Conan The Librarian wrote:
wrote:
Conan The Librarian wrote:
So your proposal to "improve" fishing is to stock rainbows in order
to draw more fishermen and ultimately increase pressure on all the fish,
including the natives.
As non-intuitive as it might seem, the effective fishing pressure might
actually be less. Fishing pressure on pure C&R streams around here are
the highest in the state. Most catch and kill anglers limit their
fishing as well as their harvest and don't spend dawn to dusk in a
compulsive 100 fishing day a year brawl.
It's not just non-intuitive, but it's totally illogical because it
ignores the fact that you yourself proposed that it would help the river
because it would bring out the more meat fishermen (who you claim are
the vast majority of fishermen anyway; see the PA study you cited).
According to your scenario, this increase in fishermen would bring in
more money, as well as bring more attention to the river. This
attention would then cause more money to be spent for bankside
improvements, etc., which would then make the river a better place for
all. (Stay with me here. I know it makes no sense, but it *is* your
argument, afterall.)
All of this of course ignores the fact that this increased
popularity would *of* *necessity* cause more pressure to be placed on
the native fish through competition for food with the stockers, as well
as pressure from anglers who are ostensibly there to fish for stockers.
Increased fishing pressure also means more bankside erosion and
degradation of the habitat, so there go your improvements. (And that's
without even going to go into the argument of whether meat fishermen or
C&R anglers are more likely to take better care of the fish they release.)
The browns will definately
adapt. They're nocturnal, will find undercut banks, and are very
elusive.
In this case it appears the folks who actually *know* the waters
(see others in this thread) say that C&R was responsible for the river
making a comeback in the first place.
Chuck Vance
I think my original reply, while being, what I would have asked in a
normal conversation, was obtuse and I can see how you could have taken
it wrong.
Specifically -
You suggest that an increase in the fish catch rate per hour by the
introduction of the rainbow trout would be a bad thing because it would
cause increased erosion and degradation of the habitat by the 'meat'
fishermen. I'm not sure I understand this, will you please clarify for
me? As it stands, it seems like there are a actually lot of catch and
release fishermen fishing for longer and more days because it is
unlimited. This is the phenomenon I was citing allegorically with the
Gierach reference and the fact that the fishing pressure under C&R
regulations actually increases with regards to the number of anglers.
It is my humble opinion that this is due to basically (2) factors 1)
The angler who kills a brace and then quits is simply no longer astream
and 2) The anglers seeking out pure C&R fishing do not want to compete
with spin and bait casters. This was the conclusion drawn during the
"Oregon Fly Fishing only regulations" debate of many years ago.
Now, I would certainly favor a flies and lure only regulation, for
common sense reasons, the mortality of a barbed treble hook is about
the same or less than a single barbless hook. This is just a fact.
That C&R was responsible for the comeback is not entirely clear. If,
for example, the regulations were set at 2 browns over 20 inches, for
example, would remove the fish that are contributing negatively to the
maximum yield of the river and allow more fish to 1) survive to grow
beyond a fingerling and 2) obtain than the 15 inch status that
represents a 'good one' there now.
I am also assuming that you are biased against meat fishermen with
regards to the way they 'handle' fish. Assuming this is an issue of
education, the funds raised by the increase in license fees that result
from better per hour catch rate and more exciting fishing would pay for
this education (in addition to the habitat improvement). This is
exactly why I posted the colorado comprehensive plan which was
targeting 17.8% increase in put and take fisheries, for just this
reason.
I did make a mental leap when I summed all of the above up suggesting
that you had a mistrust of the biologists that are making these
recommendations, that have done the studies of carrying capacity,
understand maximum yield, understand how to fund projects on public
resources, rather than basing a decision purely on analogy or emotion.
I still can see no harm to this fishery by placing sterile rainbows in
it and only good. Nobody has made any compelling argument except in
passing reference to the supposed reduced ethical standards of people
setting forth with a lure instead of a fly. That's my take anyway and
the arguments have not been very good, to be frank.
Thanks,
TBone
It is impossible to catch and release a wild trout.