Put and Kill -so disgusting

James,
I have no objection to stocking where natural reproduction can't take
place. Stocking places where natural reproduction is possible is
detrimental to natural trout.
Ernie

"James Ehlers" wrote in message
. net...
Why be disgusted at something that gives people pleasure? Happy people
are
nicer to be around Relatively harmless activity in most states where
put and take stocking occurs where natives would not exist anyway.

--
James Ehlers

Outdoors Magazine



www.outdoorsmagazine.net
"Ernie" wrote in message
. ..
Yes,
1. Stocked trout don't belong in any water where natural reproduction is
possible.
2. Only Catch and Release should be allowed in these waters.
I came across a bunch of hatchery trout in a lake that people were
trying
to catch. I told them to throw a hand full of small gravel at them.
They
did, which sent the fish into a feeding frenzy and they started catching
them. I walked away in disgust and wondered if any of the people knew
what
it was like to catch a real trout with a full set of fins.
Ernie

"Gene C" wrote
Even more amazing was the fact that within a couple of hours
of going into the water they were going after woolly buggers!
Any comments?

I have no objection to stocking where natural reproduction can't take
place. Stocking places where natural reproduction is possible is
detrimental to natural trout.
Ernie

I'd be curious to know the exact number of states which have naturally
reproducing trout populations. Of that number, how many had to have trout
introduced into them to establish that population?

While hatchery trout may not taste or fight like wild trout, and while put &
take fishing is far less desirable than stalking and catching fish from
natural populations, such programs do provide money that goes into
conservation budgets. The people who make use of such programs not only buy
licenses but rods, reels, flies, lines and all the cute little gadgets that
make other fly fishers happy. Many of them will never fling flies anyplace
else. Some will progress and move onto other waters.

Having such places actually does decrease pressure on natural populations in
marginal waters.

While the purists among us can sneer and moan about such things, there are
many people who are quite happily served by such fishing arrangements. And
everyone of them who fishes there is not standing next to you throwing his
line over yours.

When I grew up, where I grew up, seafood consisted of breaded, fried shrimp
shipped frozen and tasteless. I was fortunate to move and find out that
other seafood existed. Even today, there are parts of the nation where "red
lobster" provides the best seafood available. Sad but true.

----
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
Drowning flies to Darkstar

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/i...age92kword.htm

Steve,
Most of California's lakes and streams are capable of natural reproduction.
The ones that aren't are usually because man screwed them up with logging,
mining, damming, and overgrazing.
The Department of Fish and Game spends a huge percentage of their budget
on fish hatcheries, but they should be restoring the habitat. There are
miles and miles of mountain streams where cattle, sheep and horses have
overgrazed the National Forests and trampled the streams into mud, yet
nothing is done about it. It wouldn't be difficult or expensive to install
electric fences powered by solar batteries to keep the livestock back.from
the edges of the streams.
There is a stream in Northern California named Yellow Creek by Lake
Almanor. I went there and found a shallow stream with small trout. They
did an experiment where they fenced the cattle back. I went there again
three years after the installation and found a deep clear cold running
stream full of big natural trout. There were waist high wild flowers along
the stream. It was a joy to see.
For some reason our nearsighted Fish and Game and National Forest Service
can't see the advantage of having clear running streams with stable banks
and clean water with natural reproducing fish. It would beat the hell out
of fishing for finless rubber hatchery trout.
Ernie


slenon" wrote in message
I'd be curious to know the exact number of states which have naturally
reproducing trout populations. Of that number, how many had to have trout
introduced into them to establish that population?
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69

Well said, Stev.

--
James Ehlers

Outdoors Magazine
www.outdoorsmagazine.net
"slenon" wrote in message
m...
I have no objection to stocking where natural reproduction can't take
place. Stocking places where natural reproduction is possible is
detrimental to natural trout.
Ernie

I'd be curious to know the exact number of states which have naturally
reproducing trout populations. Of that number, how many had to have trout
introduced into them to establish that population?

While hatchery trout may not taste or fight like wild trout, and while put
&
take fishing is far less desirable than stalking and catching fish from
natural populations, such programs do provide money that goes into
conservation budgets. The people who make use of such programs not only
buy
licenses but rods, reels, flies, lines and all the cute little gadgets
that
make other fly fishers happy. Many of them will never fling flies anyplace
else. Some will progress and move onto other waters.

Having such places actually does decrease pressure on natural populations
in
marginal waters.

While the purists among us can sneer and moan about such things, there are
many people who are quite happily served by such fishing arrangements.
And
everyone of them who fishes there is not standing next to you throwing his
line over yours.

When I grew up, where I grew up, seafood consisted of breaded, fried
shrimp
shipped frozen and tasteless. I was fortunate to move and find out that
other seafood existed. Even today, there are parts of the nation where
"red
lobster" provides the best seafood available. Sad but true.

----
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
Drowning flies to Darkstar

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/i...age92kword.htm

Ernie,
I agree with you 100 percent.

--
James Ehlers

Outdoors Magazine
www.outdoorsmagazine.net
"Ernie" wrote in message
. ..
James,
I have no objection to stocking where natural reproduction can't take
place. Stocking places where natural reproduction is possible is
detrimental to natural trout.
Ernie

"James Ehlers" wrote in message
. net...
Why be disgusted at something that gives people pleasure? Happy people
are
nicer to be around Relatively harmless activity in most states
where
put and take stocking occurs where natives would not exist anyway.

--
James Ehlers

Outdoors Magazine



www.outdoorsmagazine.net
"Ernie" wrote in message
. ..
Yes,
1. Stocked trout don't belong in any water where natural reproduction
is
possible.
2. Only Catch and Release should be allowed in these waters.
I came across a bunch of hatchery trout in a lake that people were
trying
to catch. I told them to throw a hand full of small gravel at them.
They
did, which sent the fish into a feeding frenzy and they started
catching
them. I walked away in disgust and wondered if any of the people knew
what
it was like to catch a real trout with a full set of fins.
Ernie

"Gene C" wrote
Even more amazing was the fact that within a couple of hours
of going into the water they were going after woolly buggers!
Any comments?

i agree. we need more conveniently-placed, handicap-accessible put and
take fisheries.

jeff

James Ehlers wrote:

Why be disgusted at something that gives people pleasure? Happy people are
nicer to be around Relatively harmless activity in most states where
put and take stocking occurs where natives would not exist anyway.

"Jeff Miller" wrote in message
news:3p9lb.95857$AH4.44122@lakeread06...
i agree. we need more conveniently-placed, handicap-accessible put
and
take fisheries.

Hm.......

As handicap access is not your area of particular expertise,
counselor, I hasten to remind you that "a marginal capacity to jog up
six miles of indiscernible trail in the dark, wade wet for several
hours in marrow freezing water, and then sprint back down the trail,
leaving a parched fishing companion choking in dust, to get the pick
of a rapidly dwindling beer supply back at the truck" is not a
universally accepted definition of "handicapped". We do things
somewhat differently up here.

Wolfgang
not to mention the disconcerting reflection on being left alone with
all the bitey things in the woods.

hmmm...hint-hint: if we get all those other folks focused on the easy
access, lotsa big fish areas by the well-traveled roads, that trail we
were on can be run without bumpin into anybody else.

and, as far as up there, being slowly but incessantly devoured by flies
and skeeters makes a jog down a nc mountain trail seem quite pleasant,
don't it? ...

jeff

Wolfgang wrote:

"Jeff Miller" wrote in message
news:3p9lb.95857$AH4.44122@lakeread06...

i agree. we need more conveniently-placed, handicap-accessible put

and

take fisheries.


Hm.......

As handicap access is not your area of particular expertise,
counselor, I hasten to remind you that "a marginal capacity to jog up
six miles of indiscernible trail in the dark, wade wet for several
hours in marrow freezing water, and then sprint back down the trail,
leaving a parched fishing companion choking in dust, to get the pick
of a rapidly dwindling beer supply back at the truck" is not a
universally accepted definition of "handicapped". We do things
somewhat differently up here.

Wolfgang
not to mention the disconcerting reflection on being left alone with
all the bitey things in the woods.

We are trying to do just that here in Vermont.

--
James Ehlers

Outdoors Magazine
www.outdoorsmagazine.net


"Jeff Miller" wrote in message
news:3p9lb.95857$AH4.44122@lakeread06...
i agree. we need more conveniently-placed, handicap-accessible put and
take fisheries.

jeff

James Ehlers wrote:

Why be disgusted at something that gives people pleasure? Happy people
are
nicer to be around Relatively harmless activity in most states
where
put and take stocking occurs where natives would not exist anyway.

(Gene C) wrote in message . com...

I find this extremely depressing on many levels.

Ahh, well you are in good company! :-)

Gene, the oldtimers on ROFF have seen more arguments for and against
catch and release than you can ever imagine...indeed if you did a
google search it'd keep your mind spinning for days (not that there's
anything wrong with it!).

The food might be a little scarce for that many fish but we
could have had fun catching them for the next 5 months!

I'm not a fan of PETA but I also see no point in pushing fish to a
slow death of suffocation.

As arguments go, bringing the ethical treatment of animals into
the mix (e.g., PETA) can backfire...I mean, once you start to
thinking, then which is worse -- suffocation over an hour, or
starvation over 5 months, intermixed with the occasional violent
hook, drag, can't breath, photo-flashed, and finally put back?

Besides, properly stringered fish breathe just fine -- the longer
they stay alive, the better they taste :-)

Any comments?

I bet more than you expected, eh? Anyways, happy fishing,

Jon.