Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life

Halfordian Golfer wrote:


I basically agree, except about the personal attacks. No doubt, all of
Louie's knowledge, insight and passion for this wonderful place is
spot on and it's been a privilege to learn more about. I acknowledge
the 'status quo' in the response. You have to pretty much expect this.
To be objective, however, it is also true that the pure C&R
regulations on the Rapid went from 60 to 0 as the result of social as
opposed to biological management rationales. Good stuff Maynard.

There is a fascinating question in this.

Is it the big brook trout that is causing a recruitment problem? Man,
those bruisers must vacuum up a lot of fry. Dave says he doesn't
really see that many big bass. Forrest says electroshocking found bass
in the bed.

Willi - say what you will about tedium man but Columbo don't get
better than this.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer


It's your moral lamenting that I find tedious. Although you may find
this offensive, to me, it smacks of the discourse of a newly, born
again Christian.

The thread has now evolved into a discussion of fishery management
techniques which is something that does interests me. Maybe the thread
should be renamed?


One of the things I find most interesting is the different approaches
taken by the fishery departments across the Country. With most, there is
a balance between the biology and the political, with states leaning
more one way or the other. I bemoan the fact that Colorado tilts toward
the political. In Colorado, the one positive thing outcome of whirling
disease, is that it forced the DOW to take a more biologically sound
approach to their fisheries. Now that they have "clean" hatcheries and
a whirling disease strain of Rainbows, we'll see what happens.

Willi

At least I am not and ass like you
- and a fat and stupid one at that

Waddle off with your bottle of scotch and shut the **** up

Come back when you learn how to be civil
But I do not think that you can do that !

Cease and desist putting down everyone who thinks differently than you

That is not doo difficult because you are not a very deep thinker = just a
stupid old **** who knows no better

Dave:

Continue your drunken stupor -Pehaps you should smoke a joint or shoot some
dope
Try a speedball - At your age it would be good for all of us if you passed
on into the netherworld from a heart attack But your drinking also is not
improving your health
It would certainly be beneficial to these groups
It could not hurt an jackass w no personality and a cheap one at that

Goodby and good riddnace
I donot have time for your snivekling and sniping BS

Plonk again

Love
Fred

Fred

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:36:11 GMT, wrote:

Plonk again

Hhahahahahaha that sez alot, Fred.

You are either drunk or spaced out on something.

Going to Chile soon - within hours. You still have time to hope that
the plane crashes. d;o)

Dave, Doctor to the Demented
(down now to 208 lbs, lookin' and feelin' great. )

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:38:23 -0700 (PDT), Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

The thing is....if the brookies are getting big and the bass are
not...is it possible...go with me here man...that the big brook trout
you're letting go are eating a lot of the fry contributing to the
decrease in recruitment seen? It must be contributory? Thoughts? How
many baby trout does a 5 pounder eat a day?

You are bound and determined that you are gonna kill those big
brookies, right, Tim. d;o) What decrease in "recruitment"? If you
look back at my posts (somewhere in this tedious mess of c&k nonsense)
you will find where I said that I was very happy to see many small (6
to 14) inch trout last year. And lots of them. It was a sign that
the bass have yet to have a terribly bad effect on the trout/salmon
population.

I imagine that a five pound brook trout eats a lot of baby brook
trout. They coexist together quite nicely. I imagine a 27 inch
landlocked salmon eats lots of salmon and brook trout. They coexits
together quite nicely. There have been some big bass taken. I have
not seen any, but have heard stories from reliable sources that big
bass have been removed from the river. THEY are more of a threat to
the small trout/salmon population than big brookies are.

Dave

On Mar 11, 2:23 pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:38:23 -0700 (PDT), Halfordian Golfer

wrote:
The thing is....if the brookies are getting big and the bass are
not...is it possible...go with me here man...that the big brook trout
you're letting go are eating a lot of the fry contributing to the
decrease in recruitment seen? It must be contributory? Thoughts? How
many baby trout does a 5 pounder eat a day?

You are bound and determined that you are gonna kill those big
brookies, right, Tim. d;o) What decrease in "recruitment"? If you
look back at my posts (somewhere in this tedious mess of c&k nonsense)
you will find where I said that I was very happy to see many small (6
to 14) inch trout last year. And lots of them. It was a sign that
the bass have yet to have a terribly bad effect on the trout/salmon
population.

I imagine that a five pound brook trout eats a lot of baby brook
trout. They coexist together quite nicely. I imagine a 27 inch
landlocked salmon eats lots of salmon and brook trout. They coexits
together quite nicely. There have been some big bass taken. I have
not seen any, but have heard stories from reliable sources that big
bass have been removed from the river. THEY are more of a threat to
the small trout/salmon population than big brookies are.

Dave

I was reading that a fish that has become piscavorius by their first
year they will be larger and stay larger than other fish in the same
year class. I also know that brook trout have voracious appetites.
Sounds like it's healthy enough that a slot limit would be perfect.

Congratulations on the weight loss and have a great trip! We'll hold
down the fort.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

I was reading that a fish that has become piscavorius by their first
year they will be larger and stay larger than other fish in the same
year class. I also know that brook trout have voracious appetites.
Sounds like it's healthy enough that a slot limit would be perfect.



Your argument that the harvesting of "large fish" is good for the
fishery has been disputed. There are a number of new studies that have
shown that harvesting the larger fish leads to a population of small and
more timid fish. With a quick Google I wasn't able to find the studies
themselves but here's a discussion of two of them.

http://whyfiles.org/shorties/108big_fish/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23340940/


Willi

On Mar 11, 3:01 pm, Willi wrote:
I was reading that a fish that has become piscavorius by their first
year they will be larger and stay larger than other fish in the same
year class. I also know that brook trout have voracious appetites.
Sounds like it's healthy enough that a slot limit would be perfect.

Your argument that the harvesting of "large fish" is good for the
fishery has been disputed. There are a number of new studies that have
shown that harvesting the larger fish leads to a population of small and
more timid fish. With a quick Google I wasn't able to find the studies
themselves but here's a discussion of two of them.

http://whyfiles.org/shorties/108big_fish/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23340940/

Willi

Appreciate the links. Good reads. The first study, you have to read
all the way down to see the contraindications. This is a very, very
small survey in a fairly unusual lab setup.

That said, there is a lot of data to back up this theory that,
removing the fastest growing fish yields slower growing year classes.

One issue I have with applying this logic too much to the fishery
management equation we're talking about is that it might not mean that
much, compared to the situations of the studies. That is that once a
large minimum was introduced you'd have a ton of fish just under the
slot that would be of varying age. This would be a good thing.

The other significant and as directly and equally important
complexity, especially in this equation, is the fact that it is the
fish that are piscavorius early are the largest and fastest growing
fish in the year class. If we protect the largest and fastest growing
fish it would be predictable that we'd see a dip in recruitment. Maybe
this is what is mistaken in some of these studies?

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi...1999.tb02064.x

Halfordian Golfer

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 13:42:14 -0700 (PDT), Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

Sounds like it's healthy enough that a slot limit would be perfect.

Tim, your motives are so obvious in all of this. You want to kill a
trout. You don't care what the impact is. You just *have* to kill a
trout. The river is existing quite nicely now. No kill on the brook
trout will keep the river safe. Have you ever been to Labrador, Tim?
The brook trout there grow to 10 lbs. They coexist with northern
pike, landlocked salmon, laketrout (all piscivorous species), and
whitefish.

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
On Mar 11, 3:01 pm, Willi wrote:
I was reading that a fish that has become piscavorius by their first
year they will be larger and stay larger than other fish in the same
year class. I also know that brook trout have voracious appetites.
Sounds like it's healthy enough that a slot limit would be perfect.
Your argument that the harvesting of "large fish" is good for the
fishery has been disputed. There are a number of new studies that have
shown that harvesting the larger fish leads to a population of small and
more timid fish. With a quick Google I wasn't able to find the studies
themselves but here's a discussion of two of them.

http://whyfiles.org/shorties/108big_fish/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23340940/

Willi

Appreciate the links. Good reads. The first study, you have to read
all the way down to see the contraindications. This is a very, very
small survey in a fairly unusual lab setup.

That said, there is a lot of data to back up this theory that,
removing the fastest growing fish yields slower growing year classes.

One issue I have with applying this logic too much to the fishery
management equation we're talking about is that it might not mean that
much, compared to the situations of the studies. That is that once a
large minimum was introduced you'd have a ton of fish just under the
slot that would be of varying age. This would be a good thing.

The other significant and as directly and equally important
complexity, especially in this equation, is the fact that it is the
fish that are piscavorius early are the largest and fastest growing
fish in the year class. If we protect the largest and fastest growing
fish it would be predictable that we'd see a dip in recruitment. Maybe
this is what is mistaken in some of these studies?

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi...1999.tb02064.x

Halfordian Golfer


There are more studies. It seems to be an area that's an "in" thing to
study right now. Most of the studies I looked at indicate that removing
the largest fish changes the genetics. It just makes sense that removing
the fish with the genes that result in large sizes will result in
smaller fish over time. It's possible that some of the stunted
populations of Brookies we have out West were selected for by years of
keeping the larger fish. That likely could results in fish that reach a
maximum size smaller than what most anglers are willing to keep. It's
been MANY years since Brookies have been stocked and maybe the genes for
producing larger fish are gone in many populations. I have a property in
southern Colorado that has a small stream on it. It has VERY small
Brookies that will spawn at three and four inches. The largest fish I've
ever seen was about 6 inches. If there were Rainbows, Browns or Cutts in
this stream instead of the Brookies, the fish would be considerably
bigger. I know you've seen these stunted populations and often they're
not due just to stream size and fertility.

I'm not sure why you always want to target the largest fish for removal?

Willi

"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message
...

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi...1999.tb02064.x


What's interesting about the abstract in this URL, (if I understand it
correctly) the fish that start eating other fish vary from a size of 17.5 cm
to 36 cm and an age of 3 to 9 years old. A slot limit of that range would be
devastating. Plus you would be catching and keeping fish that were both fish
and insect eaters.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems pretty clear to me.

JT