Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life

On Feb 28, 5:34 pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:40:53 -0800 (PST), salmobytes

wrote:
wiworth:
....you're supposed to laugh, Dave.
Not fly off the handle (just in case).
:-)))

Bseg

Hmmmm. Thought I answered your first post, Sandy, but I don't see it.
In any case, I did laugh.

I am a curmudgeon 'cause of all the liberals in Taxachusetts. d;o(
They have yet to see a tax or fee that they do not like.

Timbo and I have gone round and round on this subject for years.
Catch and kill almost killed one of the most beautiful native brookie
waters in the country. Meat gatherers (if that ain't a word, it is
now!) devastated the river by taking all the large fish as
meals/trophies. I can remember a Sunday 15 or so years ago with 17
anglers in a spot that can handle 6 or 7, AND there was another six or
so waiting for a spot to fish. They were all after meat. A 16 incher
in those days was a very big brook trout..

The State of Maine protected the brookies in this river by finally
making it illegal to kill one, and put a season on killing only one
land locked salmon. It did not take long for the native brookies to
recover. I have taken many in the 3 to 5 pound range, and a friend
took a 7 pounder on a #10 Royal Wulff (go figure). The landlocks have
also come back - I landed/released a 25 incher last June.

Conclusion: Catch and release works. Imagine a five pound brook
trout rising up and taking a #16 Goddard Caddis. You set the hook and
five minutes later you have fought and successfully released a fish
that is now wiser. You are stuck with the puzzle of how to fool him
again. What to use........ he'll still be haunting that little riffle
at the head of that pool, but he's wiser now. You have to be wiser
too or else he'll win. Your paths *will* cross again.

Imagine that same brook trout rising to take another dry fly in catch
and kill waters....... it will be his last rise, his last "meal".

There are no polutants in this river. C & R does not cause polution.
However, the drinking water for the City of Boston is contained in a
resevoir about 40 miles west of the city. It is C & K water, yet
there are signs present about not eating too much of the fish because
they contain heavy metals and PCPs. Should I make the conclusion that
catch and kill has caused the heavy metals in this water? Same logic
that Timbo is using.

Ya wanna eat trout, kill the cement pond mutant crap they stock the
rivers with. Or, eat some Purina Puppy Cow - tastes about the same I
imagine.

Dave (Curmudgeoniz Supremious)
d;o)

Culling works too Dave. Has for a really long, long time.

Your pal,

TBone

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:58:43 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

Culling works too Dave. Has for a really long, long time.

Yep, sure does. I would like to see a slot limit on landlocks on this
river. There is already a limit of 1 salmon/day 14+ inches until Sept
1. But leave the brookies survive.

Dave

On Mar 1, 5:53 am, Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:58:43 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer

wrote:
Culling works too Dave. Has for a really long, long time.

Yep, sure does. I would like to see a slot limit on landlocks on this
river. There is already a limit of 1 salmon/day 14+ inches until Sept
1. But leave the brookies survive.

Dave

That's all I'm sayin'.

Regarding the brookies there. Is it the case that they are so
threatened that they can not withstand the mortality incidental to
sustained C&R for them? If they can withstand some mortality, than
would it make at least as much sense to direct that mortality to some
specific class, like the 1 fish over X pounds limit?

Your pal,

TBone

Halfordian Golfer wrote:

That's all I'm sayin'.

Regarding the brookies there. Is it the case that they are so
threatened that they can not withstand the mortality incidental to
sustained C&R for them? If they can withstand some mortality, than
would it make at least as much sense to direct that mortality to some
specific class, like the 1 fish over X pounds limit?

Your pal,

TBone




There have been several notable fish populations whose genetics have
been lost: the big Brookies that populated the East coast in colonial
times and the big Bonneville Cutts are two examples. Although these
fish are still around, the genes that allowed them to grow to the
prodigious size they once did, are gone. There is a new study out that
shows that the common regulation that fosters the harvesting of the
larger fish leads over time to a population of smaller fish. That makes
sense to me. If you remove the larger fishes' genes from the population,
the result will be smaller fish. Especially in a fishery with the
genetics to produce exceptional fish, taking the larger fish is a big
mistake ( unless the reg is like what Colorado has on some streams that
allows the taking of one fish over 18 inches in a stream that you could
fish every day during the season and still not catch a fish that big -
de facto C&R). Much better, IMO, to allow some harvest within a slot,
or a harvest for smaller fish.

Willi

On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 10:10:23 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

Regarding the brookies there. Is it the case that they are so
threatened that they can not withstand the mortality incidental to
sustained C&R for them? If they can withstand some mortality, than
would it make at least as much sense to direct that mortality to some
specific class, like the 1 fish over X pounds limit?

Tim, the river isn't broken. It does not require a fix, so why fix
it. Why experiement with it. Just leave it alone and let it thrive.

It is bad enough that some fool illegally introduced small mouths to
the lake that this river flows into and they are now starting to find
their way upstream. It's taken 20 years for them to come up-river.
I was encouraged all of last year to catch many brookies in the 6 to
10 inch range, as well as into the 3 - 5 pound range. The river is
healthy inspite of the bass. Although it is heavily fished, it is
nowhere near as heavily fished as it used to be when you could kill a
brookie.

Dave