|
|
Q&A BPAM, with the author,
Ralph recently seeded a thread:
"The Future of the Management of Recreational Angling" in which he posted: The world of angling management is moving well beyond simple notions of harvest; catch and release and so forth. Eric Poole, who is an angler and author of some repute, is an economist and statistician by profession and currently a PHD candidate in Economics at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia. His thesis is about developing best practice management techniques for fishing (both commercial and recreational) and I think some of his ideas will shake the angling world in a few years. In some respects they have a sympathetic resonance with some of the Halfordian Golfer's "naive" ideas but are much more sophisitcated. For example, on some of the local web based discussion boards Eric has talked about "quality" issues and has a strong opinion that the only way to address these on certain waters is by limited entry (i.e. by lottery or by access by payment) He has also addressed bugbear talked about on ng, tackle restriction and when if at all is it right to restrict tackle. He has developed a mathematically based model to justify doing so. Have a look at this: http://www.sfu.ca/~epoole/BPAM_E_Poole_Jun06.pdf His web site: http://www.sfu.ca/~epoole watch this site for additional work on his thesis I would like to ask Mr. Poole a couple of questions to help fully understand BPAM. 1) What specifically would you do in Colorado to begin this methodology? and 2) Have you ever considered mandatory kill-then-quit regulations? Thanks very, very much. I'm looking forward to a great discussion. Sincerely, Halfordian Golfer A cash flow runs through it. |
Q&A BPAM, with the author,
Hello Tim,
1) What specifically would you do in Colorado to begin this methodology? How would the Best Practice Angling Method concept guide further tackle restrictions, if any, in Colorado? I know Colorado angling by reputation only so bear that in mind. Public salmonid fisheries facing overharvesting and/or congestion problems would likely benefit from a bait ban, but would unlikely benefit from a fly fishing only restriction. In the case of privately owned salmonid fisheries. a flyfishing only restriction would make the owner the most money. I would probably suggest to an owner that the fishery be posted and advertised as fly fishing only but that paying artificial lure anglers be allowed to ply the waters, space and reputation issues permitting. 2) Have you ever considered mandatory kill-then-quit regulations? Not formally as in a written piece, but I have fished under those regulations in Quebec Atlantic salmon streams. *Mandatory* kill-then-quit regulations are feasible in a tightly managed situation like the ZECs, provincial parks and state-managed wildlife reserves of Quebec. Otherwise, they promise difficulties in typically passively-managed North American public fisheries due to monitoring and enforcement issues. I believe *voluntary* harvest-then-quit and/or *voluntary* catch-and-release limits would be more cost effective and ultimately more effective. Anglers have proven themselves enormously successful in supporting self-enforcing conventions in not all but many situations. If cherry-picking the catch for harvest by holding fish in live wells and releasing them as larger fish show up, for example, is your driving concern, then I'm not sure what to propose though I can clearly understand why one would want to discourage that kind of behaviour. In a similar vein, catching and releasing hundreds of trout in one day is something else we might want to effectively discourage. Thanks to RalphH for his accurate and informative introduction. This paper will be subject to further peer review. If you feel like citing, please do, but contact me in case there have been major changes or a published version is available at the time. All comments and suggestions would be most welcome. regards -Erik wrote: Ralph recently seeded a thread: "The Future of the Management of Recreational Angling" in which he posted: The world of angling management is moving well beyond simple notions of harvest; catch and release and so forth. Eric Poole, who is an angler and author of some repute, is an economist and statistician by profession and currently a PHD candidate in Economics at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia. His thesis is about developing best practice management techniques for fishing (both commercial and recreational) and I think some of his ideas will shake the angling world in a few years. In some respects they have a sympathetic resonance with some of the Halfordian Golfer's "naive" ideas but are much more sophisitcated. For example, on some of the local web based discussion boards Eric has talked about "quality" issues and has a strong opinion that the only way to address these on certain waters is by limited entry (i.e. by lottery or by access by payment) He has also addressed bugbear talked about on ng, tackle restriction and when if at all is it right to restrict tackle. He has developed a mathematically based model to justify doing so. Have a look at this: http://www.sfu.ca/~epoole/BPAM_E_Poole_Jun06.pdf His web site: http://www.sfu.ca/~epoole watch this site for additional work on his thesis I would like to ask Mr. Poole a couple of questions to help fully understand BPAM. 1) What specifically would you do in Colorado to begin this methodology? and 2) Have you ever considered mandatory kill-then-quit regulations? Thanks very, very much. I'm looking forward to a great discussion. Sincerely, Halfordian Golfer A cash flow runs through it. |
Q&A BPAM, with the author,
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:19:30 -0400, jeff wrote:
[snipped] uh oh, erik must not have gotten the memo on "convention" and "normal" posting requirements...g jeff (lot of scrolling or page down work to get here, eh?) You suppose quoting 200 lines to make an irrelevant point is going to sit well with usenet cops, eh? /daytripper (speaking of not getting the memo... ;-) |
Q&A BPAM, with the author,
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:19:30 -0400, jeff wrote:
wrote: Hello Tim, 1) What specifically would you do in Colorado to begin this methodology? How would the Best Practice Angling Method concept guide further tackle restrictions, if any, in Colorado? I know Colorado angling by reputation only so bear that in mind. Public salmonid fisheries facing overharvesting and/or congestion problems would likely benefit from a bait ban, but would unlikely benefit from a fly fishing only restriction. In the case of privately owned salmonid fisheries. a flyfishing only restriction would make the owner the most money. I would probably suggest to an owner that the fishery be posted and advertised as fly fishing only but that paying artificial lure anglers be allowed to ply the waters, space and reputation issues permitting. 2) Have you ever considered mandatory kill-then-quit regulations? Not formally as in a written piece, but I have fished under those regulations in Quebec Atlantic salmon streams. *Mandatory* kill-then-quit regulations are feasible in a tightly managed situation like the ZECs, provincial parks and state-managed wildlife reserves of Quebec. Otherwise, they promise difficulties in typically passively-managed North American public fisheries due to monitoring and enforcement issues. I believe *voluntary* harvest-then-quit and/or *voluntary* catch-and-release limits would be more cost effective and ultimately more effective. Anglers have proven themselves enormously successful in supporting self-enforcing conventions in not all but many situations. If cherry-picking the catch for harvest by holding fish in live wells and releasing them as larger fish show up, for example, is your driving concern, then I'm not sure what to propose though I can clearly understand why one would want to discourage that kind of behaviour. In a similar vein, catching and releasing hundreds of trout in one day is something else we might want to effectively discourage. Thanks to RalphH for his accurate and informative introduction. This paper will be subject to further peer review. If you feel like citing, please do, but contact me in case there have been major changes or a published version is available at the time. All comments and suggestions would be most welcome. regards -Erik wrote: Ralph recently seeded a thread: "The Future of the Management of Recreational Angling" in which he posted: The world of angling management is moving well beyond simple notions of harvest; catch and release and so forth. Eric Poole, who is an angler and author of some repute, is an economist and statistician by profession and currently a PHD candidate in Economics at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia. His thesis is about developing best practice management techniques for fishing (both commercial and recreational) and I think some of his ideas will shake the angling world in a few years. In some respects they have a sympathetic resonance with some of the Halfordian Golfer's "naive" ideas but are much more sophisitcated. For example, on some of the local web based discussion boards Eric has talked about "quality" issues and has a strong opinion that the only way to address these on certain waters is by limited entry (i.e. by lottery or by access by payment) He has also addressed bugbear talked about on ng, tackle restriction and when if at all is it right to restrict tackle. He has developed a mathematically based model to justify doing so. Have a look at this: http://www.sfu.ca/~epoole/BPAM_E_Poole_Jun06.pdf His web site: http://www.sfu.ca/~epoole watch this site for additional work on his thesis I would like to ask Mr. Poole a couple of questions to help fully understand BPAM. 1) What specifically would you do in Colorado to begin this methodology? and 2) Have you ever considered mandatory kill-then-quit regulations? Thanks very, very much. I'm looking forward to a great discussion. Sincerely, Halfordian Golfer A cash flow runs through it. uh oh, erik must not have gotten the memo on "convention" and "normal" posting requirements...g jeff (lot of scrolling or page down work to get here, eh?) Not to mention that if you use the slider to scroll up and down rapidly, it seems to fascinate the housepets... Hey, looking for the good where I might stumble upon it, R |
Q&A BPAM, with the author,
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 22:54:37 -0400, daytripper
wrote: On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:19:30 -0400, jeff wrote: [snipped] uh oh, erik must not have gotten the memo on "convention" and "normal" posting requirements...g jeff (lot of scrolling or page down work to get here, eh?) You suppose quoting 200 lines to make an irrelevant point is going to sit well with usenet cops, eh? Oops... /daytripper (speaking of not getting the memo... ;-) Oh...I didn't think anyone really read those... Ah, well, the pets appear to like it, and I'm fine with that, R |
Q&A BPAM, with the author,
daytripper wrote:
....ripper (speaking of not getting the memo... ;-) well...if the theory is that one must be able to keep up with the conversation for response or comprehension, seems to me the entire conversation must be available to readers who aren't participating directly in the discussion. i don't need to include any of the prior posts for my reply purposes. i know what the other guy said, he knows what he said, and i can snip everything... but your point is known, and i made my point knowing your point, and, i agree, it's all pointless in the grand scheme. jeff |
Q&A BPAM, with the author,
wrote:
Hello Tim, 1) What specifically would you do in Colorado to begin this methodology? How would the Best Practice Angling Method concept guide further tackle restrictions, if any, in Colorado? I know Colorado angling by reputation only so bear that in mind. Public salmonid fisheries facing overharvesting and/or congestion problems would likely benefit from a bait ban, but would unlikely benefit from a fly fishing only restriction. In the case of privately owned salmonid fisheries. a flyfishing only restriction would make the owner the most money. I would probably suggest to an owner that the fishery be posted and advertised as fly fishing only but that paying artificial lure anglers be allowed to ply the waters, space and reputation issues permitting. [snip] Colorado, AFAIK, has no "Flyfishing Only" sections but has "flies and lures only" regulations on many waters. Its interesting that you noted the 'reputation' issues of a private fishery because I think it's clear that there are no sound reasons for flyfishing only regulations based biology alone. This was a very hot topic in Oregon a few years back and was heavily debated here, including several members of the Oregon commission. This speaks to the social aspects affecting these regulations more than the critical health of the fisheries, as you mention in your report. During these discussions the flyfishermen cited such issues as quality of experience being ruined by the presence of spin fishermen and other, stereotypical, issues such as the feeling that flyfishermen were cleaner and left trash astream (yes, that was stated). I think the Colorado regulations speak to the latest data on mortality of these tackle choices, make more sense and are more 'fair' than limiting tackle choices (exclusive of bait) on public waters. I am speaking to physical and financial constraints on some fishermen that would be otherwise excluded, but also to a personal preference (it takes a great deal of skill to fish a lure properly, is fun and is a great education segue to other imitative angling methods) as well as to exposing the class bias that exists for what it is. [continues] 2) Have you ever considered mandatory kill-then-quit regulations? Not formally as in a written piece, but I have fished under those regulations in Quebec Atlantic salmon streams. *Mandatory* kill-then-quit regulations are feasible in a tightly managed situation like the ZECs, provincial parks and state-managed wildlife reserves of Quebec. Otherwise, they promise difficulties in typically passively-managed North American public fisheries due to monitoring and enforcement issues. I believe *voluntary* harvest-then-quit and/or *voluntary* catch-and-release limits would be more cost effective and ultimately more effective. Anglers have proven themselves enormously successful in supporting self-enforcing conventions in not all but many situations. [snip] The one area of fisheries management you do not discuss in your report is the ethos of catch and release fishing and the impact this has on recreational sport fishing. It is my personal feeling that managing fisheries more akin to hunting will result in better and more sustainable regulations over time. Your comment below is spot on, in my estimation, yet I feel that it is the pure catch and release crowd is not, generally, accepting of voluntarily limiting catch and release resulting in significantly more mortality in some cases than areas where subsistence harvest is allowed. This is especially true when water temperatures are warmer or when fishing from a drift boat in swift water. It does not cease to amaze me the moral high ground claimed by catch and release flyfishermen that generally do not show a great deal self restraint limiting the hours astream (which affects the availability and quality of angling for everyone). If cherry-picking the catch for harvest by holding fish in live wells and releasing them as larger fish show up, for example, is your driving concern, then I'm not sure what to propose though I can clearly understand why one would want to discourage that kind of behaviour. In a similar vein, catching and releasing hundreds of trout in one day is something else we might want to effectively discourage. [snip] Stringly agree. Have you had a chance to read the report from the Norwegian Fisheries council found at: http://org.nlh.no/etikkutvalget/English/catch.htm I'm curious if you think applying BPAM with a sound biological 'ethic' might be the watershed, definitive, overall management strategy cornerstone. Thank you very, very much for your time and for your generative discussion on this important subject. Sincerely, Halfordian Golfer It is impossible to catch and release a wild trout. |
Q&A BPAM, with the author,
Colorado, AFAIK, has no "Flyfishing Only" sections but has "flies and
lures only" regulations on many waters. Its interesting that you noted the 'reputation' issues of a private fishery because I think it's clear that there are no sound reasons for flyfishing only regulations based biology alone. The problem with respect to resident salmonids is that flyfishing is too effective; the expected catch rate is too high. Congestion and sublethal impacts can be significant on systems where the vast majority of the effort is flyfishing. I am speaking to physical and financial constraints on some fishermen that would be otherwise excluded, but also to a personal preference (it takes a great deal of skill to fish a lure properly, is fun and is a great education segue to other imitative angling methods) as well as to exposing the class bias that exists for what it is. Imposing tackle restrictions often results in anglers exiting the fishery. In recreational fishing we never compensate losers so gratuitous restrictions that really do not address the underlying problem are perhaps best avoided. The class bias issue is misleading as I demonstrate in the case of resident British Columbia steelhead anglers. Household incomes are indistinguishable. The one area of fisheries management you do not discuss in your report is the ethos of catch and release fishing and the impact this has on recreational sport fishing. snip It does not cease to amaze me the moral high ground claimed by catch and release flyfishermen that generally do not show a great deal self restraint limiting the hours astream (which affects the availability and quality of angling for everyone). If you think of catch and release as simply a form of selective fishing then it is not so mysterious perhaps. Easy-access public fisheries may have spawned catch and release as a dominant mode of angling, yet we observe private fisheries and jurisdictions with direct effort controls governing public fisheries that are increasingly adopting catch and release as a management tool. I know many fly anglers who do quit early or who adopt less effective techniques in the face of abundant, available fish. Some do the 75 trout/day thing once or twice and then never go back, or find a different, less effective but often more interesting and rewarding presentation. I agree entirely with your assessment of the externalities of catch and release. Daily fees on public fisheries will reduce some of that resource damage. Restricting tackle to one fly rigs would reduce catch rates on many US tailwater fisheries. If anglers are keen to avoid direct effort controls, then maybe some trout fisheries should be limited to no sinking-line, no additional weight rules? Would not be my first choice but such a restriction would reduce catch rates. Have you had a chance to read the report from the Norwegian Fisheries council found at: http://org.nlh.no/etikkutvalget/English/catch.htm I just did, thank you. In Norway, the coast is an open access fishery, but most of the valuable salmonid fisheries, migratory and resident, enjoy some form of direct controlled effort management, typically through daily fees. Quebec, which also enjoys intense management regimes of high demand public sport fisheries has been reluctant to integrate catch and release. But from all accounts many keen anglers and the younger biologist-managers support catch and release. It is coming. Many high-value, keen anglers are willing to sacrifice enormously for the privilege of fishing an undisturbed distribution of year classes. If the globe-trotting Swedes practice catch and release, are the Norwegians far behind? Personally I hope we retain and further develop opportunities to harvest recreational fish, even if recreational harvesting is by definition irrational (sic) to the extent that all of us would expend fewer resources if we bought our fish at the market, and thus open to the accusation of playing or torturing and harrassing one's prey. I'm curious if you think applying BPAM with a sound biological 'ethic' might be the watershed, definitive, overall management strategy cornerstone. 'Ethic'? Not that strong. Mangement principles and heuristic decision models--yes. However, I suppose that many will view the issues raised as largely ethical in nature, for example: * Should individual resource users confront their own resource costs? * Should asset owners get a share of the loot from from natural public assets? * Should the resource be allocated in preference to high-demand, high willingness to pay users as we expect from all well functioning markets to do? On a different level, there is another challenge. In the face of a dysfunctional management regime, do managers give up trying to improve outcomes? Additional tackle restrictions are generally best avoided but if that is the only tool available, what is one supposed to do? The message for managers and scientists is that the catch rate matters. Apologies for the length of this; thanks for the interest. -Erik |
Q&A BPAM, with the author,
-- Some of my angling snaps: http://gallery.fishbc.com/gallery/vi...bumName=RalphH uh oh, erik must not have gotten the memo on "convention" and "normal" posting requirements...g jeff (lot of scrolling or page down work to get here, eh?) thank god you caught the most important aspect of the discussion - I thought I would have to content myself with all that shallow tripe about "heuristic tools" sheesh! |
Q&A BPAM, with the author,
RalphH wrote:
it was a joke ralph...just poking fun at some others, not your friend erik. jeff |
Q&A BPAM, with the author,
|
Q&A BPAM, with the author,
wrote: On 20 Jun 2006 18:56:14 -0700, wrote: Colorado, AFAIK, has no "Flyfishing Only" sections but has "flies and lures only" regulations on many waters. Its interesting that you noted the 'reputation' issues of a private fishery because I think it's clear that there are no sound reasons for flyfishing only regulations based biology alone. The problem with respect to resident salmonids is that flyfishing is too effective; the expected catch rate is too high. Congestion and sublethal impacts can be significant on systems where the vast majority of the effort is flyfishing. Are there _no_ FFing-only (or "artificial flies only") stretches in CO anymore? At least one stretch that I knew of, the East River at/near Gunnison was/is? flies only, but ??? The signage says/said "Flyfishing Only." And it's at a hatchery to the Taylor, IIRC. I believe I recall seeing these signs as as well but I do not believe that they are on waters managed by Colorado State DOW. Does anyone know? It almost would have to because the CDOW has no *definition* for "Flyfishing" that I am aware of. In the Definitions section they list: "Artificial Flies and Lures". Further, in the special restriction section they only mention "fishing shall be by artificial flies and lures only" section. This is reasonable, IMO, because it does away with some of the distinctions that are completely unnecessary WRT the management of the fishery as it pertains to the health of the fishery, per se. It is very common, and effective, for example, to fish a fly on a spinning rod with a clear plastic bubble in both lakes and streams. If the section on the East said "Flyfishing Only" than it would be as legal to use a small Rapala, plug or flatfish, on a Fly Rod as well as a Wooley Booger on a spinning rod. Your pal, Halfordian Golfer A cash flow runs through it. |
Q&A BPAM, with the author,
On 21 Jun 2006 11:32:21 -0700, wrote:
wrote: On 20 Jun 2006 18:56:14 -0700, wrote: Colorado, AFAIK, has no "Flyfishing Only" sections but has "flies and lures only" regulations on many waters. Its interesting that you noted the 'reputation' issues of a private fishery because I think it's clear that there are no sound reasons for flyfishing only regulations based biology alone. The problem with respect to resident salmonids is that flyfishing is too effective; the expected catch rate is too high. Congestion and sublethal impacts can be significant on systems where the vast majority of the effort is flyfishing. Are there _no_ FFing-only (or "artificial flies only") stretches in CO anymore? At least one stretch that I knew of, the East River at/near Gunnison was/is? flies only, but ??? The signage says/said "Flyfishing Only." And it's at a hatchery to the Taylor, IIRC. I believe I recall seeing these signs as as well but I do not believe that they are on waters managed by Colorado State DOW. Does anyone know? "Artificial Flies Only" is/used to be on parts of the Gunnison near Gunnison and around the hill on the Roaring Fork near Woody Creek/Aspen, too, if anyone is familiar with those. I've never worried about as I use, um, an artificial fly and a fly rod, but ??? TC, R |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:55 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter