Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 14:06:21 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

Prove me wrong Dave. Write a letter to TU saying the reservoir
pollution making it unsafe for pregnant women and children to eat fish
is something they need to focus on. Show me the response that says
they'll get 'right on it'.

There is nothing TU or anyone else can do about it. The fish (bass,
pickeral, white perch, laketrout, bullheads, etc) have been
contaminated for years. Yet, fishing is still allowed and most people
still eat their catch. It is not a place where c & r types would go
(generally), but is a meat gatherer's heaven.

Catch and release *works*, Tim, as I have illustrated with the Rapid
River example. Without c & r, the river would be dead, or worse,
stocked with cee-ment pond mutant rainbows, brookies, browns.

There are many put and take ponds/streams in this area. Ya wanna eat
some Purina fish, have a go at 'em, but leave the native fish alone.
Man has ****ed up just about everything he has touched, and without c
& r in the Rapid, that too will find its way on the effed up list.

BTW, I have taken *many* wild fish, the first person to catch them as
witnessed by their reaction, in Russia, Canada, and Alaska. And I
released them for someone else to enjoy.

Tell me something, Tim: When you go fishing, do you catch a fish, put
it in your creel, and continue to fish (assuming it is a 1 fish/day
limit)? Or do you release it and wait for a really big one? I saw an
old geezer do just that on the Rapid one time a few years ago with a
landlocked salmon. He put a skinny 14 incher in his creel and
continued to fish. When he caught a 16 incher he was about to "trade
in" the dead fish for the "better" one when I told him I would report
him to the local warden. The man reluctantly released the 16 incher
and moved on to another spot. I followed him for awhile, but I know
that when I left him he threw the 14 incher back and kept a better
fish. I'm not saying you do the same, Tim, but when you catch a fish
and keep it, shouldn't you stop fishing altogether (again, assuming it
is a one fish limit). If you continue to fish, are you a hypocrite?

Dave

On Mar 5, 3:58 pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 14:06:21 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer

wrote:
Prove me wrong Dave. Write a letter to TU saying the reservoir
pollution making it unsafe for pregnant women and children to eat fish
is something they need to focus on. Show me the response that says
they'll get 'right on it'.

There is nothing TU or anyone else can do about it. The fish (bass,
pickeral, white perch, laketrout, bullheads, etc) have been
contaminated for years. Yet, fishing is still allowed and most people
still eat their catch. It is not a place where c & r types would go
(generally), but is a meat gatherer's heaven.

Catch and release *works*, Tim, as I have illustrated with the Rapid
River example. Without c & r, the river would be dead, or worse,
stocked with cee-ment pond mutant rainbows, brookies, browns.

There are many put and take ponds/streams in this area. Ya wanna eat
some Purina fish, have a go at 'em, but leave the native fish alone.
Man has ****ed up just about everything he has touched, and without c
& r in the Rapid, that too will find its way on the effed up list.

BTW, I have taken *many* wild fish, the first person to catch them as
witnessed by their reaction, in Russia, Canada, and Alaska. And I
released them for someone else to enjoy.

Tell me something, Tim: When you go fishing, do you catch a fish, put
it in your creel, and continue to fish (assuming it is a 1 fish/day
limit)? Or do you release it and wait for a really big one? I saw an
old geezer do just that on the Rapid one time a few years ago with a
landlocked salmon. He put a skinny 14 incher in his creel and
continued to fish. When he caught a 16 incher he was about to "trade
in" the dead fish for the "better" one when I told him I would report
him to the local warden. The man reluctantly released the 16 incher
and moved on to another spot. I followed him for awhile, but I know
that when I left him he threw the 14 incher back and kept a better
fish. I'm not saying you do the same, Tim, but when you catch a fish
and keep it, shouldn't you stop fishing altogether (again, assuming it
is a one fish limit). If you continue to fish, are you a hypocrite?

Dave

Dave,

You asked a crux question: but when you catch a fish and keep it,
shouldn't you stop fishing altogether?

That is a primary point, but not of this particular thread. There are
no "limits" to C&R. We accept more anglers astream for longer periods
of time. This directly affects the 'wildness' of the act and
profoundly affects the quality. Not just from the other angler
presence but the affect that a mass of fishermen have on a fishery.
The fish no longer act wild. They become more selective but will sit
there a foot downstream from my boots. When you do catch a fish it is
often grotesquely disfigured from multiple catchings. Pure C&R release
only 'works' if you accept those things as 'working'. I do not. I
think it teaches the absolute wrong sporting ethic. We kid ourselves
that we 'respect' the wildlife as we revive it from hooking and
hauling. We harass a wild animal all day long for sport alone. We
stress, maim and kill fish for fun. That's just a 'fact'. You can
accept this or not. I think that when we are responsible sportsmen, we
do not harass animals for fun and we stress and maim them only as rare
accidents that are side-affects of hunting food and existing on the
food chain. Way different than killing an animal for fun. Don't you
think? So, you take all that "truth" and contrast it with the other
truth that there is *never* a management or biological imperative for
pure C&R and the whole thing seems silly and wrong.

Yes. If the limit is one fish, there is no question about it, you
should stop fishing, leave the hole for another and thank the Lord for
his generous bounty.

Your pal,

TBone
Guilt replaced the creel.

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 15:36:51 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

You asked a crux question: but when you catch a fish and keep it,
shouldn't you stop fishing altogether?

No. I will continue to fish. I practice good catch and release
habits - land the fish quickly, no net unless absolutely necessary and
then it is a rubber mesh one, barbless hooks. I have fished dries
with the hook cut off. If I feel a good tug when I set the hook, I
consider it a catch.

That is a primary point, but not of this particular thread. There are
no "limits" to C&R. We accept more anglers astream for longer periods
of time. This directly affects the 'wildness' of the act and
profoundly affects the quality.

I'll guarantee you a spot on a beautiful river in Maine where the fish
will be as wild as you want. The "quality" of the fish is excellent.


Not just from the other angler
presence but the affect that a mass of fishermen have on a fishery.
The fish no longer act wild. They become more selective but will sit
there a foot downstream from my boots.

You must be talking the Kiddie Hole at the San Juan. I fished it once
and will never fish it again. You are correct that the fish were beat
up, but if you come to my rivers, I'll guarantee you a landlocked
salmon that will tail walk across a pool and a big brook trout that
will defy you landing it. They are just as wild as the fish I've seen
in Labrador, Russia and Alaska. AND, they are there because of.......
ta daaaaa...... a catch and release policy making killing them
illegal. There would not be any of these wonderful brookies left if
the State did not step in and stop the slaughter. My two oldest
grandsons have caught them, as has my granddaughter. My two youngest
grandsons will soon experience these fish. They would not have been
able to if the meat gatherers had killed them.

When you do catch a fish it is
often grotesquely disfigured from multiple catchings.

Not on my rivers/lakes. In late season they *may* have some hook
marks (and I emphasize "may"), but I have never seen gotesque
disfigured fish on these rivers. The San Juan, yes, but not on any
Maine river.

Pure C&R release
only 'works' if you accept those things as 'working'. I do not.

Horse puckies! Wipe your mouth, Tim, there's still some horse **** on
your lips. d;o)

I
think it teaches the absolute wrong sporting ethic. We kid ourselves
that we 'respect' the wildlife as we revive it from hooking and
hauling. We harass a wild animal all day long for sport alone. We
stress, maim and kill fish for fun. That's just a 'fact'. You can
accept this or not. I think that when we are responsible sportsmen, we
do not harass animals for fun and we stress and maim them only as rare
accidents that are side-affects of hunting food and existing on the
food chain. Way different than killing an animal for fun. Don't you
think? So, you take all that "truth" and contrast it with the other
truth that there is *never* a management or biological imperative for
pure C&R and the whole thing seems silly and wrong.

That is your opinion, Tim. It's not mine. I think you are wrong.

Yes. If the limit is one fish, there is no question about it, you
should stop fishing, leave the hole for another and thank the Lord for
his generous bounty.

Good. That's the only thing you've said that makes any sense. d;o)

Be well.

Dave