Fishing - TUNA!

FishingBanter (http://www.fishingbanter.com/index.php)

- Fly Fishing (http://www.fishingbanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=6)

- - TUNA! (http://www.fishingbanter.com/showthread.php?t=3508)

"Kevin Vang" wrote in message
...

A rather specialized alternate definition of the word. In the
competetive bass tournament world, a fisherman will keep every
fish he catches until he has his legal bag limit. Then, if
should catch a larger fish, he will place it in his livewell
and remove one of the smaller fish and release it.
Snip

The act you describe above (illegal in most states) is not a "specialized
alternate definition" of culling; it is a classic example of the standard
definition of culling.
The fishermen described above are culling their CATCH to remove the
individuals that are undesireable to them. That is far different than
maintaining that slot limits amount to culling the undesireable specimens
from THE GENERAL FISH POPULATION in a body of water.
The fish removed with slot limits are no better or worse than those that
remain, both within and outside the slot. There is simply deemed to be
enough of a population in that slot for which retention is allowed that the
fisheries bio's believe a certain amount of them may be removed without
overly adversely affecting the total fishery.

--
Bob Weinberger
La, Grande, OR

place a dot between bobs and stuff and remove invalid to send email

Bob Weinberger wrote:

The fish removed with slot limits are no better or worse than those that
remain, both within and outside the slot. There is simply deemed to be
enough of a population in that slot for which retention is allowed that the
fisheries bio's believe a certain amount of them may be removed without
overly adversely affecting the total fishery.

There's an interesting study that indicates that "culling" the largest
fish leads to stunted populations, most likely due to genetic changes. A
popularized account can be found in:

http://whyfiles.org/shorties/108big_fish/

This was a legitimate, well vetted scientific paper that appeared in
Science, one of the two most prestigious scientific periodicals in the
world (along with Nature). You can quibble with the assumptions and the
conclusions, but you can't dismiss it as "junk science."

Personally, I like to keep an occasional fish that's large enough to
bake and to make a meal for two. A fat 18" trout fills the bill. I
released the largest trout I've ever caught (by far), except for
steelhead, even though (as Willi so cruelly pointed out) I could have
kept it.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

"rw" wrote in message
hlink.net...

There's an interesting study that indicates that "culling" the largest
fish leads to stunted populations, most likely due to genetic changes. A
popularized account can be found in:

http://whyfiles.org/shorties/108big_fish/

This was a legitimate, well vetted scientific paper that appeared in
Science, one of the two most prestigious scientific periodicals in the
world (along with Nature). You can quibble with the assumptions and the
conclusions, but you can't dismiss it as "junk science."

No, its not junk science, but the conclusions in the popularized version are
far too simplistic. The slot limits to manage fisheries will vary greatly
by the characteristics of the species. For instance the species in the
study are schooling fish and tend to live and grow in even aged cohorts, and
do not become canibalistic on their own kind. Thus, in the study, the sizes
of the fish in the population were due to genetic factors rather than age.

For species such as Brown Trout which commonly exist in mixed age classes,
tend to live much much more individualistically, and usually become quite
canibalistic at larger sizes, factors in addition to genetics may come into
play and may be more significant than genetics to the size class
distribution of the population. Thus in a Brown Trout fishery, the fish
bio's might choose a slot management system that is bi-polar to achieve the
long term population distribution that they feel best meets their long term
goals- eg. allow keeping of some fish that are beyond the juvenile stage but
are too young to be effective spawners, require that all fish in the prime
spawning size class/age group be released unharmed, and allow keeping some
fish that are of a size that they are primarily piscivorous.

Though I'm not entirely sold on the concept (especially if they want to
apply it to human populations), many practitioners in the biological
sciences believe that the ideal sustainable population distribution for an
all-aged mixed population (whether trees, fish, deer, etc.) forms a smooth
curved "L" shape : i.e. with the X axis representing size/age and the
oldest/largest occurring class to the right, and the Y axis representing
occurance with 0 at the bottom, a plot of an "ideal" distribution is
represented by a smooth curved lazy "L". Though the " ideal" slope of this
curve will vary with the type population being managed, with this concept,
any bulge in the curve up and to the right represents a class that is
overabundant, and can thus have members removed to get back to the ideal.
Conversely, any "slump" in the curve down and to the left represents a
class that is deficient in numbers and must be protected or even
supplemented.

--
Bob Weinberger
La, Grande, OR

place a dot between bobs and stuff and remove invalid to send email

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

And if it's NOT big enough for dinner?

Wolfgang
or if it's early and you feel like fishing for a bit longer and there's a
good chance that you'll get another one big enough for dinner in an hour
or
two?

If it's not big enough, or I have a group of people I'm with (who aren't
fishing, or who are but aren't catching), I'll keep fishing.

If it's enough, and it's still early and I still feel like fishing, I'll
find something else to do instead.

However, where I fish (high sierras, backpacking whenever possible) it's
extremely rare to catch large trout.. a meal is usually made up of a
couple/few smaller trout.

"Wolfgang" wrote in message ...

Actually, there are vanishingly few C&R purists and exactly zero C&K purists
who have made their presence known in this news group. This is one of the
two major reasons that the entire argument is so tedious and unrelievedly
stupid. The other, of course, is that there is no issue.

Well I see that didn't stop you from participating :-)

While I would like to agree with the sentiment, it must simply
be observed that _something_ in this newsgroup, the FF glossy rags,
the "cash flow" business, everything else that revolves around
flyfishing _did_ cause cyli to perceive a hostility to C+K. It is
my opinion that she perceived a real phenomenon, that she isn't
crazy but rather observant.

Jon.

"Charlie Choc" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 13:41:37 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:
If Tim were to learn to write in English, and you to read it, it
certainly
wouldn't cure either of you of being asses......but it probably wouldn't
hurt.
Wolfgang
and even if timmy had said what he thought he meant he would still be
wrong.
You just don't understand what culling means in the context he used
it. You don't need to be ashamed you can't comprehend, but you
probably ought to be.

Ya gotta pull the big radishes and the little radishes to get 'just right'
radishes. And of course, those little radishes are really, really good.

Your pal,

TBone

"Willi" wrote in message
...

Halfordian Golfer wrote:

The real answer, of course, depends on what is the fishery being managed
for. But, even the fisheries managers agree that catching a fish caught
and
released 20 times has very little aesthetic value regardless of how big
it
gets. You really should harvest the big pigs out of the Frying Pan, for
example,

I don't know if you can apply standard fishery management to that
section of water. That situation and a couple others in CO are just too
weird for me. Those big fish are there because of the releases of mysis
shrimp from the dam that basically serves as a "feeding station". IMO,
there is no "natural" way to manage such a fishery. Those big trout
aren't fish eaters, they get big and fat gorging on the mysis release.

True. But any little baby trout swimming by would be engulfed just as
surely. Rapala's and jigs work great in the toilet bowl.

and a few of those 18" browns from You-Know-Where-Willi Creek for
the benefit of these fisheries.

Natural part of the system. It's a nicely balanced fishery with them
there. What the fishery needs are more consistent water flows, not a
change in regulations or more harvest - it is open regulation and IMO
working very well.

*Exactly*. Couldn't agree more.

Smaller bag and enforced slot limit's are
the best way to go in just about every situation. Of course, when you
release a fish from outside the slot, this is NOT "C&R fishing", this is
"Culling", but I've tried to make this distinction clear for nigh on a
decade and for nought.
I think that slot limits and reduced bags are an effective management
tool but not the only tool and not a tool that is applicable to all
waters. IE Some waters with stunted populations benefit from
increased bag limits. Many CO waters are managed with slot limits or
size limits. Far more in fact than are C&R.

Actually, you need to be careful when you say this, because slots can be set
at about any criteria threshold, including, 'effectively', pure C&R.

PS Something you didn't respond to in terms your your comments on
stocking catchables:

1. How do you reconcile your position on stocking catchables with the
studies done in Montana that showed that the stocking of catchables in a
stream or river that has a healthy self sustaining population of trout,
actually reduces the carrying capacity of that water?

The stocking does not reduce the carrying capacity, which remains constant.
This is an excellent example of a place where the stocking of fry of a
desirable species 8) would be beneficial. The stocking of catchables results
in the ability for the average fisherman, be it a kid from North Denver or a
tourist from Oklahoma, who is not Wild-Willi to get out and catch a few
fish. This returns nearly a billion dollars in revenue to the state. The
CDOW uses it's direct revenue from license and grants to manage all kinds of
wildlife management. I'd dare say that stocking catchables is emminently
symbiotic.

2. And do you actually think that the "You-Know-Where-Willi Creek" would
benefit from the stocking of catchable trout?

No, probably not, but I'd love to see about a billion cuttthroat fingerlings
dumped in.

PS there's a new access on that creek that just opened up. It's a
couple/several? miles walk in to the section above a reservoir. Looking
at hiking in after runoff, you interested?

Of course! Silly question.

Your pal,

Tim

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

"Particle Salad" wrote in message
. com...
"Willi" wrote in message
...

Just curious, if you catch an especially big fish for the water you're
fishing do you keep it?

Willi

Yea, then I stop fishing for the day if it's big enough for dinner and
go
on
a hike or something.

And if it's NOT big enough for dinner?

In that case I'd just quietly slip a few under the carpet in the backseat of
your SUV while you were napping.

TBone