On Mar 13, 1:55 pm, Willi wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
On Mar 13, 11:20 am, Willi wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:

I try for the last time making it a bit more specific (I think you
understand where I'm coming from and just don't want to address it):

1. Show me a study that shows that increased angler harvest of trout
ANY type increases the pounds per acre in a self sustaining trout
population.

I can show you numerous studies that show decreased harvest
accomplishes this.

2. Show me a study that shows that increased angler harvest of trout
ANY type has been demonstrated to increase the average size of a trout
in a self sustaining population.

I can show you numerous studies that show decreased harvest
accomplishes this.

3. Show me a study that shows that angler harvest of trout ANY type has
reduced stunting in a self sustaining trout population.

I think that harvest over time has helped cause this.

NONE of the studies you have cited show this.

Willi

Hi Willi,

The wildlife guys manage this equation every single day. If you want
to look at the specific regulations for maximum sustained yield of the
fisheries in Colorado, simply open the pamphlet. What you're looking
for does not live more simply than this. Fisheries management has
always been about maintaining the maximal harvest that sustains the
populations of fishes. You can throw a bunch of radish seeds in the
garden and get a lush growth of green, but to get a radish that is
worth eating you must thin down the radishes around it. Which will
yield more biomass? While it is incredibly difficult to say, and would
involve math well beyond what you and I and the average farmer can
converse. But, we know that we need 1 inch radishes and to get them we
kill everything within 1/2 of the sprout. Pond and fisheries
management is the identical concept. Do you want a million 1/4 inch
trout, 1,000 12" trout or 100 24" trout? The guys down at the shop get
to answer that every day and I think they do a good job. The general
bag limit is 4 trout any size. We can send urls to reports until the
cows come home, but this is empirical. If you think you have a report
or 2 of 1 or 3 above please post the URL so I see what you're
comparing.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

I GIVE UP TIM.

I thought I was very specific. I can show you voluminous studies that
show that reduced harvest increases the number of "catchable" and large
trout as well as increasing the total trout biomass in a stream. Just
like in the study YOU cited:

http://www.wnrmag.com/stories/2007/oct07/fishery.htm

that showed that reduced limits "improved" the fishery.

I asked you to show me ONE study that shows that increased harvest of
trout (of any type) increases these numbers in a self sustaining trout
stream or ONE study that shows that increased harvest reduced stunting
in a trout stream. I'm asking for a straight forward concrete thing,
not a philosophical rambling or YOUR ideas or YOUR analysis.

Either I'm terrible at explaining myself, or you're purposefully being
dense because you can't provide any studies (which I think is the case)
or whatever.

Like I said - I GIVE UP.

Willi

I'm trying to understand your question which is why I asked you to
provide the URLs for case 1 and 3 because I'm just not getting what
you're trying to say. If you look at the letter to the DOW regarding
regulations and shunted fish, you'll see that I don't have a good
answer except to kill brook trout in colorado and stock the crap out
of cutts.

But the first question...it's way too nebulous. It's like you're
trying to get me to say that killing a fish will increase the biomass
when I explained clearly that given predation and natural cycles it
gets incredibly complex to say which years will produce more fish,
which food is the dominant prey, which fertilizers are entering the
system and more. Even to the extent that killing them accross all year
classes is sometimes the best approach (i.e. the general bag limits)
to maintaining "maximum yield" in a lot of cases, a minimum, maximum
or slot in some others but that pure C&R is simply a slot set to
random, except that incidental mortality is not kind to the very young
and the very old. Please post the URL to a study you're trying to
prove so I can see what you mean.

Thanks,

Tim