|
|
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality ofLife
On Mar 17, 10:21 am, Halfordian Golfer wrote:
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 Willi, Still waiting for the URL so I can understand your question. Have you asked the CDOW this question as well? Bone |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Qualityof Life
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
... 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. Ah yes, *now* we're getting somewhere. See what happens when you answer the questions honestly Socrates ? As I understand it your position is this: Intent is everything. That is, if it's your intent to keep a fish for the pan then C&R is OK whether you actually catch a legal fish or not. The incidental death caused by C&R is unfortunate but unavoidable. On the other hand, if it's your intent to release all the fish you catch then the incidental death caused by C&R is the wanton killing of wildlife and you have no "spank" of conscience. And you honestly don't think that's one of the silliest things you've ever heard ? Rhetorical question, don't bother to answer. -- Ken Fortenberry |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message et... Ah yes, *now* we're getting somewhere. See what happens when you answer the questions honestly Socrates ? As I understand it your position is this: Intent is everything. That is, if it's your intent to keep a fish for the pan then C&R is OK whether you actually catch a legal fish or not. The incidental death caused by C&R is unfortunate but unavoidable. On the other hand, if it's your intent to release all the fish you catch then the incidental death caused by C&R is the wanton killing of wildlife and you have no "spank" of conscience. And you honestly don't think that's one of the silliest things you've ever heard ? Rhetorical question, don't bother to answer. Thanks Ken, I said EOT for me, so I didn't want to respond. Your comments are exactly what I wanted to reply. JT |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Qualityof Life
JT wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote: Ah yes, *now* we're getting somewhere. See what happens when you answer the questions honestly Socrates ? As I understand it your position is this: Intent is everything. That is, if it's your intent to keep a fish for the pan then C&R is OK whether you actually catch a legal fish or not. The incidental death caused by C&R is unfortunate but unavoidable. On the other hand, if it's your intent to release all the fish you catch then the incidental death caused by C&R is the wanton killing of wildlife and you have no "spank" of conscience. And you honestly don't think that's one of the silliest things you've ever heard ? Rhetorical question, don't bother to answer. Thanks Ken, I said EOT for me, so I didn't want to respond. Your comments are exactly what I wanted to reply. Yeah, I said EOT too but the only way to goad TBone into having an honest discussion is to threaten him with silence. I mean if an anti-C&R rant falls in the woods and there's nobody to hear it was it really a rant ? ;-) -- Ken Fortenberry |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message . net... JT wrote: I said EOT for me, so I didn't want to respond. Your comments are exactly what I wanted to reply. Yeah, I said EOT too but the only way to goad TBone into having an honest discussion is to threaten him with silence. I mean if an anti-C&R rant falls in the woods and there's nobody to hear it was it really a rant ? ;-) He he he, You make a strong & valid point, I may just have to jump back in too! ;) My first suggestion for Tbone is to see a shrink, although I don't think there is anything that will help him with the Demon's he struggles with. JT BTW, I'm anxious for your Pike TR! I hope to get out for a chance myself, but fear I might have too many obligations this spring. |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality ofLife
On Mar 19, 12:42 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: Halfordian Golfer wrote: ... 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. Ah yes, *now* we're getting somewhere. See what happens when you answer the questions honestly Socrates ? As I understand it your position is this: Intent is everything. That is, if it's your intent to keep a fish for the pan then C&R is OK whether you actually catch a legal fish or not. The incidental death caused by C&R is unfortunate but unavoidable. On the other hand, if it's your intent to release all the fish you catch then the incidental death caused by C&R is the wanton killing of wildlife and you have no "spank" of conscience. And you honestly don't think that's one of the silliest things you've ever heard ? Rhetorical question, don't bother to answer. -- Ken Fortenberry If you can't see the difference between killing an animal purely in pursuit of fun versus killing an animal purely in pursuit of food, well, that's pretty sad dude. I guess that's just my opinion, well mine and the theologians, scholars and farmers in Norway that studied this extensively and concluded the same. Your pal, Halfordian Golfer |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Qualityof Life
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote: As I understand it your position is this: Intent is everything. That is, if it's your intent to keep a fish for the pan then C&R is OK whether you actually catch a legal fish or not. The incidental death caused by C&R is unfortunate but unavoidable. On the other hand, if it's your intent to release all the fish you catch then the incidental death caused by C&R is the wanton killing of wildlife and you have no "spank" of conscience. And you honestly don't think that's one of the silliest things you've ever heard ? Rhetorical question, don't bother to answer. If you can't see the difference between killing an animal purely in pursuit of fun versus killing an animal purely in pursuit of food, well, that's pretty sad dude. Anyone who fly fishes for trout purely in pursuit of food is a pretty sad dude. And if they fish for those trout in slot limit waters, well, that's not only sad it's pathetic and hypocritical. -- Ken Fortenberry |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
