On Sep 16, 7:33 pm, Mike wrote:
On 17 Sep, 03:09, Halfordian Golfer wrote:
On Sep 16, 10:16 am, Mike wrote:
Good post Mike. There is definitely counter points to be,
respectfully, made.
1) In Colorado, there is an exceptional fishery in the mountain and
plain lakes that, up until a 100 years ago were completely devoid of
fish. A lot of private hatcheries stocked the water including the
famous boulder rod and gun club. This activity *created* teh fishery.
2) There is also the consideration that stocked trout in places like
St. Vrain State Park, old gravel quarries, absorb a tremendous amount
of recreational pressure.
3) The license revenue generated from stocked trout draws interest and
moneys for research.
4) 100% of the Brown, Rainbow and Brook trout fishery is the
descendant result of stocking programs.
5) In many cases the very nicest fish you catch, one full of color,
fight and firm healthy trout is simply the multiple year hold over.
Personally, I get the Jones to bang a few stockers and eat them at
least once or twice a season. Some of the new diets makes the flesh
orange and the fish relatively tasty, especially brined and smoked.
I'm not too proud to crack a cool one and take a few of the stocked
trout out of he
http://parks.state.co.us/Parks/StVrain/
In fact, they did something pretty cool out there last year. What used
to be the back ponds that you could drive all around have been closed
off as hiking access only. If you walk a mile or two you can leave
just about all the rest of the fishermen.
Best regards,
Tim
If stocking is done with fry, or even fingerlings, in a natural
manner, and these fish are allowed to grow naturally, it can be, and
often is, extremely beneficial. Grown on stock fish rarely are, they
are a massive drain on resources. If that same money and effort was
invested in improving the environment, there would be far fewer
problems.
The argument that stocked fish relieve pressure on wild fish is an
attractive and plausible one, but when one considers the three pounds
minimum of wild fish protein required to produce one pound of stock
fish, it crumbles completely. This ratio n is actually often a great
deal higher. Robbing Peter to pay Paul, never works.
I have not eaten a stocked fish for nearly forty years now, and I
never will. I donīt eat any of the farmed stuff on offer either. I
know how it is produced, and have seen quite a few analyses of the
stuff.
Whatever, I am quite obviously wasting my time here.
TL
MC
Hi Mike,
I do not think you're wasting your time at all. It is very much
appreciated here. There are a few waters in Colorado that have
warnings, mostly Mercury in some of the larger impoundments. Being so
far upstream (the San Juans) has always been, to me, like "If it's not
OK to eat a trout caught from 12,000', where *is* it safe to eat
trout. My daughter and her boyfriend caught and baked a large rainbow
from the stream below this and they claimed it made them ill and
caused mild hallucinations. No joking, please, they were very
concerned about it and I understand Mercury can cause this.
Still it seems that any 'material' difference between a fish that is
the product of aquaculture, such as that trout burniere from Chez
Pierre, is from a farm, likely from Idaho (though there are more
options these days), as opposed to a planted catchable (Stocker) is
minimal, if any. I think these places, like St. Vrain State Park as I
pointed out, have a place and I will continue to harvest once or twice
a year from these places.
While this will sound like heresy, I have eaten stockers from these
places that have been better table fare than some of the trout from
the 'wild' fisheries. Makes sense, a diet of ants and nymphs versus a
diet of paprika pellets? The best trout I've eaten was a very large
brown from Taylor Creek reservoir where there are grizzly shrimp and
various scuds.
Please recall, however, that I believe the only ethically justifiable
fishing is that fishing which is intended to capture the animal for
food, so I do not feel unlimited catch and release of a wild fish is
more noble than catching and harvesting a fish that has been stocked
for that express purpose.
We have changed our very definition of quality angling as the result
of catch and release. At one time it was about the quality of the fish
caught and, more importantly, about engaging with the animal on
somewhat more natural terms regarding the number of people pursuing
it. A great day astream could be ruined by even a few other parties on
the creek or river. The opportunity for fishing an unspooked section
was a given. Now, we tolerate people in every other hole and have
exchanged catching and eating a few over catching and releasing
hundreds in a good day of ripping lips. I contend that this 'attitude'
is just as easily satiated by farm ponds as it is more wild sources.
Indeed, the catch and release 'tank' fishing is growing in
popularity.
This might seem orthogonal to your subject but I suggest that it is
not. Fishing, first and foremost, should be about reaping the bounty
of the earth. To ignore or to eschew what we produce as legitimate
"agriculture" efforts makes no sense to me. We augment what we eat all
the time. Yes, we find wile asparagus in the fence ditch some springs
if we get there first but, if we want asparagus, we normally have to
get it from a farmer. No question the former is usually better, but it
is not always the case.
Your pal,
Halfordian Golfer
It is impossible to catch and release a wild fish.