![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Willi" wrote in message
... Wayne Knight wrote: //snip// sorry, delayed harvest may be the latest "greatest' thing in trout fisheries "management", imo, there is something seriously wrong with stocking an area and desiginating it C&R only. I agree with your sentiment. C&R seems stupid to me in a put and take fishery. I'm not as familiar with eastern waters as I am with those in the Rockies, but it seems to me that there are numerous waters back east that are being stocked that could be better managed with less stocking and possibly more restrictive limits. Montana did a series of studies on the effects of stocking in waters that have good natural reproduction and found that the stocking of catchables actually reduces the number and size of the fish in those waters. I understand the sentiment, but delayed harvest waters that are stocked in October can be a blast to fish in in the spring. Access generally is not very hard and after a few months in the stream the fish are fun to catch. It's not as psychically rewarding as catching wild fish in a remote spot, but if you have limited time and want to have a pretty good fishing experience, it's not bad. They are especially good places to take youngsters who are learning to fly-fish. Frank Reid and Allen Epps posted great TRs earlier that were good descriptions of spring-time fishing in delayed-harvest water. Don't know that their stream was D-H, but the experience appears similar. I suspect that most people who are taking fish do so in the summer, so designating the water as C&R only in the winter probably prevents few of them from fishing, but it does provide an attractive opportunity for fly fishermen. The result, IMO, is an overall larger number of fishermen in the course of a year, and more sales of licenses and fly fishing tackle (and more much-needed tax revenue for the fish & game department) - revenue that would not have happened without the delayed-harvest program. It may also be true that streams within commuting distance of major metropolitan areas lend themselves to delayed-harvest programs. Bob |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Heads up on Peta again :) | Frank Church | Fly Fishing | 0 | December 15th, 2003 12:16 AM |