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

Jonathan Cook wrote:
wrote:

That's one possible definition.

Agreed. Still, I didn't have to search hard to find that
specialists are using the phrase in a way meaningful to
their management of the resources. It popped up right at
the top.

You still don't see it, do you?

O.k., just this once, we'll go through it step by step......but don't
expect me to make a habit of holding your hand for the rest of your
life.....o.k.?

Yes, it DID pop up right at the top.....but what is "it"? "It" is a
red flag waving atop a flashing neon sign.. See it? No, of course you
don't. And so......

What it said:

"Thirty-four percent of the individuals surveyed exhibited
characteristics of subsistence fishing. For this study,
someone displaying characteristics of subsistence fishing was
an individual who said: a) the fish caught was a primary
source of their diet, or b) the fish caught was either somewhat
or very important to their or somebody else's diet, or c) that
six or more of their meals per month were prepared from the
fish caught at the study site."

What it said.....in English:

"For this study [that's the red flag.....you still didn't see
it.....right? ] I have chosen, for reasons that I don't care to
divulge, to define a commonly understood term in a way that diverges
radically from the way that term is commonly understood and, b) a
subsistence fisherman/woman is anybody I care to identify as such"

What it means:

"Everything that follows is a political tract. Anyone looking for, or
with even a desultory interest in, science would be well advised to
look elsewhere."

What you should do:

Dismiss it. All of it. Oh, go ahead and read the paper if you really
have nothing better to do (personally, I'd recommend a book or
something.....but when have you ever listened to me, right?), or
don't......I really don't care. But, either way, dismiss it.

By that definition I'm a
subsistence angler too. There's no way I would ever define
myself as such. It's far more cost effective to walk over
to the grocery store and buy the farm raised fish. Fishing is
pure recreation for the vast majority of fishermen in the United
States.

(This is sort of a reply to Chuck, too). I don't see that
recreation and subsistence need to be non-intersecting
definitions.

Thus demonstrating in a single sentence that you don't know what either
word means. Not a bad trick.

Nor does subsistence need an economic definition.

Well, only if economics has something or other to do with staying
alive.

The refs I provided pointed out that subsistence fishing
is done for all sorts of reasons, including personal and
social benefits.

Which is precisely why they carry that peculiar and not all all
pleasant aroma. You didn't notice?

To me, that's what recreation is too, an
activity with personal and social benefits. I don't have
to _not_ like fishing to make my fishing subsistence fishing.

What a delightful world it must be that allows one to stay alive while
believing whatever mish-mash of delusional crap one likes.

So I guess I'd disagree that it is "pure" recreation for most
US fishermen. For most, it _is_ recreation, but it's also
putting something in the freezer.

Well, unless they don't.

Wolfgang
by the way, you've never actually read a scientific paper, have you?

wrote:

By definition, then, C&R anglers are unethical spportsmen.

Well, if you define it that way.....yeah, I suppose. See, you and Jon
and your stable of pet scientists have a great advantage over the rest
of us......you guys get to have all the ad hoc defintitions you
want....any time you want.....at any point in any "discussion."

It can be no
other way because the hunter is wasting the meat of all fish that
succomb from the stress of being caught and release, around 5% on
average.

Well, in the first place, one who pursues fish with hook and line is
generally referred to as a "fisher".....not a "hunter." That the
distinction is lost on you comes as no surprise......particularly
since, historically, you've said virtually nothing coherent in this
newsgroup.

Secondly, would it be presumptuous or impudent or something to inquire
whether the stipulated 5% mortality rate (if, indeed that is what you
are suggesting.......one can never be certain, right?) applies whether
or not one intends to keep a couple?

The C&K angler that *quits* when he has a limit definately
maintains the ethical high ground.

Hm.....

On the waters I routinely fish, I can stay out there for maybe 5 or 6
hours (after that I get bored or tired or hungry or thirsty oe
something) and on a good day I'll catch and release maybe 30 fish.
Let's see now......hm.....naught times naught is naught.....carry the
naught......times .05......looks like, by your reckonig, I've killed
about 1.5 fish. YOU on the other hand, quit when have "a limit."
Again, on the waters I routinely fish, this means you are out there
for......oh......roughly 240 hours. O.k., so, being optimists (and who
else would flyfish, right?) let us say you maintain the same 5 fish per
hour pace that I did. Hm.......check my math, please, but it looks to
me like you've caught 1200 fish. At a mortality rate of 5%, that
equals very close to 60 dead fish.....right? No, WRONG! You forgot
the extra three fish (assuming a three fish over 14 inches
limit.....not an entirely unrepresentative sample of what the the regs
might be on a stream here in Wisconsin) that you killed deliberately!

There's you moral high ground.

Dumbass.

Wolfgang

In article , says...
wrote:

That's one possible definition.

Agreed. Still, I didn't have to search hard to find that
specialists are using the phrase in a way meaningful to
their management of the resources. It popped up right at
the top.

Definition by Google search popularity isn't what I consider
authoritative. Bill Gates could fish regularly and by this
particular definition be a subsistence fisherman. That he, you
or I are subsistence fisherman renders this definition useless.
Any of us could stop fishing and would eat just fine.

Fishing is
pure recreation for the vast majority of fishermen in the United
States.

(This is sort of a reply to Chuck, too). I don't see that
recreation and subsistence need to be non-intersecting
definitions. Nor does subsistence need an economic definition.
The refs I provided pointed out that subsistence fishing
is done for all sorts of reasons, including personal and
social benefits. To me, that's what recreation is too, an
activity with personal and social benefits. I don't have
to _not_ like fishing to make my fishing subsistence fishing.

Nope, you can like or dislike it all you want, that's not part
of subsisting. What is part of subsisting is that if you stopped
fishing, your ability to feed yourself would significantly decline.


So I guess I'd disagree that it is "pure" recreation for most
US fishermen. For most, it _is_ recreation, but it's also
putting something in the freezer.

Having an additional benefit beyond recreation doesn't make it not
recreation....it also doesn't make it subsistence fishing.
- Ken

On 25 Aug 2006 15:46:49 -0700, wrote:

These include:
1) Selective Harvest

Of a unique species near extinction. Yeah, that oughta work.

2) Closed Seasons

Then why should I pay for a fishing license.

3) Restricted Access

Access to the river is already restricted. Unless you stay at
Lakewood (140 us/day), access to the river is difficult.

4) Habitat improvement

Not necessary. It is a wild and wonderful river already.

5) Self control, 100 days a year on the battenkill?

Who's talking Battenkill. Not me.

6) Not allowing outfitters to profit from public resources BEFORE the
public's needs have been satisfied

No outfitters on the river. Some guides, yes, but their clients
aren't that many, and it is c&r remember. d;o)

7) Fishing in places not as threatened

Yeah, for pellet rainbows? Or maybe we could introduce whirling
disease to these hallowed waters.

8) Ad nauseam

Ad nauseam? You haven't given me ONE reason for catch and kill on
this river, not ONE. People dream of catching and killing five pound
brookies. Open the river to the meat takers and we'll be right back
where we were 15 years ago -- no fish of any size. Hell, might as
well allow spinning gear and bait fishermen. Really **** it up ala
T-Bone logic.

Catch and release saved the Rapid. Close the Rapid and I would fish
two weeks out of the year - in Alaska/Chile/Labrador, and a few days
drifting the Kennebec in October. The Rapid is almost like a god to
me. Take it away by killing the specific brook trout native to its
waters, and I may as well sell/give away all my gear. Wayne Knight
might be happy, but I won't be. Anyone out there want a *******
Bamboo rod?

Dave

On 25 Aug 2006 15:46:49 -0700, wrote:

In any event there are many, many ways to manage the fishery besides
pure catch end release for fish that are decimating the indiginous
species.

Forgot to add: it is not catch and release of the fish that are
decimating the indiginous species. I have no qualms about keeping
salmon. It is the *indiginous species* ( the native brook trout
unique to this river) that have been in danger due to catch and kill
regulations. The river is now in danger from illegally stocked small
mouth bass into the lake that the Rapid empties.

Dave LaCourse wrote:
On 25 Aug 2006 15:46:49 -0700, wrote:

These include:
1) Selective Harvest

Of a unique species near extinction. Yeah, that oughta work.

You would catch and release a species near extinction? Go for it dude.
I'll stick to the ones that can handle it. The mortality of catch and
release is never zero. An angler that fishes 100 days a year kills many
fish.

2) Closed Seasons

Then why should I pay for a fishing license.

That's precisely the point that has been made before. At the end of the
day, IMO, the average angler is not willing to sacrifice anything but
then claim to be concerned conservationists. I just don't get it.

3) Restricted Access

Access to the river is already restricted. Unless you stay at
Lakewood (140 us/day), access to the river is difficult.

Hmmm...but I am led to believe the hordes of 'bait-anglers' are going
to cause massive damage to the ecosystem? Which is it going to be, you
can not have it both ways.

4) Habitat improvement

Not necessary. It is a wild and wonderful river already.

Don't bogart that joint my friend, pass it over to me.

5) Self control, 100 days a year on the battenkill?

Who's talking Battenkill. Not me.

Seriously, pass it along, you've had enough dude. Maybe you're in the
wrong thread?

6) Not allowing outfitters to profit from public resources BEFORE the
public's needs have been satisfied

No outfitters on the river. Some guides, yes, but their clients
aren't that many, and it is c&r remember. d;o)

And there are advertisements and trade shows and angling shops and
national organizations with two letter acronyms brainwashing the masses
and spouting conservation out one orifice and flyfishing competition
out the other.

7) Fishing in places not as threatened

Yeah, for pellet rainbows? Or maybe we could introduce whirling
disease to these hallowed waters.

Ummm....pellet rainbows. Do they finish them with the shrimp and
paprika pellets?

8) Ad nauseam

Ad nauseam? You haven't given me ONE reason for catch and kill on
this river, not ONE. People dream of catching and killing five pound
brookies. Open the river to the meat takers and we'll be right back
where we were 15 years ago -- no fish of any size. Hell, might as
well allow spinning gear and bait fishermen. Really **** it up ala
T-Bone logic.

There you go again with that 'binary' nonsense. 'Tyranny of Or' Dave,
look it up.

Catch and release saved the Rapid. Close the Rapid and I would fish
two weeks out of the year - in Alaska/Chile/Labrador, and a few days
drifting the Kennebec in October. The Rapid is almost like a god to
me. Take it away by killing the specific brook trout native to its
waters, and I may as well sell/give away all my gear. Wayne Knight
might be happy, but I won't be. Anyone out there want a *******
Bamboo rod?

Yes, I'm stll waiting for the brown truck.

Dave

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer
Guilt replaced the creel.

Dave LaCourse wrote:
On 25 Aug 2006 15:46:49 -0700, wrote:

These include:
1) Selective Harvest

Of a unique species near extinction. Yeah, that oughta work.

2) Closed Seasons

Then why should I pay for a fishing license.

3) Restricted Access

Access to the river is already restricted. Unless you stay at
Lakewood (140 us/day), access to the river is difficult.

4) Habitat improvement

Not necessary. It is a wild and wonderful river already.

5) Self control, 100 days a year on the battenkill?

Who's talking Battenkill. Not me.

6) Not allowing outfitters to profit from public resources BEFORE the
public's needs have been satisfied

No outfitters on the river. Some guides, yes, but their clients
aren't that many, and it is c&r remember. d;o)

7) Fishing in places not as threatened

Yeah, for pellet rainbows? Or maybe we could introduce whirling
disease to these hallowed waters.

8) Ad nauseam

Ad nauseam? You haven't given me ONE reason for catch and kill on
this river, not ONE. People dream of catching and killing five pound
brookies. Open the river to the meat takers and we'll be right back
where we were 15 years ago -- no fish of any size. Hell, might as
well allow spinning gear and bait fishermen. Really **** it up ala
T-Bone logic.

Catch and release saved the Rapid. Close the Rapid and I would fish
two weeks out of the year - in Alaska/Chile/Labrador, and a few days
drifting the Kennebec in October. The Rapid is almost like a god to
me. Take it away by killing the specific brook trout native to its
waters, and I may as well sell/give away all my gear. Wayne Knight
might be happy, but I won't be. Anyone out there want a *******
Bamboo rod?

Dave

One thing I forgot Dave.

You said something that you really should consider.

"I would fish two weeks out of the year - in Alaska/Chile/Labrador, and
a few days
drifting the Kennebec in October."

Not everyone has the means to do this. I can absolutely tell you for
certain no angler would be upset catching a 5 pound rainbow holdover
from a previous year stocking. It might be a life highlight for that
kid, parent or blue collar worker.

Wow man. Silver and crimson sides jumping, one, two, three, four times,
ripping out line, screeming the drag, on a dry fly. Wow. Oh, and that 5
pound brookie, from it's native watershed. There is pure power in that
thought.

But Dave, the browns are surely affecting that dream.

Browns eat a lot of brook trout Dave.

Your pal,

TBone
Guilt replaced the creel.

On 25 Aug 2006 18:33:36 GMT, (Jonathan Cook) wrote:

Another google ref on subsistence angling:


"In some rural areas of the country, and especially in a
large portion of Alaska, fishing for subsistence purposes
is quite common.

Bet there are damn few of them hoping for rainbows on the Battenkill.
--

r.bc: vixen
Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher, etc..
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless. Really.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

Wolfgang wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Wolfgang wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Dave LaCourse wrote:
On 25 Aug 2006 08:41:51 -0700, wrote:

It really chaps my butt when so called brothers of the angle
denegrate
people who understand this, who like to eat wild fish, harvest the
bounty of nature, while claiming moral high ground when their only
using the animal to promote the latest vest fashion. Turns out the
fish
from the high seas fish farms are poison. Only wild fish is the real
McCoy. As I said years ago, when I was 'sent to the grocer': What
price
then, for wild brook trout meat?

Tim, how can we make you understand that if all the rivers and streams
in this great land were catch and kill, there would be nothing but
stocked fish in them.

To wit, The Rapid River in Maine.

It used to be catch and kill (1 brookie/day). Fifteen years ago if
you caught a 15 inch brook trout, it was the catch of the day. And
many fishermen would kill that 15 incher and eat it. I *know* how
good it must have tasted, but that fish was part of the breeding
stock. The ration then was about 1 brook trout for every 10 salmon
landed. Today things have changed.

After declaring brook trout catch and release ONLY, they have come
back to the point where five pounders are not uncommon. Five
pounders! Now when you catch a fish, if you don't see the take, you
don't know whether it's a brookie or a salmon. During the fight, of
course, you can tell. The ratio now is about 50/50, unheard of 15
years ago.

Conclusion: Catch and release has brought the brook trout population
*specific* to this river back to normal. It has saved this strain of
brook trout from extinction.

As you would have it, you'd say, "Who gives a ****. Stock pellet
rainbows. Everyone'll be happy." And *that* my friend is bull****.

Dave

Gee Dave, the world manages fisheries around the concept of harvest. I
wonder how in the world they do that!!!!!

They deplete fish stocks all over the world.

Dumbass.

Wolfgang

I spent 4 years in the US Coast Guard making sure they did not, at
least in US Coastal waters.

No. You did not.

Wolfgang

With all due respect, I was a boarding officer, E-6 Quartermaster, 25
months sea service the rest search and rescue on lake michigan. I won
top honors at the national search and rescue school on governors island
in New York. I was in the auxiliary as recently as last year (quit when
it became department of the reichstag) doing boating saftey on the
ramps on my day off. The USCG is responsible for fisheries enforcement
and I have supported that effort with a lot of my soul for nearly 30
years, so please, please do not say I did not.

Halfordian Golfer
WAGB10

Wolfgang wrote:
wrote:

By definition, then, C&R anglers are unethical spportsmen.

Well, if you define it that way.....yeah, I suppose. See, you and Jon
and your stable of pet scientists have a great advantage over the rest
of us......you guys get to have all the ad hoc defintitions you
want....any time you want.....at any point in any "discussion."

It can be no
other way because the hunter is wasting the meat of all fish that
succomb from the stress of being caught and release, around 5% on
average.

Well, in the first place, one who pursues fish with hook and line is
generally referred to as a "fisher".....not a "hunter." That the
distinction is lost on you comes as no surprise......particularly
since, historically, you've said virtually nothing coherent in this
newsgroup.

Secondly, would it be presumptuous or impudent or something to inquire
whether the stipulated 5% mortality rate (if, indeed that is what you
are suggesting.......one can never be certain, right?) applies whether
or not one intends to keep a couple?

The C&K angler that *quits* when he has a limit definately
maintains the ethical high ground.

Hm.....

On the waters I routinely fish, I can stay out there for maybe 5 or 6
hours (after that I get bored or tired or hungry or thirsty oe
something) and on a good day I'll catch and release maybe 30 fish.
Let's see now......hm.....naught times naught is naught.....carry the
naught......times .05......looks like, by your reckonig, I've killed
about 1.5 fish. YOU on the other hand, quit when have "a limit."
Again, on the waters I routinely fish, this means you are out there
for......oh......roughly 240 hours. O.k., so, being optimists (and who
else would flyfish, right?) let us say you maintain the same 5 fish per
hour pace that I did. Hm.......check my math, please, but it looks to
me like you've caught 1200 fish. At a mortality rate of 5%, that
equals very close to 60 dead fish.....right? No, WRONG! You forgot
the extra three fish (assuming a three fish over 14 inches
limit.....not an entirely unrepresentative sample of what the the regs
might be on a stream here in Wisconsin) that you killed deliberately!

There's you moral high ground.

Dumbass.

Wolfgang

Two fish and quit. 40 casts. Do you suck that bad Wolfgang?

Your pal,

TBone