |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... JT Catch & Release fishing is a conservation effort to protect stream viability for future generations, while enjoying the sport of fishing. Your question is the most elementary one that is dismissed within 10 minutes of the conversation. Not sure why you hang on to it and not sure why you keep saying I don't answer your question when I have over and over and over. No you didn't and you know it.... JT Catch & Release fishing is a conservation effort to protect stream viability for future generations, while enjoying the sport of fishing. |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality ofLife
On Mar 17, 8:17 am, "JT" wrote:
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... JT Catch & Release fishing is a conservation effort to protect stream viability for future generations, while enjoying the sport of fishing. Your question is the most elementary one that is dismissed within 10 minutes of the conversation. Not sure why you hang on to it and not sure why you keep saying I don't answer your question when I have over and over and over. No you didn't and you know it.... JT Catch & Release fishing is a conservation effort to protect stream viability for future generations, while enjoying the sport of fishing. JT do you or Willi have anything more to add to this thread? Specifically anything about pure C&R fishermen doing anything to prevent toxicity in the form of mercury and others in our fisheries? For the record: 1) JT I answered your question specifically. Multiple times. In the last one I earmarked it as "Answer". As well, if you honestly care about the answer and aren't just "goading" you can search the archives where I have addressed this, I'd suggest 30-100 times in the past decade. Which part of my answer did not address your question exactly? 2) Willi I asked you to post URL's to the specific management balance plan you mentioned (so that I know what specifically you are asking in the extreme oversimplification you have provided). You have not. My position is that culling can benefit the fishery and take the place of predation where it has been minimized and that nature provides a bounty of harvest. This is at the basis of all sound fisheries management, the math of which you and I never have a hope of understanding, the pond equation and the study I cite is the best one I know. The current management policies of the CDOW plus the fact that pure C&R remains incredibly rare and only in places where it has been established as a social regulation. Halfordian Golfer |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality ofLife
On Mar 15, 9:22 am, Willi wrote:
Tim this is as a friend. "No one" wants to "play with you" anymore because when people ask you a question, you DON'T answer the question they ask. [snip] Why not ask the CDOW the exact (incredibly nebulous) question you asked me and post the response? That's the kind of thing I do to support a thread and I'd really like to see you post the unadulterated response back to this group because it will be within a sentence or two of what I've already told you. Your pal, Halfordian Golfer |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... On Mar 17, 8:17 am, "JT" wrote: "Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... JT Catch & Release fishing is a conservation effort to protect stream viability for future generations, while enjoying the sport of fishing. Your question is the most elementary one that is dismissed within 10 minutes of the conversation. Not sure why you hang on to it and not sure why you keep saying I don't answer your question when I have over and over and over. No you didn't and you know it.... JT Catch & Release fishing is a conservation effort to protect stream viability for future generations, while enjoying the sport of fishing. JT do you or Willi have anything more to add to this thread? Specifically anything about pure C&R fishermen doing anything to prevent toxicity in the form of mercury and others in our fisheries? For the record: 1) JT I answered your question specifically. Multiple times. In the last one I earmarked it as "Answer". As well, if you honestly care about the answer and aren't just "goading" you can search the archives where I have addressed this, I'd suggest 30-100 times in the past decade. Which part of my answer did not address your question exactly? You know damn well you didn't answer my direct question. I'm done, EOT for me... This thread over the last two plus weeks have accomplished absolutely nothing. Move along, JT |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality ofLife
On Mar 17, 10:46 am, "JT" wrote:
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... On Mar 17, 8:17 am, "JT" wrote: "Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message ... JT Catch & Release fishing is a conservation effort to protect stream viability for future generations, while enjoying the sport of fishing. Your question is the most elementary one that is dismissed within 10 minutes of the conversation. Not sure why you hang on to it and not sure why you keep saying I don't answer your question when I have over and over and over. No you didn't and you know it.... JT Catch & Release fishing is a conservation effort to protect stream viability for future generations, while enjoying the sport of fishing. JT do you or Willi have anything more to add to this thread? Specifically anything about pure C&R fishermen doing anything to prevent toxicity in the form of mercury and others in our fisheries? For the record: 1) JT I answered your question specifically. Multiple times. In the last one I earmarked it as "Answer". As well, if you honestly care about the answer and aren't just "goading" you can search the archives where I have addressed this, I'd suggest 30-100 times in the past decade. Which part of my answer did not address your question exactly? You know damn well you didn't answer my direct question. I'm done, EOT for me... This thread over the last two plus weeks have accomplished absolutely nothing. Move along, JT JT, You keep claiming I don't answer this question (which looks like a statement and a question): It's okay to catch and release several fish before you catch a fish that meets a slot limit? What about the incident mortality in all the fish you release before catching a keeper!? Here is my answer, again, highly pared down to its essence. Part I. It's okay to catch and release several fish before you catch a fish that meets a slot limit? If this is question than: Yes. If it's a statement than I agree with you. Part II. What about the incident mortality in all the fish you release before catching a keeper!? Unfortunate but unavoidable. Happens all the time in nature. Halfordian Golfer |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:56 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter