FishingBanter

FishingBanter (http://www.fishingbanter.com/index.php)
-   Fly Fishing (http://www.fishingbanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=12)
-   -   Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life (http://www.fishingbanter.com/showthread.php?t=30870)

Halfordian Golfer February 27th, 2008 07:38 PM

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 
I was just reading about the elevated levels of mercury in the fish
caught in some of the most pristine waters in North America.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/...tml?source=rss

I was thinking the average Catch and Release fisherman isn't doing
anything to stop this because they simply do not care about eating
fish, though the claims of conservation and love of things wild are
rampant. I anglers were forced to eat the fish they caught there'd be
a lot less apathy, IMO.

Sad thing when you can not eat the fish in the last wilderness in this
country.

Bone

[email protected] February 27th, 2008 09:17 PM

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On 27-Feb-2008, Halfordian Golfer wrote:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/...tml?source=rss


Too many humans on this planet
We need to send some people to another solar system

Fred

Dave LaCourse February 28th, 2008 03:22 AM

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:38:09 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

I was just reading about the elevated levels of mercury in the fish
caught in some of the most pristine waters in North America.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/...tml?source=rss

I was thinking the average Catch and Release fisherman isn't doing
anything to stop this because they simply do not care about eating
fish, though the claims of conservation and love of things wild are
rampant. I anglers were forced to eat the fish they caught there'd be
a lot less apathy, IMO.

Sad thing when you can not eat the fish in the last wilderness in this
country.

Bone


How long have you been supporting this catch and kill logic? I've
known you for 12 years or so and it hasn't changed. If we started to
eat the trout and salmon on my home waters, there would be NO fish
except stocked trout to fish for. Catch and release works, Tim. I've
seen it with my own eyes - a river came back from almost being empty
of brook trout because of meat gatherers, to a place where 5 lb brook
trout are caught every week. If you catch them and eat them, there
will be nothing but stocked trout.

Catch and release does not cause poluted waters - umcaring man does.
The reservoir system for Boston has warnings about not eating a
certain amount of the fish. THAT water is catch and kill, so your
logic has some flaws.

Dave




salmobytes February 28th, 2008 06:53 PM

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 
On Feb 27, 8:22 pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:
If you catch them and eat them, there
will be nothing but stocked trout.
Dave


....yes, if you catch a lot and eat a lot.
I throw most back. But I sure do like to eat a few too--usually
12-15" panfish, maybe one fish every other trip.
I do throw the big ones back.

So mercury does **** me off. There are too many damn
people alive. We've had a growing overpopulation problem
for a looooong time.

If we could press a button and intantly vaporize all the crusty
old right-wing curmudgeons, think how much better off we'd be.
World population would be back to something reasonable again.
Don't you think, Dave?
:-)





salmobytes February 28th, 2008 11:40 PM

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 
On Feb 28, 11:53 am, salmobytes wrote:

fwiworth:
.....you're supposed to laugh, Dave.
Not fly off the handle (just in case).
:-)))


[email protected] February 29th, 2008 12:18 AM

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 
I used to kill a brook trout or 2 8-12" on the Rapid River where Dave fishes
For breakfast w olive oil or butter, onions& Montreal Spice
Carrots and potatoes or even eggs
grilled in tin foil or pan seared or fried lightly

YUM!

Not vvery often

I killed the sockeye salmon in AK
Withourt really wanting to - the guide asked me to

Otherwise I release all

Fred

Dave LaCourse February 29th, 2008 12:34 AM

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:40:53 -0800 (PST), salmobytes
wrote:

wiworth:
....you're supposed to laugh, Dave.
Not fly off the handle (just in case).
:-)))


Bseg

Hmmmm. Thought I answered your first post, Sandy, but I don't see it.
In any case, I did laugh.

I am a curmudgeon 'cause of all the liberals in Taxachusetts. d;o(
They have yet to see a tax or fee that they do not like.

Timbo and I have gone round and round on this subject for years.
Catch and kill almost killed one of the most beautiful native brookie
waters in the country. Meat gatherers (if that ain't a word, it is
now!) devastated the river by taking all the large fish as
meals/trophies. I can remember a Sunday 15 or so years ago with 17
anglers in a spot that can handle 6 or 7, AND there was another six or
so waiting for a spot to fish. They were all after meat. A 16 incher
in those days was a very big brook trout..

The State of Maine protected the brookies in this river by finally
making it illegal to kill one, and put a season on killing only one
land locked salmon. It did not take long for the native brookies to
recover. I have taken many in the 3 to 5 pound range, and a friend
took a 7 pounder on a #10 Royal Wulff (go figure). The landlocks have
also come back - I landed/released a 25 incher last June.

Conclusion: Catch and release works. Imagine a five pound brook
trout rising up and taking a #16 Goddard Caddis. You set the hook and
five minutes later you have fought and successfully released a fish
that is now wiser. You are stuck with the puzzle of how to fool him
again. What to use........ he'll still be haunting that little riffle
at the head of that pool, but he's wiser now. You have to be wiser
too or else he'll win. Your paths *will* cross again.

Imagine that same brook trout rising to take another dry fly in catch
and kill waters....... it will be his last rise, his last "meal".

There are no polutants in this river. C & R does not cause polution.
However, the drinking water for the City of Boston is contained in a
resevoir about 40 miles west of the city. It is C & K water, yet
there are signs present about not eating too much of the fish because
they contain heavy metals and PCPs. Should I make the conclusion that
catch and kill has caused the heavy metals in this water? Same logic
that Timbo is using.

Ya wanna eat trout, kill the cement pond mutant crap they stock the
rivers with. Or, eat some Purina Puppy Cow - tastes about the same I
imagine.

Dave (Curmudgeoniz Supremious)
d;o)

JT February 29th, 2008 03:47 PM

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...

They have yet to see a tax or fee that they do not like.

Timbo and I have gone round and round on this subject for years.
Catch and kill almost killed one of the most beautiful native brookie
waters in the country. Meat gatherers (if that ain't a word, it is
now!) devastated the river by taking all the large fish as
meals/trophies. I can remember a Sunday 15 or so years ago with 17
anglers in a spot that can handle 6 or 7, AND there was another six or
so waiting for a spot to fish. They were all after meat. A 16 incher
in those days was a very big brook trout..

The State of Maine protected the brookies in this river by finally
making it illegal to kill one, and put a season on killing only one
land locked salmon. It did not take long for the native brookies to
recover. I have taken many in the 3 to 5 pound range, and a friend
took a 7 pounder on a #10 Royal Wulff (go figure). The landlocks have
also come back - I landed/released a 25 incher last June.

Conclusion: Catch and release works. Imagine a five pound brook
trout rising up and taking a #16 Goddard Caddis. You set the hook and
five minutes later you have fought and successfully released a fish
that is now wiser. You are stuck with the puzzle of how to fool him
again. What to use........ he'll still be haunting that little riffle
at the head of that pool, but he's wiser now. You have to be wiser
too or else he'll win. Your paths *will* cross again.


Amen Brotha!

I like the idea that my children might have the opportunity to catch the
same fish or offspring from that fish. If Tim eats it, that could never
happen!

Have a great weekend David,
JT



Halfordian Golfer March 1st, 2008 12:58 AM

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 
On Feb 28, 5:34 pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:40:53 -0800 (PST), salmobytes

wrote:
wiworth:
....you're supposed to laugh, Dave.
Not fly off the handle (just in case).
:-)))


Bseg

Hmmmm. Thought I answered your first post, Sandy, but I don't see it.
In any case, I did laugh.

I am a curmudgeon 'cause of all the liberals in Taxachusetts. d;o(
They have yet to see a tax or fee that they do not like.

Timbo and I have gone round and round on this subject for years.
Catch and kill almost killed one of the most beautiful native brookie
waters in the country. Meat gatherers (if that ain't a word, it is
now!) devastated the river by taking all the large fish as
meals/trophies. I can remember a Sunday 15 or so years ago with 17
anglers in a spot that can handle 6 or 7, AND there was another six or
so waiting for a spot to fish. They were all after meat. A 16 incher
in those days was a very big brook trout..

The State of Maine protected the brookies in this river by finally
making it illegal to kill one, and put a season on killing only one
land locked salmon. It did not take long for the native brookies to
recover. I have taken many in the 3 to 5 pound range, and a friend
took a 7 pounder on a #10 Royal Wulff (go figure). The landlocks have
also come back - I landed/released a 25 incher last June.

Conclusion: Catch and release works. Imagine a five pound brook
trout rising up and taking a #16 Goddard Caddis. You set the hook and
five minutes later you have fought and successfully released a fish
that is now wiser. You are stuck with the puzzle of how to fool him
again. What to use........ he'll still be haunting that little riffle
at the head of that pool, but he's wiser now. You have to be wiser
too or else he'll win. Your paths *will* cross again.

Imagine that same brook trout rising to take another dry fly in catch
and kill waters....... it will be his last rise, his last "meal".

There are no polutants in this river. C & R does not cause polution.
However, the drinking water for the City of Boston is contained in a
resevoir about 40 miles west of the city. It is C & K water, yet
there are signs present about not eating too much of the fish because
they contain heavy metals and PCPs. Should I make the conclusion that
catch and kill has caused the heavy metals in this water? Same logic
that Timbo is using.

Ya wanna eat trout, kill the cement pond mutant crap they stock the
rivers with. Or, eat some Purina Puppy Cow - tastes about the same I
imagine.

Dave (Curmudgeoniz Supremious)
d;o)


Culling works too Dave. Has for a really long, long time.

Your pal,

TBone

Halfordian Golfer March 1st, 2008 02:09 AM

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 
On Feb 29, 8:47 am, "JT" wrote:
"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message

...



They have yet to see a tax or fee that they do not like.


Timbo and I have gone round and round on this subject for years.
Catch and kill almost killed one of the most beautiful native brookie
waters in the country. Meat gatherers (if that ain't a word, it is
now!) devastated the river by taking all the large fish as
meals/trophies. I can remember a Sunday 15 or so years ago with 17
anglers in a spot that can handle 6 or 7, AND there was another six or
so waiting for a spot to fish. They were all after meat. A 16 incher
in those days was a very big brook trout..


The State of Maine protected the brookies in this river by finally
making it illegal to kill one, and put a season on killing only one
land locked salmon. It did not take long for the native brookies to
recover. I have taken many in the 3 to 5 pound range, and a friend
took a 7 pounder on a #10 Royal Wulff (go figure). The landlocks have
also come back - I landed/released a 25 incher last June.


Conclusion: Catch and release works. Imagine a five pound brook
trout rising up and taking a #16 Goddard Caddis. You set the hook and
five minutes later you have fought and successfully released a fish
that is now wiser. You are stuck with the puzzle of how to fool him
again. What to use........ he'll still be haunting that little riffle
at the head of that pool, but he's wiser now. You have to be wiser
too or else he'll win. Your paths *will* cross again.


Amen Brotha!

I like the idea that my children might have the opportunity to catch the
same fish or offspring from that fish. If Tim eats it, that could never
happen!

Have a great weekend David,
JT


On the other hand, a large 18" brown that has become piscavorious will
consume an awful lot of little, uh, 'potential opportunity' for your
children. With slot limits and mandatory catch/kill/quit your children
might see fishing like you never thought possible, and not for some
old scarred, lipless, one eyed fungus-sided re-catch either.

Your pal,

TBone

Dave LaCourse March 1st, 2008 12:48 PM

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:09:40 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

On the other hand, a large 18" brown that has become piscavorious will
consume an awful lot of little, uh, 'potential opportunity' for your
children. With slot limits and mandatory catch/kill/quit your children
might see fishing like you never thought possible, and not for some
old scarred, lipless, one eyed fungus-sided re-catch either.


Really? Landlocked salmon eat lots of small salmon and brookies.
Large brookies eat lots of small land locked salmon and brookies.
Yet, both species survive quite nicely in a c & r stream. The loons
take their fair share also, yet the river thrives.

Read my lips, Tim: The river came back once c & r was implemented.
It was dying thanks to all the meat gatherers.

Dave



Dave LaCourse March 1st, 2008 12:53 PM

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:58:43 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

Culling works too Dave. Has for a really long, long time.


Yep, sure does. I would like to see a slot limit on landlocks on this
river. There is already a limit of 1 salmon/day 14+ inches until Sept
1. But leave the brookies survive.

Dave



Halfordian Golfer March 1st, 2008 06:10 PM

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 
On Mar 1, 5:53 am, Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:58:43 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer

wrote:
Culling works too Dave. Has for a really long, long time.


Yep, sure does. I would like to see a slot limit on landlocks on this
river. There is already a limit of 1 salmon/day 14+ inches until Sept
1. But leave the brookies survive.

Dave


That's all I'm sayin'.

Regarding the brookies there. Is it the case that they are so
threatened that they can not withstand the mortality incidental to
sustained C&R for them? If they can withstand some mortality, than
would it make at least as much sense to direct that mortality to some
specific class, like the 1 fish over X pounds limit?

Your pal,

TBone

Willi March 1st, 2008 08:22 PM

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 
Halfordian Golfer wrote:

That's all I'm sayin'.

Regarding the brookies there. Is it the case that they are so
threatened that they can not withstand the mortality incidental to
sustained C&R for them? If they can withstand some mortality, than
would it make at least as much sense to direct that mortality to some
specific class, like the 1 fish over X pounds limit?

Your pal,

TBone





There have been several notable fish populations whose genetics have
been lost: the big Brookies that populated the East coast in colonial
times and the big Bonneville Cutts are two examples. Although these
fish are still around, the genes that allowed them to grow to the
prodigious size they once did, are gone. There is a new study out that
shows that the common regulation that fosters the harvesting of the
larger fish leads over time to a population of smaller fish. That makes
sense to me. If you remove the larger fishes' genes from the population,
the result will be smaller fish. Especially in a fishery with the
genetics to produce exceptional fish, taking the larger fish is a big
mistake ( unless the reg is like what Colorado has on some streams that
allows the taking of one fish over 18 inches in a stream that you could
fish every day during the season and still not catch a fish that big -
de facto C&R). Much better, IMO, to allow some harvest within a slot,
or a harvest for smaller fish.

Willi

Dave LaCourse March 1st, 2008 10:43 PM

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 
On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 10:10:23 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

Regarding the brookies there. Is it the case that they are so
threatened that they can not withstand the mortality incidental to
sustained C&R for them? If they can withstand some mortality, than
would it make at least as much sense to direct that mortality to some
specific class, like the 1 fish over X pounds limit?


Tim, the river isn't broken. It does not require a fix, so why fix
it. Why experiement with it. Just leave it alone and let it thrive.

It is bad enough that some fool illegally introduced small mouths to
the lake that this river flows into and they are now starting to find
their way upstream. It's taken 20 years for them to come up-river.
I was encouraged all of last year to catch many brookies in the 6 to
10 inch range, as well as into the 3 - 5 pound range. The river is
healthy inspite of the bass. Although it is heavily fished, it is
nowhere near as heavily fished as it used to be when you could kill a
brookie.

Dave



JT March 4th, 2008 09:47 PM

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message
...
On the other hand, a large 18" brown that has become piscavorious will
consume an awful lot of little, uh, 'potential opportunity' for your
children. With slot limits and mandatory catch/kill/quit your children
might see fishing like you never thought possible, and not for some
old scarred, lipless, one eyed fungus-sided re-catch either.


We agree to disagree Bone...

I'm not sure what waters you fish, however I fish several C&R streams and
have caught fish that were obviously caught before (noticeably hooked in the
jaw) however I have never caught a fish that looked as you described above.

Based on what I have read, heard here and elsewhere, I stand behind C&R for
keeping a stream viable for the future generations.

JT



Ken Fortenberry[_2_] March 4th, 2008 10:18 PM

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 
JT wrote:
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote:
... With slot limits and mandatory catch/kill/quit your children
might see fishing like you never thought possible, and not for some
old scarred, lipless, one eyed fungus-sided re-catch either.


We agree to disagree Bone...

I'm not sure what waters you fish, however I fish several C&R streams and
have caught fish that were obviously caught before (noticeably hooked in the
jaw) however I have never caught a fish that looked as you described above.


I have caught such fish as Tim describes. And it is pathetic. I
consider tailwaters phony fisheries and the stocked fish therein
phony fish. Better to let folks eat those things than to release
them over and over until they're monstrosities. I'm talking about
the San Juan River in New Mexico.

Based on what I have read, heard here and elsewhere, I stand behind C&R for
keeping a stream viable for the future generations.


There is no one and only true fishery management method for all
streams everywhere. C&R is good for some streams, selective harvest
for others. What we need is a little less dogma and a little more
science.

--
Ken Fortenberry

JT March 4th, 2008 11:25 PM

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
et...

I have caught such fish as Tim describes. And it is pathetic. I
consider tailwaters phony fisheries and the stocked fish therein
phony fish. Better to let folks eat those things than to release
them over and over until they're monstrosities. I'm talking about
the San Juan River in New Mexico.


I'm not talking about stocked fish, I'm talking about wild trout. Hell, some
of the stocked fish I have seen look terrible before they have been caught
once. I have no problem with keeping a planter for the fry pan, (and do on
occasion) I have a hell of a time killing a wild trout to eat.


There is no one and only true fishery management method for all
streams everywhere. C&R is good for some streams, selective harvest
for others. What we need is a little less dogma and a little more
science.


I would agree, however the wild freestone C&R streams I fish, I feel C&R is
the best means to keep them productive into the future.

JT
-How you doing with your health these days? Last report was good, hope
things are continuing the same.



Ken Fortenberry[_2_] March 5th, 2008 03:26 PM

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 
JT wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
There is no one and only true fishery management method for all
streams everywhere. C&R is good for some streams, selective harvest
for others. What we need is a little less dogma and a little more
science.


I would agree, however the wild freestone C&R streams I fish, I feel C&R is
the best means to keep them productive into the future.

JT
-How you doing with your health these days? Last report was good, hope
things are continuing the same.


Eh, could be better. My remission went into remission, c'est la vie,
no point in whining about it.

But thanks for asking.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Halfordian Golfer March 5th, 2008 06:04 PM

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 
On Mar 4, 4:25 pm, "JT" wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message

et...



I have caught such fish as Tim describes. And it is pathetic. I
consider tailwaters phony fisheries and the stocked fish therein
phony fish. Better to let folks eat those things than to release
them over and over until they're monstrosities. I'm talking about
the San Juan River in New Mexico.


I'm not talking about stocked fish, I'm talking about wild trout. Hell, some
of the stocked fish I have seen look terrible before they have been caught
once. I have no problem with keeping a planter for the fry pan, (and do on
occasion) I have a hell of a time killing a wild trout to eat.

There is no one and only true fishery management method for all
streams everywhere. C&R is good for some streams, selective harvest
for others. What we need is a little less dogma and a little more
science.


I would agree, however the wild freestone C&R streams I fish, I feel C&R is
the best means to keep them productive into the future.

JT
-How you doing with your health these days? Last report was good, hope
things are continuing the same.


Pure catch and release is never necessary in any fishery and has
absolutely no biology or management imperative, with the exception of
managing to cater to those who take a 'pure sport' or 'trophy' view
over managing for maximum yield. If some harvest can not be sustained
than certainly the harvest incidental to pure C&R can not be
justified. Targeted mortality is better than random. Further, you need
to be careful with the word wild freestone creek, and the distinction
of wild in general. Some claim the residual streamborne population of
rainbow trout in, say, the Frying Pan or San Juan is "Wild" and, while
it sounds good and looks good on license plate frames and TShirts, it
is not conservation and it is not natural. Nor is it wild as the
preponderance of man in the environment and the re-catch philosophy is
in stark contradiction to that term. We release "wild" rainbows in
streams managed with nothing but foreign, introduced species,
including the brown and brook trout, and then bemoan the hatcheries
that made them possible. Yet, the biggest risk to extinction of the
Cutthroat trout (that is indiginous to Colorado) is hybridization, and
we merrily fool ourselves into thinking this is the natural order or
somehow better than eating that parasite in our system. Ken's point is
spot on: What we need is a little less dogma and a little more
science.

Halfordian Golfer
It is impossible to catch and release a wild trout.

Halfordian Golfer March 5th, 2008 10:06 PM

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 
On Feb 27, 8:22 pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:38:09 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer



wrote:
I was just reading about the elevated levels of mercury in the fish
caught in some of the most pristine waters in North America.


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/...tml?source=rss


I was thinking the average Catch and Release fisherman isn't doing
anything to stop this because they simply do not care about eating
fish, though the claims of conservation and love of things wild are
rampant. I anglers were forced to eat the fish they caught there'd be
a lot less apathy, IMO.


Sad thing when you can not eat the fish in the last wilderness in this
country.


Bone


How long have you been supporting this catch and kill logic? I've
known you for 12 years or so and it hasn't changed. If we started to
eat the trout and salmon on my home waters, there would be NO fish
except stocked trout to fish for. Catch and release works, Tim. I've
seen it with my own eyes - a river came back from almost being empty
of brook trout because of meat gatherers, to a place where 5 lb brook
trout are caught every week. If you catch them and eat them, there
will be nothing but stocked trout.

Catch and release does not cause poluted waters - umcaring man does.
The reservoir system for Boston has warnings about not eating a
certain amount of the fish. THAT water is catch and kill, so your
logic has some flaws.

Dave


THAT water is catch and kill, so your logic has some flaws.


You failed to understand my logic. I never blamed pollution on C&R.
What I said was that there will be no pressure from C&R anglers to
correct this (despite their so called conservation POV) as it doesn't
'affect' them. This is too bad because of the potential lobby if
anglers still had fishing to eat fish (as opposed to just counting
score) as part of the angling program.

Prove me wrong Dave. Write a letter to TU saying the reservoir
pollution making it unsafe for pregnant women and children to eat fish
is something they need to focus on. Show me the response that says
they'll get 'right on it'.

Lest you think I'm hyocritical, this is a path I have taken in the
past but, there's no interest from anyone I talked to to do anything
about it. In fact, I got the feeling they flyfishing community (by and
large) was kind of happy with it this way. People aren't eating their
hero shots.

Halfordian Golfer

Dave LaCourse March 5th, 2008 10:58 PM

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 
On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 14:06:21 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

Prove me wrong Dave. Write a letter to TU saying the reservoir
pollution making it unsafe for pregnant women and children to eat fish
is something they need to focus on. Show me the response that says
they'll get 'right on it'.


There is nothing TU or anyone else can do about it. The fish (bass,
pickeral, white perch, laketrout, bullheads, etc) have been
contaminated for years. Yet, fishing is still allowed and most people
still eat their catch. It is not a place where c & r types would go
(generally), but is a meat gatherer's heaven.

Catch and release *works*, Tim, as I have illustrated with the Rapid
River example. Without c & r, the river would be dead, or worse,
stocked with cee-ment pond mutant rainbows, brookies, browns.

There are many put and take ponds/streams in this area. Ya wanna eat
some Purina fish, have a go at 'em, but leave the native fish alone.
Man has ****ed up just about everything he has touched, and without c
& r in the Rapid, that too will find its way on the effed up list.

BTW, I have taken *many* wild fish, the first person to catch them as
witnessed by their reaction, in Russia, Canada, and Alaska. And I
released them for someone else to enjoy.

Tell me something, Tim: When you go fishing, do you catch a fish, put
it in your creel, and continue to fish (assuming it is a 1 fish/day
limit)? Or do you release it and wait for a really big one? I saw an
old geezer do just that on the Rapid one time a few years ago with a
landlocked salmon. He put a skinny 14 incher in his creel and
continued to fish. When he caught a 16 incher he was about to "trade
in" the dead fish for the "better" one when I told him I would report
him to the local warden. The man reluctantly released the 16 incher
and moved on to another spot. I followed him for awhile, but I know
that when I left him he threw the 14 incher back and kept a better
fish. I'm not saying you do the same, Tim, but when you catch a fish
and keep it, shouldn't you stop fishing altogether (again, assuming it
is a one fish limit). If you continue to fish, are you a hypocrite?

Dave



Halfordian Golfer March 5th, 2008 11:36 PM

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 
On Mar 5, 3:58 pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 14:06:21 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer

wrote:
Prove me wrong Dave. Write a letter to TU saying the reservoir
pollution making it unsafe for pregnant women and children to eat fish
is something they need to focus on. Show me the response that says
they'll get 'right on it'.


There is nothing TU or anyone else can do about it. The fish (bass,
pickeral, white perch, laketrout, bullheads, etc) have been
contaminated for years. Yet, fishing is still allowed and most people
still eat their catch. It is not a place where c & r types would go
(generally), but is a meat gatherer's heaven.

Catch and release *works*, Tim, as I have illustrated with the Rapid
River example. Without c & r, the river would be dead, or worse,
stocked with cee-ment pond mutant rainbows, brookies, browns.

There are many put and take ponds/streams in this area. Ya wanna eat
some Purina fish, have a go at 'em, but leave the native fish alone.
Man has ****ed up just about everything he has touched, and without c
& r in the Rapid, that too will find its way on the effed up list.

BTW, I have taken *many* wild fish, the first person to catch them as
witnessed by their reaction, in Russia, Canada, and Alaska. And I
released them for someone else to enjoy.

Tell me something, Tim: When you go fishing, do you catch a fish, put
it in your creel, and continue to fish (assuming it is a 1 fish/day
limit)? Or do you release it and wait for a really big one? I saw an
old geezer do just that on the Rapid one time a few years ago with a
landlocked salmon. He put a skinny 14 incher in his creel and
continued to fish. When he caught a 16 incher he was about to "trade
in" the dead fish for the "better" one when I told him I would report
him to the local warden. The man reluctantly released the 16 incher
and moved on to another spot. I followed him for awhile, but I know
that when I left him he threw the 14 incher back and kept a better
fish. I'm not saying you do the same, Tim, but when you catch a fish
and keep it, shouldn't you stop fishing altogether (again, assuming it
is a one fish limit). If you continue to fish, are you a hypocrite?

Dave


Dave,

You asked a crux question: but when you catch a fish and keep it,
shouldn't you stop fishing altogether?

That is a primary point, but not of this particular thread. There are
no "limits" to C&R. We accept more anglers astream for longer periods
of time. This directly affects the 'wildness' of the act and
profoundly affects the quality. Not just from the other angler
presence but the affect that a mass of fishermen have on a fishery.
The fish no longer act wild. They become more selective but will sit
there a foot downstream from my boots. When you do catch a fish it is
often grotesquely disfigured from multiple catchings. Pure C&R release
only 'works' if you accept those things as 'working'. I do not. I
think it teaches the absolute wrong sporting ethic. We kid ourselves
that we 'respect' the wildlife as we revive it from hooking and
hauling. We harass a wild animal all day long for sport alone. We
stress, maim and kill fish for fun. That's just a 'fact'. You can
accept this or not. I think that when we are responsible sportsmen, we
do not harass animals for fun and we stress and maim them only as rare
accidents that are side-affects of hunting food and existing on the
food chain. Way different than killing an animal for fun. Don't you
think? So, you take all that "truth" and contrast it with the other
truth that there is *never* a management or biological imperative for
pure C&R and the whole thing seems silly and wrong.

Yes. If the limit is one fish, there is no question about it, you
should stop fishing, leave the hole for another and thank the Lord for
his generous bounty.

Your pal,

TBone
Guilt replaced the creel.

Halfordian Golfer March 5th, 2008 11:40 PM

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 
On Mar 4, 4:25 pm, "JT" wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message

et...



I have caught such fish as Tim describes. And it is pathetic. I
consider tailwaters phony fisheries and the stocked fish therein
phony fish. Better to let folks eat those things than to release
them over and over until they're monstrosities. I'm talking about
the San Juan River in New Mexico.


I'm not talking about stocked fish, I'm talking about wild trout. Hell, some
of the stocked fish I have seen look terrible before they have been caught
once. I have no problem with keeping a planter for the fry pan, (and do on
occasion) I have a hell of a time killing a wild trout to eat.

There is no one and only true fishery management method for all
streams everywhere. C&R is good for some streams, selective harvest
for others. What we need is a little less dogma and a little more
science.


I would agree, however the wild freestone C&R streams I fish, I feel C&R is
the best means to keep them productive into the future.

JT
-How you doing with your health these days? Last report was good, hope
things are continuing the same.


JT -

How can a fish that is caught repeatedly by a human possibly be
'wild'? If a fish is born in a raceway that has an automatic feeder
and lives completely in the absence of man. With the racoons and bears
for it's natural life, and dies in that raceway, is that not a more
"wild" fish than any fish that shares the river every day with
hundreds of humans? Maybe I'm not sure what the word "wild" means.

Sincere question.

Thanks,

TBone

Dave LaCourse March 6th, 2008 12:56 AM

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 
On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 15:36:51 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

You asked a crux question: but when you catch a fish and keep it,
shouldn't you stop fishing altogether?


No. I will continue to fish. I practice good catch and release
habits - land the fish quickly, no net unless absolutely necessary and
then it is a rubber mesh one, barbless hooks. I have fished dries
with the hook cut off. If I feel a good tug when I set the hook, I
consider it a catch.

That is a primary point, but not of this particular thread. There are
no "limits" to C&R. We accept more anglers astream for longer periods
of time. This directly affects the 'wildness' of the act and
profoundly affects the quality.


I'll guarantee you a spot on a beautiful river in Maine where the fish
will be as wild as you want. The "quality" of the fish is excellent.


Not just from the other angler
presence but the affect that a mass of fishermen have on a fishery.
The fish no longer act wild. They become more selective but will sit
there a foot downstream from my boots.


You must be talking the Kiddie Hole at the San Juan. I fished it once
and will never fish it again. You are correct that the fish were beat
up, but if you come to my rivers, I'll guarantee you a landlocked
salmon that will tail walk across a pool and a big brook trout that
will defy you landing it. They are just as wild as the fish I've seen
in Labrador, Russia and Alaska. AND, they are there because of.......
ta daaaaa...... a catch and release policy making killing them
illegal. There would not be any of these wonderful brookies left if
the State did not step in and stop the slaughter. My two oldest
grandsons have caught them, as has my granddaughter. My two youngest
grandsons will soon experience these fish. They would not have been
able to if the meat gatherers had killed them.

When you do catch a fish it is
often grotesquely disfigured from multiple catchings.


Not on my rivers/lakes. In late season they *may* have some hook
marks (and I emphasize "may"), but I have never seen gotesque
disfigured fish on these rivers. The San Juan, yes, but not on any
Maine river.

Pure C&R release
only 'works' if you accept those things as 'working'. I do not.


Horse puckies! Wipe your mouth, Tim, there's still some horse **** on
your lips. d;o)

I
think it teaches the absolute wrong sporting ethic. We kid ourselves
that we 'respect' the wildlife as we revive it from hooking and
hauling. We harass a wild animal all day long for sport alone. We
stress, maim and kill fish for fun. That's just a 'fact'. You can
accept this or not. I think that when we are responsible sportsmen, we
do not harass animals for fun and we stress and maim them only as rare
accidents that are side-affects of hunting food and existing on the
food chain. Way different than killing an animal for fun. Don't you
think? So, you take all that "truth" and contrast it with the other
truth that there is *never* a management or biological imperative for
pure C&R and the whole thing seems silly and wrong.


That is your opinion, Tim. It's not mine. I think you are wrong.

Yes. If the limit is one fish, there is no question about it, you
should stop fishing, leave the hole for another and thank the Lord for
his generous bounty.


Good. That's the only thing you've said that makes any sense. d;o)

Be well.

Dave




Dave LaCourse March 6th, 2008 12:59 AM

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 
On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 15:40:16 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

Maybe I'm not sure what the word "wild" means.


buzzer We have a winner in the loges, Doctor.



Willi March 6th, 2008 01:51 AM

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 
Halfordian Golfer wrote:

How can a fish that is caught repeatedly by a human possibly be
'wild'? If a fish is born in a raceway that has an automatic feeder
and lives completely in the absence of man. With the racoons and bears
for it's natural life, and dies in that raceway, is that not a more
"wild" fish than any fish that shares the river every day with
hundreds of humans? Maybe I'm not sure what the word "wild" means.

Sincere question.

Thanks,

TBone




Wild as it refers to trout, is generally accepted as meaning streambred
fish (I think you know this). The same would apply to other animals.
This is to distinguish between wild and animals bred by man.

Wild, as I understand it, means the absence of man. Animals with
frequent contact with man usually don't act like a wild animal. I agree
with you that in heavily fished fisheries, the fish often don't act
wild. However, I've seen this on fisheries with slot limits as well as
those with C&R regulations. It's the amount of contact with people the
fish are forced to deal with and not the fishing regulation that makes
the difference.

Willi

Willi March 6th, 2008 01:51 AM

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 
Dave LaCourse wrote:

You must be talking the Kiddie Hole at the San Juan. I fished it once
and will never fish it again. You are correct that the fish were beat
up, but if you come to my rivers, I'll guarantee you a landlocked
salmon that will tail walk across a pool and a big brook trout that
will defy you landing it. They are just as wild as the fish I've seen
in Labrador, Russia and Alaska. AND, they are there because of.......
ta daaaaa...... a catch and release policy making killing them
illegal. There would not be any of these wonderful brookies left if
the State did not step in and stop the slaughter. My two oldest
grandsons have caught them, as has my granddaughter. My two youngest
grandsons will soon experience these fish. They would not have been
able to if the meat gatherers had killed them.

When you do catch a fish it is
often grotesquely disfigured from multiple catchings.


Not on my rivers/lakes. In late season they *may* have some hook
marks (and I emphasize "may"), but I have never seen gotesque
disfigured fish on these rivers. The San Juan, yes, but not on any
Maine river.



The State of Alaska did a study of C&R effect on Rainbows in the Alagnak
River Drainage. (I think this is in the area or close to the area of
Alaska you fished. It is strict a fly in area. They found that out of
the 1900 Rainbows that they captured, 30% had at least one previous
hooking scar. This is in the middle of nowhere Alaska!

They also found that 58% of fish captured by hook and line experienced
at least one new hooking injury (which would lead to a scar or was in a
sensitive area).

http://www.absc.usgs.gov/research/Fi...nd_release.htm

Willi

Dave LaCourse March 6th, 2008 02:33 AM

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 
On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 18:51:58 -0700, Willi
wrote:

The State of Alaska did a study of C&R effect on Rainbows in the Alagnak
River Drainage. (I think this is in the area or close to the area of
Alaska you fished. It is strict a fly in area. They found that out of
the 1900 Rainbows that they captured, 30% had at least one previous
hooking scar. This is in the middle of nowhere Alaska!

They also found that 58% of fish captured by hook and line experienced
at least one new hooking injury (which would lead to a scar or was in a
sensitive area).


What's your point, Willi? Yes, c & r trout are going to be caught
more than once. But the grotesque samples that Timbo quotes.....
well, I have only seen that once and that was the San Juan, and
specifically fish caught at the Kiddie pool or in the shallows by it
where the fish were feeding on nymphs that were disturbed from the
bottom as I waded.

I personally have never caught a fish in Alaska, Labrador, or Russia
that had any hook marks on it. I have noted very little (if any!)
damage to any taken in Maine rivers, Penns Creek, and a couple of the
forks of the Salmon River in Idaho.

If all the streams containing wild trout (native if you wish) were
catch and kill, and everyone practiced it, there would only be cement
trout raised in a cement pond with grotesgue body features long before
they were introduced into the streams.

My boyhood water, The Connecticut Lakes Region of New Hampshire,
contained nothing but native brook trout in the river and Back Lake
(where we had a camp). That was in the 1940s/50s. Not that long ago,
really. We used to catch and kill six trout/person/day. We'd leave
with a cooler ful of frozen fish ranging in length from 8 inches to 5
pounds, *all* of them native brook trout. We'd have brook trout as a
meal once a week for a long time. Today, there are no more 3 or 5
pound brookies in Back Lake (or damn few), but there are Rainbows (not
native). Fish the river and you catch brook trout that have been
stocked along with landlocked salmon. I have been back to Back Lake
and the Connecticut River on several occasions in the past ten years,
but it is nowhere near like it was when I was a kid. There is a
"trophy section" of the Connecticut between Lake Francis and First
Lake. Big deal! The entire river used to be trophy water. There was
a "three pounder club" on Back Lake at Bacon's Camps. Not any more.

OTOH, the Rapid, Magalaway, Kennebago, East Outlet of Moosehead, et al
ARE just like my boyhood haunts *used* to be..... full of wild (native
if you like) brook trout, and salmon that have been in the waters for
so many years that they may as well be native.

Timbo's world scares the hell out of me. If it was just you, me,
Timbo and half a dozen others it would be just fine to kill a trout
for lunch. Only trouble, there are more folks fishin' for native
trout than there are native trout. Everyone kills one/day and the
resource will not last. It didn't last in The Connecticut Lakes
Region, and I am sorry for that. My remaining two grandsons *will*
see wild brook trout in Maine.

Dave



Willi March 6th, 2008 02:52 AM

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 
Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 18:51:58 -0700, Willi
wrote:

The State of Alaska did a study of C&R effect on Rainbows in the Alagnak
River Drainage. (I think this is in the area or close to the area of
Alaska you fished. It is strict a fly in area. They found that out of
the 1900 Rainbows that they captured, 30% had at least one previous
hooking scar. This is in the middle of nowhere Alaska!

They also found that 58% of fish captured by hook and line experienced
at least one new hooking injury (which would lead to a scar or was in a
sensitive area).


What's your point, Willi? Yes, c & r trout are going to be caught
more than once. But the grotesque samples that Timbo quotes.....
well, I have only seen that once and that was the San Juan, and
specifically fish caught at the Kiddie pool or in the shallows by it
where the fish were feeding on nymphs that were disturbed from the
bottom as I waded.

I personally have never caught a fish in Alaska,
that had any hook marks on it.


Then I say you didn't look close enough! The State of Alaska found that
30% of those they captured had hook scars (and this in a river that has
to be reached by float plane).

Look at the article.

I guess my point is that C&R does have impact on a fishery. It's just a
tool for fishery management. It's not evil but it's also not THE answer.

Willi

Dave LaCourse March 6th, 2008 02:36 PM

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 
On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 19:52:51 -0700, Willi
wrote:

Then I say you didn't look close enough! The State of Alaska found that
30% of those they captured had hook scars (and this in a river that has
to be reached by float plane).


I will say it again, Willi: I've never seen a mutilated fish in the
waters I fish in Alaska. I have never noted any broken jaws and hook
marks. Could it be that I am catching the 70% that are not hooked
marked? I doubt it. One thing that could explain my not seeing any
marks is that I was using pegged beads. Most, if not all, the hook
ups were in the inside of the upper jaw - the beefiest part of the
mouth, and the hooks were barbless. I never strugged to remove the
hook on any of these fish.

The salmon were fresh from the sea with green backs and sea lice still
attached. They of course showed no signs of interference from man.

Look at the article.


I did. (???) I did not observe what it says. Also, I have never
seen spin fishing on that waterway or any of its tribs (Little Ku, Big
Ku, Morraine and Furnace Creeks). Like I said, using a bead the
normal hooking occurs on the inside of the upper jaw usually in the
center.

I guess my point is that C&R does have impact on a fishery. It's just a
tool for fishery management. It's not evil but it's also not THE answer.


Never said that c&r doesn't have an impact on a fishery and i agree
that it is just a tool for managing the fishery. However, without it
many rivers would not be able to sustain their native trout
populations. That is my only argument: C&R has saved many streams
from being completely raped by the meat gatherers.

Dave




JT March 6th, 2008 04:09 PM

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message
...
On Mar 4, 4:25 pm, "JT" wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message

et...



I have caught such fish as Tim describes. And it is pathetic. I
consider tailwaters phony fisheries and the stocked fish therein
phony fish. Better to let folks eat those things than to release
them over and over until they're monstrosities. I'm talking about
the San Juan River in New Mexico.


I'm not talking about stocked fish, I'm talking about wild trout. Hell,
some
of the stocked fish I have seen look terrible before they have been
caught
once. I have no problem with keeping a planter for the fry pan, (and do
on
occasion) I have a hell of a time killing a wild trout to eat.

There is no one and only true fishery management method for all
streams everywhere. C&R is good for some streams, selective harvest
for others. What we need is a little less dogma and a little more
science.


I would agree, however the wild freestone C&R streams I fish, I feel C&R
is
the best means to keep them productive into the future.

JT
-How you doing with your health these days? Last report was good, hope
things are continuing the same.


JT -

How can a fish that is caught repeatedly by a human possibly be
'wild'? If a fish is born in a raceway that has an automatic feeder
and lives completely in the absence of man. With the racoons and bears
for it's natural life, and dies in that raceway, is that not a more
"wild" fish than any fish that shares the river every day with
hundreds of humans? Maybe I'm not sure what the word "wild" means.


If the fish was born in the stream it's a wild fish, regardless of whether
it's been caught or not. Just because the fish was caught by a human doesn't
take away the fact that it's a wild fish to the stream/river.

As I have mentioned, I'm not opposed to keeping a stocked/planted fish for
the fry pan under the right circumstances. I have no interest in killing and
eating a wild fish that I have caught, I would much rather take care in
landing and releasing the fish so it will swim another day to breed and
raise offspring for my children and their children to catch. If I look at a
normal day on one of my favorite C&R stream and every fisherman I see in
that day was to kill their keep (let's say the limit is 1 fish) there would
be 20 - 25 dead fish on that day. Multiply that by the week that I'm on the
river and your looking at 140 - 175 dead fish, it would ultimately be
devastating to the fishery.

If I understand your MO, you never fish C&R streams and you keep the first
fish you catch that meets the slot limit. What do you do when you catch a
fish that doesn't meet the slot limit?

JT



Halfordian Golfer March 6th, 2008 07:58 PM

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 
On Mar 6, 9:09 am, "JT" wrote:
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message

...



On Mar 4, 4:25 pm, "JT" wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message


.net...


I have caught such fish as Tim describes. And it is pathetic. I
consider tailwaters phony fisheries and the stocked fish therein
phony fish. Better to let folks eat those things than to release
them over and over until they're monstrosities. I'm talking about
the San Juan River in New Mexico.


I'm not talking about stocked fish, I'm talking about wild trout. Hell,
some
of the stocked fish I have seen look terrible before they have been
caught
once. I have no problem with keeping a planter for the fry pan, (and do
on
occasion) I have a hell of a time killing a wild trout to eat.


There is no one and only true fishery management method for all
streams everywhere. C&R is good for some streams, selective harvest
for others. What we need is a little less dogma and a little more
science.


I would agree, however the wild freestone C&R streams I fish, I feel C&R
is
the best means to keep them productive into the future.


JT
-How you doing with your health these days? Last report was good, hope
things are continuing the same.


JT -


How can a fish that is caught repeatedly by a human possibly be
'wild'? If a fish is born in a raceway that has an automatic feeder
and lives completely in the absence of man. With the racoons and bears
for it's natural life, and dies in that raceway, is that not a more
"wild" fish than any fish that shares the river every day with
hundreds of humans? Maybe I'm not sure what the word "wild" means.


If the fish was born in the stream it's a wild fish, regardless of whether
it's been caught or not. Just because the fish was caught by a human doesn't
take away the fact that it's a wild fish to the stream/river.

As I have mentioned, I'm not opposed to keeping a stocked/planted fish for
the fry pan under the right circumstances. I have no interest in killing and
eating a wild fish that I have caught, I would much rather take care in
landing and releasing the fish so it will swim another day to breed and
raise offspring for my children and their children to catch. If I look at a
normal day on one of my favorite C&R stream and every fisherman I see in
that day was to kill their keep (let's say the limit is 1 fish) there would
be 20 - 25 dead fish on that day. Multiply that by the week that I'm on the
river and your looking at 140 - 175 dead fish, it would ultimately be
devastating to the fishery.

If I understand your MO, you never fish C&R streams and you keep the first
fish you catch that meets the slot limit. What do you do when you catch a
fish that doesn't meet the slot limit?

JT


Hi JT,

I'm not sure why folkes started misusing wild, but I wish they'd stop.
Streamborne is much better if that's what you mean. However, even that
is of very extremely limited utility as a measure of about anything
except that in some given place a fish can reproduce. This turns out
to be quite idd and unnatural in some places, like reproduction in
lakes of certain stream specie. However, if I plant fry of a fish with
genetics (x) that is still attached to the egg sac, is that wild or
hatchery? If I hatch a bunch of eggs in a whitlock-vibert box, do they
qualify as wild or stocked? While it might have pastoral connotations
of pristine conditions that support the fish, it is hardly useful, if
at all, from a biology-management perspective (there will be hair
splitting arguments here). All Rainbow, Brook and Brown trout in
Colorado threaten the indiginous cutthroat. "Wild" by your definition
can be a very bad thing.

Your math is both an over-simplification and terribly flawed. You did
not account for mortality incident to unlimited C&R, which is never
zero. The numbers that you suggested are generally as high or higher
for unlimited hours of pure C&R fishing versus the catch, kill and
quit mandate and infinitely less controllable. This is especially true
in the summer months which sees warm water stress mortality, the
highest density of fishermen, the highest density of novice fishermen
etc. and is logically higher per catch in the winter when more
subsurface imitations are used. This is well understood in this
argument and has been completely dismissed over the years dozens of
times.

The other part that is critically missing from your oversimplification
is the rate of biomass generation for maximizing yield of any fishery.
Once a fish reaches a certain size it is no longer growing at rate
that accounts for the biomass it consumes. This is referred to as
negative yield. This is the logic behind the upper limits of slots.
Willi, will weigh in on large fish genetics, which is fair. When you
have a lot of fish competing for the resource their growth is stunted.
You catch lot's of small fish and severely malnourished fish. The
healthiest populations are the ones where this is kept in balance
through active slot limits. Pure C&R is far less effective as a
management strategy and is really a very poor justification for the
act, which is really a ruse to increase the number of people that can
fish and sells us a much lesser substitute in return.

So we can start some place.

Please answer this question honestly and without decoration. Is it
true or is it false. I'm not asking of it matters or is good or
anything else. Just looking for True or False.

(T or F) Pure catch and releases fishing
stresses, maims or kills fish purely for sport.

Your pal,

TBone


Halfordian Golfer March 6th, 2008 08:02 PM

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 
On Mar 6, 7:36 am, Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 19:52:51 -0700, Willi
wrote:

Then I say you didn't look close enough! The State of Alaska found that
30% of those they captured had hook scars (and this in a river that has
to be reached by float plane).


I will say it again, Willi: I've never seen a mutilated fish in the
waters I fish in Alaska. I have never noted any broken jaws and hook
marks. Could it be that I am catching the 70% that are not hooked
marked? I doubt it. One thing that could explain my not seeing any
marks is that I was using pegged beads. Most, if not all, the hook
ups were in the inside of the upper jaw - the beefiest part of the
mouth, and the hooks were barbless. I never strugged to remove the
hook on any of these fish.

The salmon were fresh from the sea with green backs and sea lice still
attached. They of course showed no signs of interference from man.



Look at the article.


I did. (???) I did not observe what it says. Also, I have never
seen spin fishing on that waterway or any of its tribs (Little Ku, Big
Ku, Morraine and Furnace Creeks). Like I said, using a bead the
normal hooking occurs on the inside of the upper jaw usually in the
center.



I guess my point is that C&R does have impact on a fishery. It's just a
tool for fishery management. It's not evil but it's also not THE answer.


Never said that c&r doesn't have an impact on a fishery and i agree
that it is just a tool for managing the fishery. However, without it
many rivers would not be able to sustain their native trout
populations. That is my only argument: C&R has saved many streams
from being completely raped by the meat gatherers.

Dave


Sorry Dave but you make a really dumb assed argument, IMO. We throw a
hook in the water and we pull it into the head, eyes, gill plates,
fins and spine of our quarry. Then we haul it across rapids, rocks,
sticks, glass and the remnants of various civilizations and proceed to
do streamside surgery to remove the hook. At the extreme minimum there
is a hook scar. At the extent, it is grotesque. There's just no point
arguing this. Besides, you aren't anywhere near getting up early
enough in the morning to take the worm away from Willi.

Your pal,

TBone
A cash flow runs through it.

Ken Fortenberry[_2_] March 6th, 2008 08:22 PM

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 
Halfordian Golfer wrote:

I'm not sure why folkes started misusing wild, but I wish they'd stop.


I'm not going to get into yet another C&R argument, been there
done that, but I will offer up some definitions which have
proven useful to me.

Stocker - a fish born or raised in a hatchery and planted in a stream.

Holdover - a fish born or raised in a hatchery and planted in a stream
which has survived in the stream more than one season.

Wild - a fish born in the stream regardless of ancestry or how many
times it's been caught.

Native - an indigenous fish born in the stream.


Now, I'm not sure why you started misusing wild. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

Dave LaCourse March 6th, 2008 08:32 PM

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 12:02:45 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

Sorry Dave but you make a really dumb assed argument, IMO. We throw a
hook in the water and we pull it into the head, eyes, gill plates,
fins and spine of our quarry. Then we haul it across rapids, rocks,
sticks, glass and the remnants of various civilizations and proceed to
do streamside surgery to remove the hook. At the extreme minimum there
is a hook scar. At the extent, it is grotesque. There's just no point
arguing this. Besides, you aren't anywhere near getting up early
enough in the morning to take the worm away from Willi.


And your argument is also dumb assed. Why do you fish, Tim? Really?
Why do you fish? It must hurt to be you with a fly rod in your hand.
If you have all this guilt (I don't, btw), then why do you fish.

There is a certain amount of fatality with c&r, and yes, some fish end
up scarred. But the alternative is even worse - sure death at the
hands of a meat gatherer like you. Catch a fish, use a barbless hook,
play it a minimum of time (Lee Wulff sez a minute/pound), release it
without taking it out of the water, and you have minimized any impact
on that fish. Or, catch a fish - doesn't matter what kind of hook,
play it as long as you want - he's gonna die anyway, and lift him out
of the water while you remove the hook. Ya don't have to be careful -
just rip that sucker out of there. He's gonna die anyway, right?
****, why don't you use a spear gun or a trident? Results would be
the same.

You and I have had this argument for longer than I care to remember.
You have yet to change my mind, and no one can change your mind. So,
you are correct - there is no point in arguing about it. I don't know
what you mean about taking the worm from Willi. (???)

Dave




Willi March 6th, 2008 08:48 PM

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 
Halfordian Golfer wrote:


Your math is both an over-simplification and terribly flawed. You did
not account for mortality incident to unlimited C&R, which is never
zero. The numbers that you suggested are generally as high or higher
for unlimited hours of pure C&R fishing versus the catch, kill and
quit mandate and infinitely less controllable. This is especially true
in the summer months which sees warm water stress mortality, the
highest density of fishermen, the highest density of novice fishermen
etc. and is logically higher per catch in the winter when more
subsurface imitations are used. This is well understood in this
argument and has been completely dismissed over the years dozens of
times.



The other part that is critically missing from your oversimplification
is the rate of biomass generation for maximizing yield of any fishery.
Once a fish reaches a certain size it is no longer growing at rate
that accounts for the biomass it consumes. This is referred to as
negative yield. This is the logic behind the upper limits of slots.
Willi, will weigh in on large fish genetics, which is fair. When you
have a lot of fish competing for the resource their growth is stunted.
You catch lot's of small fish and severely malnourished fish. The
healthiest populations are the ones where this is kept in balance
through active slot limits.


Your argument is flawed especially when you specify targeting the larger
fish in a population. It will be necessary to C&R numerous other fish
before you catch your keeper, if you even do catch a keeper. You not
only have all the negatives and the incidental mortality you attribute
to C&R, in addition you have the mortality of keeping a fish. As you
know and like I stated earlier, Colorado has this type of limit on many
streams - ie one fish over 18 inches. In many of these streams there is
MAYBE one fish per mile that size. Nothing more than De facto C&R.

Although some fisheries do have malnourished, small fish (usually
introduced fish in my experience), man generally isn't needed to keep a
healthy fishery in balance. Nature has been doing it for a long time.

Willi


So we can start some place.

Please answer this question honestly and without decoration. Is it
true or is it false. I'm not asking of it matters or is good or
anything else. Just looking for True or False.

(T or F) Pure catch and releases fishing
stresses, maims or kills fish purely for sport.

Your pal,

TBone


Willi March 6th, 2008 09:05 PM

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:

I'm not sure why folkes started misusing wild, but I wish they'd stop.


I'm not going to get into yet another C&R argument, been there
done that, but I will offer up some definitions which have
proven useful to me.

Stocker - a fish born or raised in a hatchery and planted in a stream.

Holdover - a fish born or raised in a hatchery and planted in a stream
which has survived in the stream more than one season.

Wild - a fish born in the stream regardless of ancestry or how many
times it's been caught.

Native - an indigenous fish born in the stream.


Now, I'm not sure why you started misusing wild. ;-)


I think it's us fishermen that have distorted the meaning of wild.
That's not the way we use the term "wild" when we're referring to
animals other than fish.

Willi

Ken Fortenberry[_2_] March 6th, 2008 09:13 PM

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 
Willi wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
I'm not sure why folkes started misusing wild, but I wish they'd stop.


I'm not going to get into yet another C&R argument, been there
done that, but I will offer up some definitions which have
proven useful to me.

Stocker - a fish born or raised in a hatchery and planted in a stream.

Holdover - a fish born or raised in a hatchery and planted in a stream
which has survived in the stream more than one season.

Wild - a fish born in the stream regardless of ancestry or how many
times it's been caught.

Native - an indigenous fish born in the stream.


Now, I'm not sure why you started misusing wild. ;-)


I think it's us fishermen that have distorted the meaning of wild.
That's not the way we use the term "wild" when we're referring to
animals other than fish.


Yeah, I guess if it was a cat or a hog whose parents had escaped
captivity and bred in the wild we would call both the parents
and the resulting offspring "feral". But in terms of fish how
many generations of brown trout need to naturally reproduce in
a stream before they're wild, not native of course, but wild
fish ?

At any rate those are just my personal definitions, YMMV.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Halfordian Golfer March 6th, 2008 09:32 PM

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 
On Mar 6, 1:22 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:

I'm not sure why folkes started misusing wild, but I wish they'd stop.


I'm not going to get into yet another C&R argument, been there
done that, but I will offer up some definitions which have
proven useful to me.

Stocker - a fish born or raised in a hatchery and planted in a stream.

Holdover - a fish born or raised in a hatchery and planted in a stream
which has survived in the stream more than one season.

Wild - a fish born in the stream regardless of ancestry or how many
times it's been caught.

Native - an indigenous fish born in the stream.

Now, I'm not sure why you started misusing wild. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry


Hi Ken,

In the recovery programs the eggs of indiginous species are harvested
from stock living in natural lakes (loike Trappers Lake in NW
Colorado) they are milked and the eggs fertilized by hand, the eggs
hatched and the fry released almost immediately. All this does is
increase the natality of the spawn. By your definition those beautiful
cutthroat trout in Trappers lake are stockers and even though the back
of the lake is all but inneccessible, they are not wild. Since they
survive they are Holdovers. Thus my point about the limited use of
these terms.

TBone
Guilt replaced the creel


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:58 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter