On Mar 8, 1:49 pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 09:40:12 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer

wrote:
What do you believe would have happened if the regulations were
changed such that the minimum size limit was 22" and you could only
keep one?

Esentially that would be pure C&R for there were few 22 inch trout in
those days. However, those big trout are healthy and strong, able to
defend themselves from the bass (when they arrived), and essential to
the breeding cycle.

The large fish genetics is one place that deserves more discussion.
Something I agree with is closed season for spawning, or pure C&R for
spawning species if fishing in a population with a mixture of species
(such as on the Rapid and in the Mt. Zirkel Wilderness, for example).
However, it is true (in this case) that a plethora of 21 1/5" brook
trout will 'get the job done'. Still that statistical anomaly will
probably be just fine, he survived that long and there's no way all of
a sudden we'd catch and kill these fish.

So, large fish genetics aside, we can agree that there's never any
management reason to establish a pure C&R policy for the simple fact
that we can set our limits targetted just outside (or inside) some
range that makes it so for all practical purposes. Further we can
agree that there are serious benefits to doing so, the least of which
is that it puts "managing the fishery for yield" back in to the
equation, which is eternally defensible.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer