|
|
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 |
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 |
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 |
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? :-) |
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). :-))) |
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 |
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) |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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. |
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 |
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. |
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 |
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 |
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. |
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 |
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 |
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. |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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. |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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