Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Mar 7, 8:53 am, Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 07:13:45 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer
snip

Hi Dave,

I was curious about my question about the Maine regs and the fact that
I didn't see many pure C&R regulations there. I'm curious for several
reasons. If the current regulations, including established minimum
lengths for all species, coupled with severely reduced bag limits, is
responsible for the resurgence in your streams. It seems like the
current management strategy is working. That's good. If this is not
the case, has there been anything else that is attributable.
Specifically, and directly back on-topic with my thread, is the
pollution response there. Has this changed dramatically?

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
I consider Tim questioning JT's honesty, an attack. YMMV.

Hi Ken,

There was no attack just a qualified statement of truth. He agrees
with this now and has recanted.

To wit: "Sure it stresses fish to catch and play a trout".

Ken - what sucked about JT's answer is that - I answered his question
straight up, like a gentleman - and he answered mine with pure crap,
you know it, and, well...that wasn't the deal.

But, all personal attacks aside, and letting bygones be bygones this
is where this stands in our Socratic, no ad hominem, debate:

1. "Sure it stresses fish to catch and play a trout" (Socrates)
2. "Does it matter?" (Plato)
3. Your answer goes here.

Your pal,

TBone

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Mar 7, 5:31 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Hi Ken,

Not sure what you mean. I created the charter for and the physical
nntp add message for this group years and years ago. ...

In other words you sent an email. Big whoop.

In the day that was fairly difficult for me. Especially since I was on
a PC and the Internet was on a separate Unix LAN inside of [name of
large telco here]. And, I am proud of it.

I don't know any such thing and neither do you. Anyone who claims
to know that fish can feel stress is full of it. Maybe they do,
maybe they don't, but you are not a fish, so you cannot possibly
know one way or the other.

I really wish you'd just go with the debate and not get so personal.
This is stated as knowledge in almost all C&R Data, data you've
probably cited. I've included one below.

However, I specifically did NOT say anything about the fish feeling
stress. That would be a completely different or subsequent point to
discuss.

Let's try it from this 'fact?' (it really is true Ken)...

1. Fish die when they are stressed. (Socrates)
2. Does it matter? (Plato)
3. Your answer here (Ken).
4. ?

Your pal,

Tim
Here's the data I mentioned.
From: http://www.acuteangling.com/Reference/C&RMortality.html
Key Mortality Factors

Two factors predominate when considering the causes of angled fish
mortality: the hooking location, and the degree of physiological
stress suffered by the fish.

(snip)

Physiological Stress - Exercise performed by fish during a catch
event, or caused by angler handling methods and air exposure all
create measurable physiological responses. Physiological stress in
fish has been measured by experimenters using cortisol, lactate and
respiratory gas concentrations.

Although the catch and release mortality studies reviewed do not show
statistical results directly correlating the degree of physiological
stress to mortality, an experiment by Ferguson and Tufts examined the
effects of artificially induced stress on rainbow trout. They
concluded that various forms of physiological stress contribute to
fish mortality (12). It is reasonable to infer that such stress also
contributes to mortality in angled fish and therefore, that
minimization of stress assists in reduction of catch and release
mortality. \

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
...
Let's try it from this 'fact?' (it really is true Ken)...

1. Fish die when they are stressed. (Socrates)

Fish sometimes die when caught & released.

2. Does it matter? (Plato)

Does that cause you to think that C&R is not a viable
fisheries management protocol in some situations ?

3. Your answer here (Ken).

No.

4. ?

How in the hell did I ever get into another ridiculous
C&R wrangle with T-Bone ?

HTH

--
Ken Fortenberry

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Mar 7, 6:11 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Fish sometimes die when caught & released.
2. Does it matter? (Plato)
No.

Sweet!

OK...so following along...

Our relationship with fish include stressing and killing them purely
for recreation. (Socrates)
Does it matter? (Plato)
?

Tim

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
On Mar 7, 6:11 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Fish sometimes die when caught & released.
2. Does it matter? (Plato)
No.

Sweet!

OK...so following along...

Our relationship with fish include stressing and killing them purely
for recreation. (Socrates)
Does it matter? (Plato)
?

Nope. My recreation is every bit as important as the few
fish which accidentally die as a result of my C&R. Where
regulations permit I will eat the fish I kill and where
it's illegal to keep a fish the turtles and otters will
eat them. A few dead fish do not matter one whit to me,
I look at the bigger fishery management picture. As do
most of the folks who have grown weary of your tedious
and tiresome anti-C&R crusading.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 16:33:15 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

I was curious about my question about the Maine regs and the fact that
I didn't see many pure C&R regulations there.

Several rivers have "pure" C&R on brook trout. On these same rivers,
you must use only a single barbless hook. Some rivers have a 1
landlocked salmon 14" or greater/day during certain months of the
year.

I'm curious for several
reasons. If the current regulations, including established minimum
lengths for all species, coupled with severely reduced bag limits, is
responsible for the resurgence in your streams.

Once again, Tim: Some of these rivers were very nearly ruined by
catch and kill fishermen. I call them meat gatherers because that is
exactly what they were (are). They are still present. A guide and I
reported one fisherman for taking a 3 lb brook trout two years ago.
We turned in his boat number with a description. Never heard back on
him. I've seen people creel one fish and try to dump it when they
caught a bigger one (1 fish limit). It was killing the river. Twenty
years ago you could catch good size salmon and brook trout in the
river. Then, as the river became more popular with the locals, the
meat gatherers gathered every week-end throughout the season (May to
Sept) and put such a dent in the fishery that is was fortunate to
recover. Just before C&R was implemented, a 15 in brook trout was the
talk of the camp. Now, five pounders are not unusual. I took several
last June and Sept. The land locked salmon were skinny and seldom was
a good size one taken. I safely landed and released a 25+ incher (on
5x tippet and a size 20 PT) last June. I've heard of even bigger
brook trout and salmon being taken. The river is now thriving thanks
to C&R.

It seems like the
current management strategy is working. That's good. If this is not
the case, has there been anything else that is attributable.
Specifically, and directly back on-topic with my thread, is the
pollution response there. Has this changed dramatically?

There is no pollution in this river. I know guides that regularly
drink from it. I'd be afraid because there are beaver up-stream in
the lakes. But, the water is clean, gin clear, and very fast moving.

There is some concern about an invasive algae, Didymo. It has been
discovered in the Connecticut River in New Hampshire, and a couple of
streams in Vermont. "Rock Snot", as it is called by some, can cover
the entire bottom of a stream making any plant or animal life (nymphs,
insects) disappear. It is easily transferred by waders, boots,
boats/motors, and some think even birds such as eagles and ospreys,
and animals like deer, moose, bear, etc.

Tim, if any of us (fishermen) are queasy about hooking and landing a
fish, I think it would be time to take up another hobby/pastime. I
gave up hunting after I shot a deer and followed his trail for hours
(some blood and good prints). I was 15. I shot my first deer the
year before with a single shot 12 gauge shotgun dating from my dad's
childhood (born 1900). I was using a Browning Sweet 16 Auto-loader on
the one I wounded. I sold it 20 years later to a Navy buddy for $100
- I bet it hadn't been fired but a few times. It was a hassle owning
a firearm while in the military. Go figure.

Dave

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Mar 7, 6:55 pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:
[snip]
Several rivers have "pure" C&R on brook trout. On these same rivers,
you must use only a single barbless hook. Some rivers have a 1
landlocked salmon 14" or greater/day during certain months of the
year.
[snip]
Once again, Tim: Some of these rivers were very nearly ruined by
catch and kill fishermen. I call them meat gatherers because that is
exactly what they were (are). They are still present. A guide and I
reported one fisherman for taking a 3 lb brook trout two years ago.
We turned in his boat number with a description. Never heard back on
him. I've seen people creel one fish and try to dump it when they
caught a bigger one (1 fish limit). [snip]

Which rivers are pure C&R for brook trout? Looked like not that many,
considering how big Maine is. Are you sure that it's not the more
restrictive size limits plus seriously reduced bag and possession
limits are mostly responsible for the comeback? The one 3 pound brook
trout, in and of itself, is less than the C&R mortality of a single
day, I'd imagine.

Thanks,

Tim

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Mar 7, 6:55 pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:
snip

Dave,

In continuing my research for the causality of the comeback of the
brook trout fisheries of Maine I agree that selective harvest has
played a big role, though I still fail to see any places where pure
C&R can by attributed as the primary cause.

It seems to me that it was a combination of factors that led to the
demise and regrowth of your beautiful waterways. One of these was the
introduction of the black bass to the equation. Much like the
greenback recovery program where all greenbacks were to be returned to
the water in Colorado, the goal of fishing in those water was not to
catch a fish nearing genetic extinction but, rather, to remove all
brook trout and other foreign fish that would compete for its
recovery. Specifically, in a white paper issued by the managers they
state that it was, indeed the introduction of regulations in the QFI -
Quality Fishing Initiative that was the primary causality in the
increase in size and number of fish.

The paper has these quotes:

"For these reasons, four years ago the Maine Department of Inland
Fisheries and Wildlife implemented about 100 special, highly
restrictive regulations, which generally resulted in very low bag
limits, higher length limits and restrictions on terminal tackle
(flies & lures) to reduce mortality from hooking since many more fish
would need to be released alive. This was called the Quality Fishing
Initiative. Following this initiative, special restrictive limits (bag
and length) were implemented on some 400 wild brook trout ponds in
order to conserve these important native populations."

"With increasing angling pressure on bass, which is one of Maine's
most popular game fish, the Department biologists recommended greater
protection for this valuable game fish. Through research conducted in
Ontario, we have learned much about the importance of the older,
larger smallmouth bass in these northern climes. In order to protect
these fish, not only for the excitement they provide anglers but for
their spawning potential, Maine also implemented very restrictive bass
regulations."

Further, and also somewhat contrary to your beliefs, apparently, is
that the brook trout hatchery program has been in full steam ahead
mode and is also cited as contributing to the program. It looks like
the angling future in Maine is very good. Interestingly.

However, it would be completely reckless to suggest that "Catch and
Release" (all fish must be returned to the water) has played very
little, if any role, with the exception of selectively harvesting
bass.

And while this subject is tedium for you and others. I would
respectfully suggest that management of our fisheries is of extreme
importance. Having these discussions and debates could prove
invaluable to researchers and policy makers. To this end, the paper
cited (http://maine.gov/ifw/fishing/good_gettingbetter.htm) ends with
this stetement:

"There are many other issues regarding Maine's sport fishery, not the
least of which is the rearing and stocking of fish and the general
management of our fishery. Among anglers, biologists and policy makers
alike, there needs to be considerable thought and debate about our
fish culture program, introduction of new strains of trout, exotic
fish, habitat changes and the need for the kind of regulations that
will safeguard Maine's valuable sport fishery while at the same time
providing diverse and high-quality angling opportunities for all to
enjoy."

Which seems sagacious in the extreme.

Anyway I'd suggest that using the proper causality (restrictive
regulations and a good hatchery program) would be more efficacious in
getting your point across than "Catch and Release" and crucifying the
"meat gatherers".

I want to teach our children proper respect for the wild. That a fish
is a wild animal that is struggling to survive. I want to teach them
the respect for the animal while also letting them experience their
place in the natural world and the experience of tying a fly, catching
a fish and enjoying it in the evening meal, one of life's greatest
pleasures and proof of the abundant plans of our Creator.

Which goes back to this thread: We can't do this - the fish have
mercury in them. My contention that the C&R dogma hurts forcing
measurements and controls has been absolutely verified in this thread
and, particularly, your and JT's responses.

Your pal,

TBone

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 07:12:58 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

Further, and also somewhat contrary to your beliefs, apparently, is
that the brook trout hatchery program has been in full steam ahead
mode and is also cited as contributing to the program. It looks like
the angling future in Maine is very good. Interestingly.

Tim, will you please listen to me: There is NO stocking of brook
trout in the Rapid River. All of the brook trout are native to that
river, and it is thought that they may be a specific strain native to
only that river. There obviously is stocking throughout Maine, but
they do not stock the Rapid River.

Banning the killing of a brook trout is what brought back the
population and increased the sizes to *normal*. Stocking had nothing
to do with it. Banning the killing of landlocks who were stocked
about a hundred years ago also increased their number and size. The
Rapid River is a prime example of how catch and release can bring a
doomed waterway back to a viable and healthy one.

Dave