On 20-Mar-2008, Ken Fortenberry wrote: Anyone who fly fishes for trout purely in pursuit of food is a pretty sad dude. And if they fish for those trout in slot limit waters, well, that's not only sad it's pathetic and hypocritical. Its sad that that is what has happened to our planet which used to be an abundant and ecologically miantened system. That we are left w private rivvers and limited fishing space is due to Too many humans and stupid ones at that & very stupid & greedy politicians w no forsesight past their stomach and piockets. Fred. How many |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality ofLife
On Mar 20, 7:56 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: Halfordian Golfer wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: As I understand it your position is this: Intent is everything. That is, if it's your intent to keep a fish for the pan then C&R is OK whether you actually catch a legal fish or not. The incidental death caused by C&R is unfortunate but unavoidable. On the other hand, if it's your intent to release all the fish you catch then the incidental death caused by C&R is the wanton killing of wildlife and you have no "spank" of conscience. And you honestly don't think that's one of the silliest things you've ever heard ? Rhetorical question, don't bother to answer. If you can't see the difference between killing an animal purely in pursuit of fun versus killing an animal purely in pursuit of food, well, that's pretty sad dude. Anyone who fly fishes for trout purely in pursuit of food is a pretty sad dude. And if they fish for those trout in slot limit waters, well, that's not only sad it's pathetic and hypocritical. -- Ken Fortenberry Hi Ken, Far from sad Ken. Anyone culling fish legally caught in slot limit waters is an angler in the tradition of tens of thousands of years. Sad would be someone who takes his stress out on a wild animal? Your pal, TBone A cash flow runs through it. |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality ofLife
On Mar 20, 8:41 pm, wrote:
On 20-Mar-2008, Ken Fortenberry wrote: Anyone who fly fishes for trout purely in pursuit of food is a pretty sad dude. And if they fish for those trout in slot limit waters, well, that's not only sad it's pathetic and hypocritical. Its sad that that is what has happened to our planet which used to be an abundant and ecologically miantened system. That we are left w private rivvers and limited fishing space is due to Too many humans and stupid ones at that & very stupid & greedy politicians w no forsesight past their stomach and piockets. Fred. How many Howdy Fred, It's interesting to note that the number of licensed hunters and anglers in Colorado is decreasing and that this is a trend nationally. And while the subdivisions are sprouting up all over (I drove all over trying to get to the confluence of hermosa creek and the animas this week, never finding any access points), I personally feel that excellent angling opportunities still exist and may even be increasing. My personal feeling is that the major fisheries that have become destination FF areas are not worth fishing mainly due to crowds but also due to the fact that the guides, magazines and fly shop owners have decreed themselves lords of these waters. They're stealing our access and selling it back to us in a form that suits them but not the public. That's not so bad, though because well, they can have it. I'll walk the extra mile and catch a 4" brook trout in solitude anyday over any fish in the Frying Pan river. Kind of the same argument for Lake Powell, all those people would be *someplace*. Might as well sacrifice one place and leave the rest alone. Your pal, Halfordian Golfer A cash flow runs through it. |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality ofLife
On Mar 19, 12:42 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: Halfordian Golfer wrote: ... 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. Ah yes, *now* we're getting somewhere. See what happens when you answer the questions honestly Socrates ? As I understand it your position is this: Intent is everything. That is, if it's your intent to keep a fish for the pan then C&R is OK whether you actually catch a legal fish or not. The incidental death caused by C&R is unfortunate but unavoidable. On the other hand, if it's your intent to release all the fish you catch then the incidental death caused by C&R is the wanton killing of wildlife and you have no "spank" of conscience. And you honestly don't think that's one of the silliest things you've ever heard ? Rhetorical question, don't bother to answer. -- Ken Fortenberry That's the most twisted interpretation of what I said conceivable. No critically thinking person would agree with it. Let me state it again: 1) People exist on the food chain. Period. Whether we harvest grains, produce meat or grow fruit we will constantly kill wild animals of all kinds. It is unavoidable. 2) Killing animals purely for sport is avoidable in 100% of the cases. Halfordian Golfer |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Qualityof Life
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Far from sad Ken. Anyone culling fish legally caught in slot limit waters is an angler in the tradition of tens of thousands of years. But anyone releasing a fish legally caught in C&R only waters is not an angler but a wanton killer of wildlife even though the C&R fisherman kills fewer fish. Sorry man, that dog just won't hunt, either they're both anglers or they're both wanton killers of wildlife. -- Ken Fortenberry |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Qualityof Life
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote: Halfordian Golfer wrote: ... 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. Ah yes, *now* we're getting somewhere. See what happens when you answer the questions honestly Socrates ? As I understand it your position is this: Intent is everything. That is, if it's your intent to keep a fish for the pan then C&R is OK whether you actually catch a legal fish or not. The incidental death caused by C&R is unfortunate but unavoidable. On the other hand, if it's your intent to release all the fish you catch then the incidental death caused by C&R is the wanton killing of wildlife and you have no "spank" of conscience. That's the most twisted interpretation of what I said conceivable. No critically thinking person would agree with it. No, it's not a twisted interpretation of your position it is a clearly stated reiteration of your own twisted religion. But you're right about one thing, nobody in their right mind would agree with it. -- Ken Fortenberry |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality ofLife
On Mar 21, 8:58 am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: Halfordian Golfer wrote: Far from sad Ken. Anyone culling fish legally caught in slot limit waters is an angler in the tradition of tens of thousands of years. But anyone releasing a fish legally caught in C&R only waters is not an angler but a wanton killer of wildlife even though the C&R fisherman kills fewer fish. Sorry man, that dog just won't hunt, either they're both anglers or they're both wanton killers of wildlife. -- Ken Fortenberry Yes, killing an animal that you never had any intention of utilizing is wanton destruction and killing for sport. An angler who wants a few for dinner has a nobl and justified reason for the act. My personal feeling is that C&R is a contradiction to the laws concerning waste of game as well as chasing and harassing wildlife. Halfordian Golfer |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Qualityof Life
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberrywrote: Halfordian Golfer wrote: Far from sad Ken. Anyone culling fish legally caught in slot limit waters is an angler in the tradition of tens of thousands of years. But anyone releasing a fish legally caught in C&R only waters is not an angler but a wanton killer of wildlife even though the C&R fisherman kills fewer fish. Sorry man, that dog just won't hunt, either they're both anglers or they're both wanton killers of wildlife. Yes, killing an animal that you never had any intention of utilizing is wanton destruction and killing for sport. An angler who wants a few for dinner has a nobl and justified reason for the act. My personal feeling is that C&R is a contradiction to the laws concerning waste of game as well as chasing and harassing wildlife. One of the problems with your religion is it's anthropocentric. A fish caught, killed accidentally and returned to the stream is not "wasted" just because a human doesn't eat it. There is a lot more to nature than just people and fish you know. -- Ken Fortenberry |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality ofLife
On Mar 21, 9:20 am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: Halfordian Golfer wrote: Ken Fortenberrywrote: Halfordian Golfer wrote: Far from sad Ken. Anyone culling fish legally caught in slot limit waters is an angler in the tradition of tens of thousands of years. But anyone releasing a fish legally caught in C&R only waters is not an angler but a wanton killer of wildlife even though the C&R fisherman kills fewer fish. Sorry man, that dog just won't hunt, either they're both anglers or they're both wanton killers of wildlife. Yes, killing an animal that you never had any intention of utilizing is wanton destruction and killing for sport. An angler who wants a few for dinner has a nobl and justified reason for the act. My personal feeling is that C&R is a contradiction to the laws concerning waste of game as well as chasing and harassing wildlife. One of the problems with your religion is it's anthropocentric. A fish caught, killed accidentally and returned to the stream is not "wasted" just because a human doesn't eat it. There is a lot more to nature than just people and fish you know. -- Ken Fortenberry You're killing fish to feed the bugs and racoons? Try that with a warden around. Halfordian Golfer |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Qualityof Life
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote: One of the problems with your religion is it's anthropocentric. A fish caught, killed accidentally and returned to the stream is not "wasted" just because a human doesn't eat it. There is a lot more to nature than just people and fish you know. You're killing fish to feed the bugs and racoons? Try that with a warden around. No, the accidental killing of fish is not to feed the bugs it is an unfortunate but unavoidable consequence of fishing. Happens in nature all the time. My wife and I were camped at a backcountry campsite on Slough Creek in Yellowstone. Slough Creek is by biological necessity pure C&R. A big cutt swallowed my hopper and was practically dead before I ever brought him to hand. I was reluctant to put that dead fish back in the water because of the bear danger but that was the only legal thing to do so it was done. Now if you had caught that fish, decided to stick it in the pan and eat it rather than "waste" it how would you explain *that* to the ranger ? -- Ken Fortenberry |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality ofLife
On Mar 21, 9:52 am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: Halfordian Golfer wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: One of the problems with your religion is it's anthropocentric. A fish caught, killed accidentally and returned to the stream is not "wasted" just because a human doesn't eat it. There is a lot more to nature than just people and fish you know. You're killing fish to feed the bugs and racoons? Try that with a warden around. No, the accidental killing of fish is not to feed the bugs it is an unfortunate but unavoidable consequence of fishing. Happens in nature all the time. My wife and I were camped at a backcountry campsite on Slough Creek in Yellowstone. Slough Creek is by biological necessity pure C&R. A big cutt swallowed my hopper and was practically dead before I ever brought him to hand. I was reluctant to put that dead fish back in the water because of the bear danger but that was the only legal thing to do so it was done. Now if you had caught that fish, decided to stick it in the pan and eat it rather than "waste" it how would you explain *that* to the ranger ? -- Ken Fortenberry "Slough Creek is by biological necessity pure C&R" Please explain. This makes no sense. Halfordian Golfer The Hamilton franchise runs through it. |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality ofLife
On Mar 21, 9:52 am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: Halfordian Golfer wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: One of the problems with your religion is it's anthropocentric. A fish caught, killed accidentally and returned to the stream is not "wasted" just because a human doesn't eat it. There is a lot more to nature than just people and fish you know. You're killing fish to feed the bugs and racoons? Try that with a warden around. No, the accidental killing of fish is not to feed the bugs it is an unfortunate but unavoidable consequence of fishing. Happens in nature all the time. My wife and I were camped at a backcountry campsite on Slough Creek in Yellowstone. Slough Creek is by biological necessity pure C&R. A big cutt swallowed my hopper and was practically dead before I ever brought him to hand. I was reluctant to put that dead fish back in the water because of the bear danger but that was the only legal thing to do so it was done. Now if you had caught that fish, decided to stick it in the pan and eat it rather than "waste" it how would you explain *that* to the ranger ? -- Ken Fortenberry Ken you said: "No, the accidental killing of fish is not to feed the bugs it is an unfortunate but unavoidable consequence of fishing. Happens in nature all the time." Really? In nature, how many animals stress, maim and kill other animals purely for sport. Halfordian Golfer |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Qualityof Life
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote: Halfordian Golfer wrote: You're killing fish to feed the bugs and racoons? Try that with a warden around. No, the accidental killing of fish is not to feed the bugs it is an unfortunate but unavoidable consequence of fishing. Happens in nature all the time. My wife and I were camped at a backcountry campsite on Slough Creek in Yellowstone. Slough Creek is by biological necessity pure C&R. A big cutt swallowed my hopper and was practically dead before I ever brought him to hand. I was reluctant to put that dead fish back in the water because of the bear danger but that was the only legal thing to do so it was done. Now if you had caught that fish, decided to stick it in the pan and eat it rather than "waste" it how would you explain *that* to the ranger ? "Slough Creek is by biological necessity pure C&R" Please explain. This makes no sense. LOL !! Just like a moth to the flame. Here you go, another batch of public servants whose time you can waste proselytizing for your kooky religion: http://www.nps.gov/yell/naturescience/fish_contact.htm HTH -- Ken Fortenberry |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Qualityof Life
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote: No, the accidental killing of fish is not to feed the bugs it is an unfortunate but unavoidable consequence of fishing. Happens in nature all the time. My wife and I were camped at a backcountry campsite on Slough Creek in Yellowstone. Slough Creek is by biological necessity pure C&R. A big cutt swallowed my hopper and was practically dead before I ever brought him to hand. I was reluctant to put that dead fish back in the water because of the bear danger but that was the only legal thing to do so it was done. Now if you had caught that fish, decided to stick it in the pan and eat it rather than "waste" it how would you explain *that* to the ranger ? Ken you said: "No, the accidental killing of fish is not to feed the bugs it is an unfortunate but unavoidable consequence of fishing. Happens in nature all the time." Really? In nature, how many animals stress, maim and kill other animals purely for sport. How many ? I don't know but I have personally watched a couple of juvenile wolves chase and kill a young elk just for ****s and grins. They couldn't have been hungry, they had just woke up after sleeping off their portions of a big kill, and the rest of the pack was still sleeping. They made no attempt to eat their kill but left it on the valley floor for the coyotes and birds. Perhaps they were practicing hunting techniques ? I've not witnessed it myself but I've read that killer whales will sometimes toss their prey around like volleyballs until the prey is dead and then just leave it. But having said that I added that sentence mainly so you'd recognize your own words. -- Ken Fortenberry |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality ofLife
On Mar 21, 12:52 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: Halfordian Golfer wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: Halfordian Golfer wrote: You're killing fish to feed the bugs and racoons? Try that with a warden around. No, the accidental killing of fish is not to feed the bugs it is an unfortunate but unavoidable consequence of fishing. Happens in nature all the time. My wife and I were camped at a backcountry campsite on Slough Creek in Yellowstone. Slough Creek is by biological necessity pure C&R. A big cutt swallowed my hopper and was practically dead before I ever brought him to hand. I was reluctant to put that dead fish back in the water because of the bear danger but that was the only legal thing to do so it was done. Now if you had caught that fish, decided to stick it in the pan and eat it rather than "waste" it how would you explain *that* to the ranger ? "Slough Creek is by biological necessity pure C&R" Please explain. This makes no sense. LOL !! Just like a moth to the flame. Here you go, another batch of public servants whose time you can waste proselytizing for your kooky religion: http://www.nps.gov/yell/naturescience/fish_contact.htm HTH -- Ken Fortenberry I have no need to ask the public servants this question, though I will be more than glad to if you won't even try. There's never a biological imperative for pure C&R, by definition and the extremely simple fact that a slot could be enforced that was just above a practical maximum, the statistical anomaly, for the fishery making it, in effect, pure C&R. Look back through this thread, we've been over this. In addition to the slots, there are many other management techniques that would accomplish exactly the same thing. But, I want to hear about your statement: Slough Creek is by biological necessity pure C&R By this "imperative" you're statiting that the fish in slough creek would perish if we did not hook and haul them for sport. You meant to say that: If we want to allow all the tshirt buyng, gas guzzlin', lodge dwelling, ale quaffing angling consumers to buy our stuff we need to let them all fish as much as they want but we also can't let them kill any fish because then the tshirt buyin, gas guzzlin', lodge dwellin', ale quaffing city dwalling nature lovers would freak out at the site of a fish dripping blood getting cleaned in the restroom sink at the hamilton concession and baseball cap store and they'll stop buying things there too. This is what is known as the modern ecosystem, sure I'll give you that, in a world of mutliple use politically correct compromise consumerism that is the NPS. But please, don't say there is a biological necessity for pure C&R on slough creek. Halfordian Golfer |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Qualityof Life
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
... But, I want to hear about your statement: Slough Creek is by biological necessity pure C&R ... Like I said, waste the biologists time, I've already spent way too much of mine arguing with a religious zealot. What they will tell you is this, the only alternative to C&R on Slough Creek is no fishing at all. -- Ken Fortenberry |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality ofLife
On Mar 21, 1:15 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: Halfordian Golfer wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: No, the accidental killing of fish is not to feed the bugs it is an unfortunate but unavoidable consequence of fishing. Happens in nature all the time. My wife and I were camped at a backcountry campsite on Slough Creek in Yellowstone. Slough Creek is by biological necessity pure C&R. A big cutt swallowed my hopper and was practically dead before I ever brought him to hand. I was reluctant to put that dead fish back in the water because of the bear danger but that was the only legal thing to do so it was done. Now if you had caught that fish, decided to stick it in the pan and eat it rather than "waste" it how would you explain *that* to the ranger ? Ken you said: "No, the accidental killing of fish is not to feed the bugs it is an unfortunate but unavoidable consequence of fishing. Happens in nature all the time." Really? In nature, how many animals stress, maim and kill other animals purely for sport. How many ? I don't know but I have personally watched a couple of juvenile wolves chase and kill a young elk just for ****s and grins. They couldn't have been hungry, they had just woke up after sleeping off their portions of a big kill, and the rest of the pack was still sleeping. They made no attempt to eat their kill but left it on the valley floor for the coyotes and birds. Perhaps they were practicing hunting techniques ? I've not witnessed it myself but I've read that killer whales will sometimes toss their prey around like volleyballs until the prey is dead and then just leave it. But having said that I added that sentence mainly so you'd recognize your own words. -- Ken Fortenberry You are close to the one answer that I feel can justify extremely limited pure C&R, that of man's honing of essential hunting skills for the real thing. This is what these animals are doing. If the killer whale threw the seal 30 feet out of the water and then got in his Saab and drove to Sushi Den for dinner, I'd think your comparison was reasonable. But it's not, the killer whale shows no compassion and the seal assumes it will be killed. It is not sport. Other than that, there are still several other unfortunate problems with your analogy. In addition to blatant anthropomorphizing about the wolf and killer whale's intent and "enjoyment" in the kill, you have degraded the human species to that level and, inadvertently, I'm sure, compared C&R fishing to the acts of wolfish barbarism. Halfordian Golfer |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Qualityof Life
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
snip Other than that, there are still several other unfortunate problems with your analogy. ... It wasn't "my analogy" it was my direct answer to your question. -- Ken Fortenberry |
Catch and Release Hurts: A Philosophy
This is really what your argument comes down to: a
philosophical/religious/ascetic position about C&R fishing. Your argument is akin to PETA's stance on animals or one of the sects of monks that search the ground before each step to avoid stepping on an insect or a wide range of philosophic positions dictating how different societies interact with animals. Many people claim the moral/religious high ground. It's not something YOU "own". From my experience, the height of that ground usually has more to do with where you stand than it does how high the ground really is. Having heard the many permutations of your argument over the years, I feel I have a good sense of your position. Although I still wouldn't agree with your position, if you totally gave up ANY TYPE of C&R, I would have respect for you for giving up something you enjoy because you feel it is immoral. But that is not the case and it makes your position rather hollow. Willi |
Catch and Release Hurts: A Philosophy
On Mar 21, 2:34 pm, Willi wrote:
This is really what your argument comes down to: a philosophical/religious/ascetic position about C&R fishing. Your argument is akin to PETA's stance on animals or one of the sects of monks that search the ground before each step to avoid stepping on an insect or a wide range of philosophic positions dictating how different societies interact with animals. Many people claim the moral/religious high ground. It's not something YOU "own". From my experience, the height of that ground usually has more to do with where you stand than it does how high the ground really is. Having heard the many permutations of your argument over the years, I feel I have a good sense of your position. Although I still wouldn't agree with your position, if you totally gave up ANY TYPE of C&R, I would have respect for you for giving up something you enjoy because you feel it is immoral. But that is not the case and it makes your position rather hollow. Willi I can not give up "all types" of C&R under the current fishing regulations. I care not a wit about your respect if it is based on the contingency of changing who I am to get it. Nobody asked you to read these threads and I'm not getting paid to debate it either. Your pal, Halfordian Golfer |
Catch and Release Hurts: A Philosophy
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Willi wrote: This is really what your argument comes down to: a philosophical/religious/ascetic position about C&R fishing. Your argument is akin to PETA's stance on animals or one of the sects of monks that search the ground before each step to avoid stepping on an insect or a wide range of philosophic positions dictating how different societies interact with animals. Many people claim the moral/religious high ground. It's not something YOU "own". From my experience, the height of that ground usually has more to do with where you stand than it does how high the ground really is. Having heard the many permutations of your argument over the years, I feel I have a good sense of your position. Although I still wouldn't agree with your position, if you totally gave up ANY TYPE of C&R, I would have respect for you for giving up something you enjoy because you feel it is immoral. But that is not the case and it makes your position rather hollow. I can not give up "all types" of C&R under the current fishing regulations. ... Then you have less "spank" in your conscience than any of us you freely accuse of having none. If I thought for one second that C&R was immoral, wanton killing I just flat out wouldn't do it. -- Ken Fortenberry |
Catch and Release Hurts: A Philosophy
On Mar 21, 3:50 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: Halfordian Golfer wrote: Willi wrote: This is really what your argument comes down to: a philosophical/religious/ascetic position about C&R fishing. Your argument is akin to PETA's stance on animals or one of the sects of monks that search the ground before each step to avoid stepping on an insect or a wide range of philosophic positions dictating how different societies interact with animals. Many people claim the moral/religious high ground. It's not something YOU "own". From my experience, the height of that ground usually has more to do with where you stand than it does how high the ground really is. Having heard the many permutations of your argument over the years, I feel I have a good sense of your position. Although I still wouldn't agree with your position, if you totally gave up ANY TYPE of C&R, I would have respect for you for giving up something you enjoy because you feel it is immoral. But that is not the case and it makes your position rather hollow. I can not give up "all types" of C&R under the current fishing regulations. ... Then you have less "spank" in your conscience than any of us you freely accuse of having none. If I thought for one second that C&R was immoral, wanton killing I just flat out wouldn't do it. -- Ken Fortenberry You know, you're absolutely right. I'll be fishing for my legal bag limit this summer. Your pal, Halfordian Golfer |
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 Hi Willi, I haven't seen any of the study URL's that I'd asked about to help clarify your question, which, I'm sorry but is not specific enough to be useful. Here is a specific study on optimal partial harvesting: http://tiny.cc/2g3hKhttp://tiny.cc/2g3hK (download the pdf). Abstract When growth is density dependent, partial harvest of the standing stock of cultured species (fish or shrimp) over the course of the growing season (i.e., partial harvesting) would decrease competition and thereby increase indi- vidual growth rates and total yield. Now, this is the basic fisheries management theory. Not 'exactly' what you asked but it demonstrates the concepts clearly. In practice the latest trend is to look beyond maximum sustainable yield to whole ecosystems management and adaptive management strategies. For example, Whales and other 'top predators' consume more ocean fish than man. Managing the top predators and consuming the lower trophic species becomes the management strategy while the high trophic species recovers. This is what I meant by 'whole pond management'. So, I need to see a study of what you refer to, or have considerable more detail in your question to discuss it. It is undeniable and unequivocal. Partial Harvest increases individual growth rate and total yield, at the very least in some situations, of recruitment, available forage, size and nature of habitat, etc. Your pal, Halfordian Golfer A cash flow runs through it. |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Qualityof Life
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Hi Willi, I haven't seen any of the study URL's that I'd asked about to help clarify your question, which, I'm sorry but is not specific enough to be useful. Here is a specific study on optimal partial harvesting: http://tiny.cc/2g3hKhttp://tiny.cc/2g3hK (download the pdf). Abstract When growth is density dependent, partial harvest of the standing stock of cultured species (fish or shrimp) over the course of the growing season (i.e., partial harvesting) would decrease competition and thereby increase indi- vidual growth rates and total yield. Now, this is the basic fisheries management theory. Not 'exactly' what you asked but it demonstrates the concepts clearly. Your URL didn't work for me. However, from abstract, it was based on cultured, not wild populations. Like I tried to explain to you, I have no trouble with you philosophical/religious position on C&R fishing. Like religion, that's a personal choice based on an individual's own values. However, I do object to, what I see as, your pseudo biological explanations for C&R which is why I changed the subject to fishery management. I was hoping that you could discuss this in a more "scientific" vein. This is an area that interests me and I've done considerable reading on it. You make statements about how a C&R or any fishery can be "improved" by harvest. There are many studies done on the effects of different of regulations on fish populations, but I've NEVER seen a study based on a self sustaining trout population that shows what you claim. I asked you to cite one study. Below are three examples of statements you have made concerning harvest "improving" a fishery: " 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 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. It is undeniable and unequivocal. Partial Harvest increases individual growth rate and total yield, at the very least in some situations, of recruitment, available forage, size and nature of habitat, etc." I asked (and still ask) you to show me ONE study done with a self sustaining population of trout in a stream or river that the supports any one of the above statements you made. There are tons of studies showing that reducing harvest improves a fishery in this manner. If you like I'd be glad to cite some (in addition to the one YOU cited). I also cited two studies (and there are more) that showed that "culling" large fish leads to a decrease in size of the populations, which I felt you discounted because it didn't agree with your position. When I asked this in a past post, the study YOU cited was: http://www.wnrmag.com/stories/2007/oct07/fishery.htm The study didn't show that harvest improved the fishery rather that REDUCING the harvest increased the number of "catchable" and large trout as well as increasing the total trout biomass in a stream. I'll try again. 1. Show me ONE study where a self sustaining stream based trout fishery with C&R regulations was "improved" (use the article YOU cited as an example of "improved") when harvesting was again allowed. or 2. Show me ONE study where a self sustaining stream based trout fishery was "improved" when harvesting was increased. If you answer this post, please address question 1 and 2. "Improved" needs to be based on fish population statistics, not aesthetic opinions. Willi |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality ofLife
On Mar 22, 11:46 am, Willi wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote: Hi Willi, I haven't seen any of the study URL's that I'd asked about to help clarify your question, which, I'm sorry but is not specific enough to be useful. Here is a specific study on optimal partial harvesting: http://tiny.cc/2g3hKhttp://tiny.cc/2g3hK(download the pdf). Abstract When growth is density dependent, partial harvest of the standing stock of cultured species (fish or shrimp) over the course of the growing season (i.e., partial harvesting) would decrease competition and thereby increase indi- vidual growth rates and total yield. Now, this is the basic fisheries management theory. Not 'exactly' what you asked but it demonstrates the concepts clearly. Your URL didn't work for me. However, from abstract, it was based on cultured, not wild populations. Like I tried to explain to you, I have no trouble with you philosophical/religious position on C&R fishing. Like religion, that's a personal choice based on an individual's own values. However, I do object to, what I see as, your pseudo biological explanations for C&R which is why I changed the subject to fishery management. I was hoping that you could discuss this in a more "scientific" vein. This is an area that interests me and I've done considerable reading on it. You make statements about how a C&R or any fishery can be "improved" by harvest. There are many studies done on the effects of different of regulations on fish populations, but I've NEVER seen a study based on a self sustaining trout population that shows what you claim. I asked you to cite one study. Below are three examples of statements you have made concerning harvest "improving" a fishery: " 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 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. It is undeniable and unequivocal. Partial Harvest increases individual growth rate and total yield, at the very least in some situations, of recruitment, available forage, size and nature of habitat, etc." I asked (and still ask) you to show me ONE study done with a self sustaining population of trout in a stream or river that the supports any one of the above statements you made. There are tons of studies showing that reducing harvest improves a fishery in this manner. If you like I'd be glad to cite some (in addition to the one YOU cited). I also cited two studies (and there are more) that showed that "culling" large fish leads to a decrease in size of the populations, which I felt you discounted because it didn't agree with your position. When I asked this in a past post, the study YOU cited was: http://www.wnrmag.com/stories/2007/oct07/fishery.htm The study didn't show that harvest improved the fishery rather that REDUCING the harvest increased the number of "catchable" and large trout as well as increasing the total trout biomass in a stream. I'll try again. 1. Show me ONE study where a self sustaining stream based trout fishery with C&R regulations was "improved" (use the article YOU cited as an example of "improved") when harvesting was again allowed. or 2. Show me ONE study where a self sustaining stream based trout fishery was "improved" when harvesting was increased. If you answer this post, please address question 1 and 2. "Improved" needs to be based on fish population statistics, not aesthetic opinions. Willi Willi, I have tried my best but can not satisfy your question for because it is too nebulous to be taken serious. I've tried as politely as I can to show you why. I've given you all the data you need to extrapolate my essential points. I gave you a study that shows the ultimate control a set of circumstances that could occur naturally in a myriad of situations of 'self-sustaining' populations. I've written the CDOW about the stunted brookies that could only benefit from optimal partial harvesting and in practice by the plus 10 bag limit on brook trout in colorado. You continue to hurl personal attacks, and this is not fair. I've asked you know for the study you report to have many of, because I want to see how you have defined the following real world constraints that can not be ignored in your gross oversimplification of the basic fisheries management equation. Honestly, if that last study wasn't conclusive, I'm not sure what would be. I'm not being flippant in the least. If you are to even begin to understand maximum sustainable harvest or optimal partial harvest you have to address a lot of variables. Improved in what way? If it's simply biomass as you suggested, pounds per acre, the last study I gave you was conclusive. Any aquarist will tell you this. It's simple math that is expressed in a variety of well known management formulas. What is the species? Brook trout in Colorado? This is clearly a species that would benefit from harvest, as the CDOW has shown in its increased bag limit. Harvesting was increased from what to what? What was the original population? How stable is the recruitment each year? How stable is the food source each year? What year classes are present? What species is being managed for? Is there another species in the ecosystem? How has natural predation changed? Is there supplemental fertilizer/ Seriously, what "specifically" is your question Willi? If it's can I produce a study that meets your narrow definition of success, no. TBone |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Qualityof Life
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
If it's can I produce a study that meets your narrow definition of success, no. THANKS!! After all that, you finally answered the question. A simple "no" was fine. Willi |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Qualityof Life
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
What is the species? Brook trout in Colorado? This is clearly a species that would benefit from harvest, as the CDOW has shown in its increased bag limit. Actually according to the CDOW, the increased bag limits in these situations has been ineffective in having any significant impact on these "stunted" populations or in reducing the number of Brook Trout in streams where they are trying to reduce their numbers. (Although it also hasn't hurt) Willi |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Qualityof Life
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Willi, I have tried my best but can not satisfy your question for because it is too nebulous to be taken serious. I've tried as politely as I can to show you why. I've given you all the data you need to extrapolate my essential points. I gave you a study that shows the ultimate control a set of circumstances that could occur naturally in a myriad of situations of 'self-sustaining' populations. I've asked you know for the study you report to have many of, because I want to see how you have defined the following real world constraints that can not be ignored in your gross oversimplification of the basic fisheries management equation. Honestly, if that last study wasn't conclusive, I'm not sure what would be. I'm not being flippant in the least. The study you cited is based on the aquaculture of shrimp and fish. You can't use a study conducted in the closed, man made system of an aquaculture environment containing a fixed population of age specific animals and extrapolate the results to the dynamic system of a stream or river with a self sustaining trout population. Willi |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Qualityof Life
Willi wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote: What is the species? Brook trout in Colorado? This is clearly a species that would benefit from harvest, as the CDOW has shown in its increased bag limit. Actually according to the CDOW, the increased bag limits in these situations has been ineffective in having any significant impact on these "stunted" populations or in reducing the number of Brook Trout in streams where they are trying to reduce their numbers. (Although it also hasn't hurt) Willi Not to answer my own question, but what the Colorado DOW found was what has been found in most places where this was tried. Brook Trout are VERY prolific breeders in these streams. However, I did find a situation in a stream in Canada where this strategy had some limited success. In Quirk Creek they had a concerted effort between Fish and Wildlife and TUC to target Brook Trout in order to increase the number of native Cutt and Bull trout. TUC sponsored supervised outings for angler removal of Brook Trout. In the small area with easy road access, the angling effort over 6? years did reduce the number of big Brook Trout which resulted in some increase in Cutts and Bull trout. Electroshock removal was also used in the areas where there wasn't easy road access. It took artificially high angler hours over 15 times "normal" to have this impact. Willi |
Fishery Management was Catch and Release Hurts our Quality ofLife
On Mar 24, 8:53 am, Willi wrote:
Willi wrote: Halfordian Golfer wrote: What is the species? Brook trout in Colorado? This is clearly a species that would benefit from harvest, as the CDOW has shown in its increased bag limit. Actually according to the CDOW, the increased bag limits in these situations has been ineffective in having any significant impact on these "stunted" populations or in reducing the number of Brook Trout in streams where they are trying to reduce their numbers. (Although it also hasn't hurt) Willi Not to answer my own question, but what the Colorado DOW found was what has been found in most places where this was tried. Brook Trout are VERY prolific breeders in these streams. However, I did find a situation in a stream in Canada where this strategy had some limited success. In Quirk Creek they had a concerted effort between Fish and Wildlife and TUC to target Brook Trout in order to increase the number of native Cutt and Bull trout. TUC sponsored supervised outings for angler removal of Brook Trout. In the small area with easy road access, the angling effort over 6? years did reduce the number of big Brook Trout which resulted in some increase in Cutts and Bull trout. Electroshock removal was also used in the areas where there wasn't easy road access. It took artificially high angler hours over 15 times "normal" to have this impact. Willi What is normal? Pure C&R --- No bag limits? Tim |
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
On 2008-03-07, Ken Fortenberry wrote:
You don't have to resort to curse words to deliver an attack. nb ....jaw on floor |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:51 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter