On Mar 7, 6:55 pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:
snip

Dave,

In continuing my research for the causality of the comeback of the
brook trout fisheries of Maine I agree that selective harvest has
played a big role, though I still fail to see any places where pure
C&R can by attributed as the primary cause.

It seems to me that it was a combination of factors that led to the
demise and regrowth of your beautiful waterways. One of these was the
introduction of the black bass to the equation. Much like the
greenback recovery program where all greenbacks were to be returned to
the water in Colorado, the goal of fishing in those water was not to
catch a fish nearing genetic extinction but, rather, to remove all
brook trout and other foreign fish that would compete for its
recovery. Specifically, in a white paper issued by the managers they
state that it was, indeed the introduction of regulations in the QFI -
Quality Fishing Initiative that was the primary causality in the
increase in size and number of fish.

The paper has these quotes:

"For these reasons, four years ago the Maine Department of Inland
Fisheries and Wildlife implemented about 100 special, highly
restrictive regulations, which generally resulted in very low bag
limits, higher length limits and restrictions on terminal tackle
(flies & lures) to reduce mortality from hooking since many more fish
would need to be released alive. This was called the Quality Fishing
Initiative. Following this initiative, special restrictive limits (bag
and length) were implemented on some 400 wild brook trout ponds in
order to conserve these important native populations."

"With increasing angling pressure on bass, which is one of Maine's
most popular game fish, the Department biologists recommended greater
protection for this valuable game fish. Through research conducted in
Ontario, we have learned much about the importance of the older,
larger smallmouth bass in these northern climes. In order to protect
these fish, not only for the excitement they provide anglers but for
their spawning potential, Maine also implemented very restrictive bass
regulations."

Further, and also somewhat contrary to your beliefs, apparently, is
that the brook trout hatchery program has been in full steam ahead
mode and is also cited as contributing to the program. It looks like
the angling future in Maine is very good. Interestingly.

However, it would be completely reckless to suggest that "Catch and
Release" (all fish must be returned to the water) has played very
little, if any role, with the exception of selectively harvesting
bass.

And while this subject is tedium for you and others. I would
respectfully suggest that management of our fisheries is of extreme
importance. Having these discussions and debates could prove
invaluable to researchers and policy makers. To this end, the paper
cited (http://maine.gov/ifw/fishing/good_gettingbetter.htm) ends with
this stetement:

"There are many other issues regarding Maine's sport fishery, not the
least of which is the rearing and stocking of fish and the general
management of our fishery. Among anglers, biologists and policy makers
alike, there needs to be considerable thought and debate about our
fish culture program, introduction of new strains of trout, exotic
fish, habitat changes and the need for the kind of regulations that
will safeguard Maine's valuable sport fishery while at the same time
providing diverse and high-quality angling opportunities for all to
enjoy."

Which seems sagacious in the extreme.

Anyway I'd suggest that using the proper causality (restrictive
regulations and a good hatchery program) would be more efficacious in
getting your point across than "Catch and Release" and crucifying the
"meat gatherers".

I want to teach our children proper respect for the wild. That a fish
is a wild animal that is struggling to survive. I want to teach them
the respect for the animal while also letting them experience their
place in the natural world and the experience of tying a fly, catching
a fish and enjoying it in the evening meal, one of life's greatest
pleasures and proof of the abundant plans of our Creator.

Which goes back to this thread: We can't do this - the fish have
mercury in them. My contention that the C&R dogma hurts forcing
measurements and controls has been absolutely verified in this thread
and, particularly, your and JT's responses.

Your pal,

TBone