To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.

wrote in news:1156265103.509672.255210@
74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com:

Hi Scott,

This data is pretty standard and represents the most recent data.



I have no idea how the data were collected, but my own personal
experience is that the handling time for release, and that handling time
increases mortality. Some of the papers that site sites tend to confirm
this.

9) Nufer and Alexander, 1992. Hooking mortality of trophy sized wild
brook trout caught on artificial lures.
Study on trophy sized (avg 34cm) wild brook trout.
“ Mortality was 8.3% for brook trout caught on Mepps spinners and Cleo
spoons equipped with treble hooks, whereas mortality was significantly
lower (2.4%,) for fish caught on the same lures with single hooks.

10) Schroder and Kenaston 2002 Annual progress report – Spring Chinook
salmon in the Willamette and Sandy Rivers.
“ Chinook salmon caught on lures with treble hooks had a higher mortality
(11.6%) than those caught on lures with single hooks (4%).”

14) The Doc Fritchley Chapter – Trout Unlimited 2002.
Study on brook and brown trout in the Savage River, Maryland, comparing
single hook flies with treble hooked lures.
Mortality for single hooked flies was 0%, mortality for treble hooked
lures was 8%.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Scott Seidman wrote:
wrote in news:1156265103.509672.255210@
74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com:

Hi Scott,

This data is pretty standard and represents the most recent data.



I have no idea how the data were collected, but my own personal
experience is that the handling time for release, and that handling time
increases mortality. Some of the papers that site sites tend to confirm
this.

9) Nufer and Alexander, 1992. Hooking mortality of trophy sized wild
brook trout caught on artificial lures.
Study on trophy sized (avg 34cm) wild brook trout.
" Mortality was 8.3% for brook trout caught on Mepps spinners and Cleo
spoons equipped with treble hooks, whereas mortality was significantly
lower (2.4%,) for fish caught on the same lures with single hooks.

10) Schroder and Kenaston 2002 Annual progress report - Spring Chinook
salmon in the Willamette and Sandy Rivers.
" Chinook salmon caught on lures with treble hooks had a higher mortality
(11.6%) than those caught on lures with single hooks (4%)."

14) The Doc Fritchley Chapter - Trout Unlimited 2002.
Study on brook and brown trout in the Savage River, Maryland, comparing
single hook flies with treble hooked lures.
Mortality for single hooked flies was 0%, mortality for treble hooked
lures was 8%.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Hi Scott,

Good information. It seems that there is a great deal of variability in
the research results. I'd imagine this would be attributed to
something specific about the tests and test conditions themselves. In
the state of Colorado, at least, the biologists have concluded the
former and there is no distinction between all methods of catching fish
with the exclusion of bait, which, obviously, corresponds to the
highest mortality, to the extent it is imcompatible with selective
harvest management regulations. Where there are tackle restrictions in
affect, they are limited to 'artificial flies and lures' only. No
distinction with regards to flyfishing, versus spin fishing, for
example is made. I think it was just this year where they defined
PowerBait as being bait, as opposed to being an 'artificial lure'. I
think it's fair, enough, to say that flies and lures are equivalent,
for all practical purposes, with regards to mortality. Some studies
show slight leanings in one way or another but in practice are
'splitting hairs'. That's my take anyway.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer
A cash flow runs through

daytripper wrote:
On 22 Aug 2006 16:08:10 GMT, (Jonathan Cook) wrote:

DT's posts don't show up here, so I have to improvise...

DT wrote:

And, in spite of the mutual hallucination you and Jon appear to be
experiencing, I was and am under no obligation to provide my thinking on the
subject, in advance or otherwise.

Of course you're not. You can do as you please, and others
can respond if they want. All that is fine by me. And if it
turns into the greatest on-topic ROFF thread of all time, I'll
applaud it.

I was just explaining why _I_ don't generally participate in
threads started as such, after you implied that a list of us
aren't known for holding back, which in turn implied that Tim
was out solo with no one sympathizing...

Take care,

Jon.

You're thinking too much - I meant to imply no such conclusion, about your
reasons or anyone else on the list....

/daytripper (still, I *do* think Tim is "out solo" more than not ;-)

Care to try and back that up with something specific?

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer
Guilt replaced the creel

On 22 Aug 2006 11:35:57 -0700, wrote:


daytripper wrote:
On 22 Aug 2006 16:08:10 GMT, (Jonathan Cook) wrote:

DT's posts don't show up here, so I have to improvise...

DT wrote:

And, in spite of the mutual hallucination you and Jon appear to be
experiencing, I was and am under no obligation to provide my thinking on the
subject, in advance or otherwise.

Of course you're not. You can do as you please, and others
can respond if they want. All that is fine by me. And if it
turns into the greatest on-topic ROFF thread of all time, I'll
applaud it.

I was just explaining why _I_ don't generally participate in
threads started as such, after you implied that a list of us
aren't known for holding back, which in turn implied that Tim
was out solo with no one sympathizing...

Take care,

Jon.

You're thinking too much - I meant to imply no such conclusion, about your
reasons or anyone else on the list....

/daytripper (still, I *do* think Tim is "out solo" more than not ;-)

Care to try and back that up with something specific?

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer
Guilt replaced the creel

"The American Intercontinental Aqueduct Project" comes quickly to mind...

/daytripper (hth ;-)

daytripper wrote:
On 22 Aug 2006 11:35:57 -0700, wrote:


daytripper wrote:
On 22 Aug 2006 16:08:10 GMT, (Jonathan Cook) wrote:

DT's posts don't show up here, so I have to improvise...

DT wrote:

And, in spite of the mutual hallucination you and Jon appear to be
experiencing, I was and am under no obligation to provide my thinking on the
subject, in advance or otherwise.

Of course you're not. You can do as you please, and others
can respond if they want. All that is fine by me. And if it
turns into the greatest on-topic ROFF thread of all time, I'll
applaud it.

I was just explaining why _I_ don't generally participate in
threads started as such, after you implied that a list of us
aren't known for holding back, which in turn implied that Tim
was out solo with no one sympathizing...

Take care,

Jon.

You're thinking too much - I meant to imply no such conclusion, about your
reasons or anyone else on the list....

/daytripper (still, I *do* think Tim is "out solo" more than not ;-)

Care to try and back that up with something specific?

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer
Guilt replaced the creel

"The American Intercontinental Aqueduct Project" comes quickly to mind...

/daytripper (hth ;-)

What do you mean? This project is gaining momentum with every one of Al
Gore's movies.

TBone

wrote:

Conan The Librarian wrote:

It's not just non-intuitive, but it's totally illogical because it
ignores the fact that you yourself proposed that it would help the river
because it would bring out the more meat fishermen (who you claim are
the vast majority of fishermen anyway; see the PA study you cited).
According to your scenario, this increase in fishermen would bring in
more money, as well as bring more attention to the river. This
attention would then cause more money to be spent for bankside
improvements, etc., which would then make the river a better place for
all. (Stay with me here. I know it makes no sense, but it *is* your
argument, afterall.)

All of this of course ignores the fact that this increased
popularity would *of* *necessity* cause more pressure to be placed on
the native fish through competition for food with the stockers, as well
as pressure from anglers who are ostensibly there to fish for stockers.
Increased fishing pressure also means more bankside erosion and
degradation of the habitat, so there go your improvements. (And that's
without even going to go into the argument of whether meat fishermen or
C&R anglers are more likely to take better care of the fish they release.)

The browns will definately
adapt. They're nocturnal, will find undercut banks, and are very
elusive.

In this case it appears the folks who actually *know* the waters
(see others in this thread) say that C&R was responsible for the river
making a comeback in the first place.

I think my original reply, while being, what I would have asked in a
normal conversation, was obtuse and I can see how you could have taken
it wrong.

Specifically -

You suggest that an increase in the fish catch rate per hour by the
introduction of the rainbow trout would be a bad thing because it would
cause increased erosion and degradation of the habitat by the 'meat'
fishermen. I'm not sure I understand this, will you please clarify for
me?

First of all, that's not what I said. I said that your idea that
adding a new group of fishermen whose sole purpose was to catch/keep a
limit would have an impact on the stream. It's simple, really ...
bring in more anglers and the habitat will suffer (independent of
whether they are "meat fishermen" or C&R, btw).

As it stands, it seems like there are a actually lot of catch and
release fishermen fishing for longer and more days because it is
unlimited.

"It seems"?

This is the phenomenon I was citing allegorically with the
Gierach reference and the fact that the fishing pressure under C&R
regulations actually increases with regards to the number of anglers.
It is my humble opinion that this is due to basically (2) factors 1)
The angler who kills a brace and then quits is simply no longer astream
and 2) The anglers seeking out pure C&R fishing do not want to compete
with spin and bait casters. This was the conclusion drawn during the
"Oregon Fly Fishing only regulations" debate of many years ago.

Ah, so you propose to drive the C&R anglers off the water as a
"bonus" to your plan?

Now, I would certainly favor a flies and lure only regulation, for
common sense reasons, the mortality of a barbed treble hook is about
the same or less than a single barbless hook. This is just a fact.

Other have addressed this, but it is not "just a fact".

That C&R was responsible for the comeback is not entirely clear. If,
for example, the regulations were set at 2 browns over 20 inches, for
example, would remove the fish that are contributing negatively to the
maximum yield of the river and allow more fish to 1) survive to grow
beyond a fingerling and 2) obtain than the 15 inch status that
represents a 'good one' there now.

I am also assuming that you are biased against meat fishermen with
regards to the way they 'handle' fish.

You know what they say about "assuming". For all you know, I may
keep fish when I am on the water. (Heck, you might even let some go.
Does that make you a C&R fisherman?) Put it another way, who do you
think would be more inclined to take the greater care that his quarry
survived, someone who is out to "catch and eat his limit" or someone
who is practicing C&R?

Assuming this is an issue of
education, the funds raised by the increase in license fees that result
from better per hour catch rate and more exciting fishing would pay for
this education (in addition to the habitat improvement). This is
exactly why I posted the colorado comprehensive plan which was
targeting 17.8% increase in put and take fisheries, for just this
reason.

An interesting idea to be sure, but that's all it is.

I did make a mental leap when I summed all of the above up suggesting
that you had a mistrust of the biologists that are making these
recommendations, that have done the studies of carrying capacity,
understand maximum yield, understand how to fund projects on public
resources, rather than basing a decision purely on analogy or emotion.

I still can see no harm to this fishery by placing sterile rainbows in
it and only good. Nobody has made any compelling argument except in
passing reference to the supposed reduced ethical standards of people
setting forth with a lure instead of a fly. That's my take anyway and
the arguments have not been very good, to be frank.

As opposed to yours which consists of citing a single study which
"proves" your point? Or your citing the PETA "doom and gloom"
scenarios while ignoring that they haven't take hold in the slightest?

BTW, you still haven't addressed the issue of increased cometition
for foood/cover wrt introduced rainbows vs. the native fish.


Chuck Vance (doctor, heal thyself)

wrote in message
ups.com...

No problem Op, someone else will go ahead and decide for you. Just
don't bitch about it later.

TBone

Um, you ignorant ****-maggot; no one, that I know of can decide anything for
me--outside of my employer and the unlikely event that I become
incarcerated, again. And to that end, I'll bitch about anything I goddamned
well please to, whenever I goddamned well please to!

Op

wrote:
Conan The Librarian wrote:

wrote:


Conan The Librarian wrote:


So your proposal to "improve" fishing is to stock rainbows in order
to draw more fishermen and ultimately increase pressure on all the fish,
including the natives.

As non-intuitive as it might seem, the effective fishing pressure might
actually be less. Fishing pressure on pure C&R streams around here are
the highest in the state. Most catch and kill anglers limit their
fishing as well as their harvest and don't spend dawn to dusk in a
compulsive 100 fishing day a year brawl.

It's not just non-intuitive, but it's totally illogical because it
ignores the fact that you yourself proposed that it would help the river
because it would bring out the more meat fishermen (who you claim are
the vast majority of fishermen anyway; see the PA study you cited).
According to your scenario, this increase in fishermen would bring in
more money, as well as bring more attention to the river. This
attention would then cause more money to be spent for bankside
improvements, etc., which would then make the river a better place for
all. (Stay with me here. I know it makes no sense, but it *is* your
argument, afterall.)

All of this of course ignores the fact that this increased
popularity would *of* *necessity* cause more pressure to be placed on
the native fish through competition for food with the stockers, as well
as pressure from anglers who are ostensibly there to fish for stockers.
Increased fishing pressure also means more bankside erosion and
degradation of the habitat, so there go your improvements. (And that's
without even going to go into the argument of whether meat fishermen or
C&R anglers are more likely to take better care of the fish they release.)


The browns will definately
adapt. They're nocturnal, will find undercut banks, and are very
elusive.

In this case it appears the folks who actually *know* the waters
(see others in this thread) say that C&R was responsible for the river
making a comeback in the first place.

[snip]

Your broad brush (and, quite frankly, innacurate) stereotyping of
fishermen notwithstanding are you suggesting that the Vermont Fish and
Game biologists are incompetent to make this decision?

To this end, I love John Gierach's short story on the history of the
coming and going of the special regulations on the St. Vrain river. To
sum it up, the only difference was that there were more people when it
was pure catch and release. The parking lot was always full. Pretty
similar story actually, the St. Vrain is very marginal habitat as it
enteres the arid plains where the transition to cottonwood occurs. A
little further out, it is not viable trout water at all.

Thanks,

TBone


imo, with regard to almost all things involving nature and nature's
animals or vegetation, anything that attracts and encourages masses of
human beings to congregate for the purpose of engaging in a defined
activity that affects the natural world on a specific, limited bit of
geography is simply a prescription for the destruction and ruin of that
nature as well as the activity and geography. (unless, of course, we
can convince all of humanity except some of us on this newsgroup and a
few selected others, to move to new york city and mexico city and moscow
and beijing and engage in holding their breath for 2 hours).

planting hatchery fish to save a stream and its semi-wild or stream-born
"heritage" trout just doesn't seem right. fix the habitat and the food
sources, make it c&r only, and the fish will flourish. some reasonable
percentage of c&r fish reproduce; zero percentage of c&k fish reproduce.
that's my anecdotal experience and my belief based on indisputable logic
and science.

i like john gierach's statement that "fishing is engrossing because it's
so lovely...we try to be logical, but there's no way around it - we end
up believing in whatever we think is beautiful, whether we can prove it
makes sense or not."

jeff



you're wecome,

jeff

Scott Seidman wrote:

wrote in news:1156265103.509672.255210@
74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com:


Hi Scott,

This data is pretty standard and represents the most recent data.




I have no idea how the data were collected, but my own personal
experience is that the handling time for release, and that handling time
increases mortality. Some of the papers that site sites tend to confirm
this.

9) Nufer and Alexander, 1992. Hooking mortality of trophy sized wild
brook trout caught on artificial lures.
Study on trophy sized (avg 34cm) wild brook trout.
“ Mortality was 8.3% for brook trout caught on Mepps spinners and Cleo
spoons equipped with treble hooks, whereas mortality was significantly
lower (2.4%,) for fish caught on the same lures with single hooks.

10) Schroder and Kenaston 2002 Annual progress report – Spring Chinook
salmon in the Willamette and Sandy Rivers.
“ Chinook salmon caught on lures with treble hooks had a higher mortality
(11.6%) than those caught on lures with single hooks (4%).”

14) The Doc Fritchley Chapter – Trout Unlimited 2002.
Study on brook and brown trout in the Savage River, Maryland, comparing
single hook flies with treble hooked lures.
Mortality for single hooked flies was 0%, mortality for treble hooked
lures was 8%.


my problem with the studies involves all the other variables not
described or controlled... handling, location of hooks, injury to gills,
time out of the water, angler experience, water temps, air temps, etc.
etc. etc. how does one isolate single hook/treble hook for a controlled
study?

still, if one was to make a generalized conclusion, wouldn't it be that
the hooking of a fish alone yields a relatively low mortality consequence?

jeff

jeff wrote in news:ICMGg.4735$W01.2265@dukeread08:

my problem with the studies involves all the other variables not
described or controlled... handling, location of hooks, injury to
gills, time out of the water, angler experience, water temps, air
temps, etc. etc. etc. how does one isolate single hook/treble hook
for a controlled study?


Exactly. All I know is that I feel real guilty when I hook a fish on
both sides of the mouth. I don't rule out spinners, but I do suggest
that people cut off one point.

Let's not forget that many lures have two sets of trebles, too.


still, if one was to make a generalized conclusion, wouldn't it be
that the hooking of a fish alone yields a relatively low mortality
consequence?

jeff




Hooking a fish, so long as the fish is handled gently, does have a low
mortality consequence. The problem is the huge numbers of fishermen that
don't know how to handle a fish. TU used to have a Consider Proper
Release publication that offered suggestions.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply