Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life

On Mar 12, 7:40 pm, Willi wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Do you have any studies that show that harvest increases the quality of
a trout fishery?

Willi

Yes.

I love to flyfish every place that allows it but can hardly stomach
the places that don't allow it.

Think about it. Would you rather fish:
the X Fork of the You Know....or the Frying Pan?
The Roaring Fork, or the Frying Pan?
The Elk or the Taylor Reservior Tail Water?
A Wyoming Beaver pond or Cheesman Canyon?

I say that tongue in cheek but, it's also intended to ring somewhat
true, but you must define quality for it to make any sense at all and
quality for me includes isolation and fish that act wild.

Don't take it from me, though, take it from John Gierach who talks
about when the St. Vrain became famous for a short period of time when
it became C&R. The parking lot filled up with cars but the fishing
was, more or less, as it always had been. When it was made normal
again, the cars left and it stayed the fair to middling creek that it
is.

This is with a 4 fish limit now: the fishing can be excellent. If it
were to get crummy, or if we wanted to tweak it, we could make it 2.
This is with no size restrictions, we could add one. Also, these are
browns. Very wary.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

I agree that in Colorado, the designation of C&R (or most special regs
INCLUDING your "selective" harvest with its slot limits) often leads to
over crowding and I tend not to fish those waters for that reason.

But that DOESN'T answer my question. In some of your posts you assert or
at least imply that "selective" harvest will improve the quality of a
fishery (those large fish eaters etc). Can you show ANY study that
showed that harvest of any type improved the quality of a self
sustaining trout fishery? I can show you study after study that
demonstrate that reducing harvest can improve a fishery.

Willi

Willi you just said that reducing harvest can improve a fishery. So
can increasing harvest. This is as old as the hills. Don't make me
spell out "S-T-U-N-T-E-D" again. There is no question about it.

Putting two and two together, I think the question you really mean to
ask is: Do pure C&R regulations increase the quality of angling in a
self-sustaining trout fishery:

I think this can be a great thread but, before I can even begin to
answer that WIlli, we will have to describe "quality".

Does the definition: Large numbers of eager and aggressive large
rainbow trout satisfy you?

If so than fishing in a hatchery raceway or texas stock pond is a
quality experience.

Does the definition include: Fishing involves solitude, scenery and a
few fish for dinner?
Does the definition include: Fish caught are unscarred from previous
human encounters?
Does the definition include: Fish caught are free from disease and
free from dangerous chemicals?
Does the definition include: Fish caught have firm colored tasty
flesh?
Does the definition include: Fish caught are appropriate for the area
and do not threaten the ecosystem of that area?
Does the definition include: Fish can be caught using lures in
addition to flies?

Please define quality and give me some comparisons. If you want make a
list of places we both know and we'll rank them with an overall
quality score?

This is going to be hard, so get ready. For example any fishery that
does not allow harvest has, by definition, very little quality to an
angler but might be extremely high quality to a sportsman.

Thanks,

Halfordian Golfer

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
nonsense snipped
This is going to be hard, so get ready. For example any fishery that
does not allow harvest has, by definition, very little quality to an
angler but might be extremely high quality to a sportsman.

Amazing. Willi, do you *still* think TBone has a coherent
argument or even a sane argument ?

It's nothing but double talk, nonsense and distortion with
the occasional ad hominem for good measure. Just like I
said.

EOT

--
Ken Fortenberry

"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message
...
In your first example this is simply culling or Selective Harvest. It
is the backbone of our management strategies and has been for a long
time. Every single lobster that comes on a lobsterman's boat is
measured. Some go in the well, some go back to grow up. One of the
reasons for this discourse is to distinguish clearly between the two.
Most fisheries managers are referring to selective harvest when they
say catch and release. Anyway, it comes back to intent.

Apples and oranges, this is a horrible analogy and has nothing to do with
C&R trout fishing.


Limited harvest will preserve a fishery forever, not to a point. Pure
C&R creates incident mortality. Selective harvest can target this, so
it's more useful as a management tool. That said, any fishery which
can not withstand the mortality incident to pure C&R (which is always
the same or more impactful than restricted angling) should be closed
to fishing.

I disagree to a point, I think C&R is more effective.

Question: It's okay to catch and release several fish before you catch a
fish that meets a slot limit? What about the incident mortality in all the
fish you release before catching a keeper!?

I have seen the endgame of Catch and Release and it's not pretty.
You'll recognize him. He is a man with plaid waders holding up a one-
eyed lipless re-catch splashing through the hole you're fishing
screaming "Aye and that makes thirrrrrrrrrty, you're buyin' the
dinner" loud enough that it rattles the lichen off the rocks.

In my thirty plus years of flyfishing, I have never seen anything like
this... Although I do remember a time when I was in my teens, I was fishing
a small lake by myself. There were three gals in their twenty skinny dipping
and jumping off the rocks about 50 yards away, they were quite loud and the
water was obviously fairly cold. I didn't catch a thing that day!

JT

On Mar 13, 8:22 am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
nonsense snipped
This is going to be hard, so get ready. For example any fishery that
does not allow harvest has, by definition, very little quality to an
angler but might be extremely high quality to a sportsman.

Amazing. Willi, do you *still* think TBone has a coherent
argument or even a sane argument ?

It's nothing but double talk, nonsense and distortion with
the occasional ad hominem for good measure. Just like I
said.

EOT

--
Ken Fortenberry

I take it you do not like my definitions:

sportsman - someone who fishes solely for sport
angler - someone who fishes to eat fish.

Please subsitute any terms that are acceptable to you and contribute
to the discussion. We've been here, it's just semantics and you know
it. If I'd used the word subsistence fisherman you would have
complained about that.

A good place to start in fisheries management is a definition of
quality fishery. Do you have anything to add to that definition?

Halfordian Golfer

"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message
...
On Mar 12, 3:47 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
...
Limited harvest will preserve a fishery forever, not to a point. Pure
C&R creates incident mortality. Selective harvest can target this, so
it's more useful as a management tool. That said, any fishery which
can not withstand the mortality incident to pure C&R (which is always
the same or more impactful than restricted angling) should be closed
to fishing. ...

You're not making sense. The only difference between C&R and
selective harvest is C&R kills less fish. The only thing slot
limits/selective harvest addresses is the size of the fish
harvested, it does not address incidental death due to catch
and release which is exactly the same in both cases.

--
Ken Fortenberry

I've demonstrated the fallacy of this argument 100 times. Look at it
this way. I fish 4 times a year. I kill 2 each time. That means I've
killed 8 fish. Contrast that to the angler who fishes 50 times and
averages 20 fish an outing. That's 1000 fish hooked and hauled.
Assuming 1% mortality (probably way more when you consider the
accumulated nature of stress) and you've killed 10 fish minimum.
Assume I had to hook 100 to catch my 8 so I killed 9. Unlimited C&R
kills more than restricted C&K and that's just a fact whether you like
it or not.


This is weak, you talk about my calculations being off base! Are you going
to set the number of times I can go fish a stream each year too. That's what
you would have to do given your example.

Ridiculous and you know it!

JT

Halfordian Golfer wrote:

I agree that in Colorado, the designation of C&R (or most special regs
INCLUDING your "selective" harvest with its slot limits) often leads to
over crowding and I tend not to fish those waters for that reason.

But that DOESN'T answer my question. In some of your posts you assert or
at least imply that "selective" harvest will improve the quality of a
fishery (those large fish eaters etc). Can you show ANY study that
showed that harvest of any type improved the quality of a self
sustaining trout fishery? I can show you study after study that
demonstrate that reducing harvest can improve a fishery.

Willi

Willi you just said that reducing harvest can improve a fishery. So
can increasing harvest. This is as old as the hills. Don't make me
spell out "S-T-U-N-T-E-D" again. There is no question about it.




I think this can be a great thread but, before I can even begin to
answer that WIlli, we will have to describe "quality".


I think you know what I was asking but haven't answered it because you
can't.

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

I think that harvest over time has helped cause this.

Some of your past posts have stated or implied that harvest will do the
above. Show some proof.

Willi

On Mar 13, 9:43 am, Willi wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
I agree that in Colorado, the designation of C&R (or most special regs
INCLUDING your "selective" harvest with its slot limits) often leads to
over crowding and I tend not to fish those waters for that reason.

But that DOESN'T answer my question. In some of your posts you assert or
at least imply that "selective" harvest will improve the quality of a
fishery (those large fish eaters etc). Can you show ANY study that
showed that harvest of any type improved the quality of a self
sustaining trout fishery? I can show you study after study that
demonstrate that reducing harvest can improve a fishery.

Willi

Willi you just said that reducing harvest can improve a fishery. So
can increasing harvest. This is as old as the hills. Don't make me
spell out "S-T-U-N-T-E-D" again. There is no question about it.
I think this can be a great thread but, before I can even begin to
answer that WIlli, we will have to describe "quality".

I think you know what I was asking but haven't answered it because you
can't.

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

I think that harvest over time has helped cause this.

Some of your past posts have stated or implied that harvest will do the
above. Show some proof.

Willi

Willi,

The article I posted a link to in the slot limit's power to respond
tailor made to any management scenario sums it up nicely. It is very
current, on topic, facual and demonstrates the state of the art to
accomplish the goals you've outlined above.

Anyway, here's a couple. This is pretty much understood so I guess I
don't understand where you're coming from. Culling fish results in
more and larger fish. Period.

http://saltfishing.about.com/od/envi.../aa060905a.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0624132617.htm

Best regards,

Halfordian Golfer

On Mar 13, 8:52 am, "JT" wrote:
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message

...



On Mar 12, 3:47 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
...
Limited harvest will preserve a fishery forever, not to a point. Pure
C&R creates incident mortality. Selective harvest can target this, so
it's more useful as a management tool. That said, any fishery which
can not withstand the mortality incident to pure C&R (which is always
the same or more impactful than restricted angling) should be closed
to fishing. ...

You're not making sense. The only difference between C&R and
selective harvest is C&R kills less fish. The only thing slot
limits/selective harvest addresses is the size of the fish
harvested, it does not address incidental death due to catch
and release which is exactly the same in both cases.

--
Ken Fortenberry

I've demonstrated the fallacy of this argument 100 times. Look at it
this way. I fish 4 times a year. I kill 2 each time. That means I've
killed 8 fish. Contrast that to the angler who fishes 50 times and
averages 20 fish an outing. That's 1000 fish hooked and hauled.
Assuming 1% mortality (probably way more when you consider the
accumulated nature of stress) and you've killed 10 fish minimum.
Assume I had to hook 100 to catch my 8 so I killed 9. Unlimited C&R
kills more than restricted C&K and that's just a fact whether you like
it or not.

This is weak, you talk about my calculations being off base! Are you going
to set the number of times I can go fish a stream each year too. That's what
you would have to do given your example.

Ridiculous and you know it!

JT

In reality the numbers are actually a little skewed in your favor I
think. The overwhelming number of licensees don't catch anything. Long
been said 1% of the anglers catch 99% of the fish. These are just
facts. Why not write a letter to CDOW and get his/her opinion. Love to
see it.

On that last note, that's actually a great question JT one I asked in
one of the polls. It brings up the 365 Book but we'll talk about that
in its own thread.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

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

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