Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life

"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message
...
On Mar 13, 8:52 am, "JT" wrote:
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message

...



On Mar 12, 3:47 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
...
Limited harvest will preserve a fishery forever, not to a point.
Pure
C&R creates incident mortality. Selective harvest can target this,
so
it's more useful as a management tool. That said, any fishery which
can not withstand the mortality incident to pure C&R (which is
always
the same or more impactful than restricted angling) should be closed
to fishing. ...

You're not making sense. The only difference between C&R and
selective harvest is C&R kills less fish. The only thing slot
limits/selective harvest addresses is the size of the fish
harvested, it does not address incidental death due to catch
and release which is exactly the same in both cases.

--
Ken Fortenberry

I've demonstrated the fallacy of this argument 100 times. Look at it
this way. I fish 4 times a year. I kill 2 each time. That means I've
killed 8 fish. Contrast that to the angler who fishes 50 times and
averages 20 fish an outing. That's 1000 fish hooked and hauled.
Assuming 1% mortality (probably way more when you consider the
accumulated nature of stress) and you've killed 10 fish minimum.
Assume I had to hook 100 to catch my 8 so I killed 9. Unlimited C&R
kills more than restricted C&K and that's just a fact whether you like
it or not.

This is weak, you talk about my calculations being off base! Are you
going
to set the number of times I can go fish a stream each year too. That's
what
you would have to do given your example.

Ridiculous and you know it!

JT

In reality the numbers are actually a little skewed in your favor I
think. The overwhelming number of licensees don't catch anything. Long
been said 1% of the anglers catch 99% of the fish. These are just
facts. Why not write a letter to CDOW and get his/her opinion. Love to
see it.

On that last note, that's actually a great question JT one I asked in
one of the polls. It brings up the 365 Book but we'll talk about that
in its own thread.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

Avoiding this Question?

It's okay to catch and release several fish before you catch a
fish that meets a slot limit? What about the incident mortality in all the
fish you release before catching a keeper!?

JT

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
On Mar 13, 11:20 am, Willi wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:

I try for the last time making it a bit more specific (I think you
understand where I'm coming from and just don't want to address it):

1. Show me a study that shows that increased angler harvest of trout
ANY type increases the pounds per acre in a self sustaining trout
population.

I can show you numerous studies that show decreased harvest
accomplishes this.

2. Show me a study that shows that increased angler harvest of trout
ANY type has been demonstrated to increase the average size of a trout
in a self sustaining population.

I can show you numerous studies that show decreased harvest
accomplishes this.

3. Show me a study that shows that angler harvest of trout ANY type has
reduced stunting in a self sustaining trout population.

I think that harvest over time has helped cause this.

NONE of the studies you have cited show this.

Willi

Hi Willi,

The wildlife guys manage this equation every single day. If you want
to look at the specific regulations for maximum sustained yield of the
fisheries in Colorado, simply open the pamphlet. What you're looking
for does not live more simply than this. Fisheries management has
always been about maintaining the maximal harvest that sustains the
populations of fishes. You can throw a bunch of radish seeds in the
garden and get a lush growth of green, but to get a radish that is
worth eating you must thin down the radishes around it. Which will
yield more biomass? While it is incredibly difficult to say, and would
involve math well beyond what you and I and the average farmer can
converse. But, we know that we need 1 inch radishes and to get them we
kill everything within 1/2 of the sprout. Pond and fisheries
management is the identical concept. Do you want a million 1/4 inch
trout, 1,000 12" trout or 100 24" trout? The guys down at the shop get
to answer that every day and I think they do a good job. The general
bag limit is 4 trout any size. We can send urls to reports until the
cows come home, but this is empirical. If you think you have a report
or 2 of 1 or 3 above please post the URL so I see what you're
comparing.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer




I GIVE UP TIM.

I thought I was very specific. I can show you voluminous studies that
show that reduced harvest increases the number of "catchable" and large
trout as well as increasing the total trout biomass in a stream. Just
like in the study YOU cited:

http://www.wnrmag.com/stories/2007/oct07/fishery.htm

that showed that reduced limits "improved" the fishery.

I asked you to show me ONE study that shows that increased harvest of
trout (of any type) increases these numbers in a self sustaining trout
stream or ONE study that shows that increased harvest reduced stunting
in a trout stream. I'm asking for a straight forward concrete thing,
not a philosophical rambling or YOUR ideas or YOUR analysis.

Either I'm terrible at explaining myself, or you're purposefully being
dense because you can't provide any studies (which I think is the case)
or whatever.

Like I said - I GIVE UP.

Willi

Willi wrote:

I GIVE UP TIM.
snip
Like I said - I GIVE UP.

You lasted longer than most. Your trouble was in assuming
he was seriously trying to discuss something rather than
realizing his whole so-called argument was nothing but
double talk and quasi-religion.

I told you so.

(Why do people say they hate saying that ? I *love* saying that. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Mar 13, 1:40 pm, "JT" wrote:
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message

...



On Mar 13, 8:52 am, "JT" wrote:
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message

...

On Mar 12, 3:47 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
...
Limited harvest will preserve a fishery forever, not to a point.
Pure
C&R creates incident mortality. Selective harvest can target this,
so
it's more useful as a management tool. That said, any fishery which
can not withstand the mortality incident to pure C&R (which is
always
the same or more impactful than restricted angling) should be closed
to fishing. ...

You're not making sense. The only difference between C&R and
selective harvest is C&R kills less fish. The only thing slot
limits/selective harvest addresses is the size of the fish
harvested, it does not address incidental death due to catch
and release which is exactly the same in both cases.

--
Ken Fortenberry

I've demonstrated the fallacy of this argument 100 times. Look at it
this way. I fish 4 times a year. I kill 2 each time. That means I've
killed 8 fish. Contrast that to the angler who fishes 50 times and
averages 20 fish an outing. That's 1000 fish hooked and hauled.
Assuming 1% mortality (probably way more when you consider the
accumulated nature of stress) and you've killed 10 fish minimum.
Assume I had to hook 100 to catch my 8 so I killed 9. Unlimited C&R
kills more than restricted C&K and that's just a fact whether you like
it or not.

This is weak, you talk about my calculations being off base! Are you
going
to set the number of times I can go fish a stream each year too. That's
what
you would have to do given your example.

Ridiculous and you know it!

JT

In reality the numbers are actually a little skewed in your favor I
think. The overwhelming number of licensees don't catch anything. Long
been said 1% of the anglers catch 99% of the fish. These are just
facts. Why not write a letter to CDOW and get his/her opinion. Love to
see it.

On that last note, that's actually a great question JT one I asked in
one of the polls. It brings up the 365 Book but we'll talk about that
in its own thread.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

Avoiding this Question?

It's okay to catch and release several fish before you catch a
fish that meets a slot limit? What about the incident mortality in all the
fish you release before catching a keeper!?

JT

I answered that directly JT.

In your first example this is simply culling or Selective Harvest. It
is the backbone of our management strategies and has been for a long
time. Every single lobster that comes on a lobsterman's boat is
measured. Some go in the well, some go back to grow up. One of the
reasons for this discourse is to distinguish clearly between the two.
Most fisheries managers are referring to selective harvest when they
say catch and release. Anyway, it comes back to intent.

You said that it was not the same with lobsters. It is.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

On Mar 13, 1:55 pm, Willi wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
On Mar 13, 11:20 am, Willi wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:

I try for the last time making it a bit more specific (I think you
understand where I'm coming from and just don't want to address it):

1. Show me a study that shows that increased angler harvest of trout
ANY type increases the pounds per acre in a self sustaining trout
population.

I can show you numerous studies that show decreased harvest
accomplishes this.

2. Show me a study that shows that increased angler harvest of trout
ANY type has been demonstrated to increase the average size of a trout
in a self sustaining population.

I can show you numerous studies that show decreased harvest
accomplishes this.

3. Show me a study that shows that angler harvest of trout ANY type has
reduced stunting in a self sustaining trout population.

I think that harvest over time has helped cause this.

NONE of the studies you have cited show this.

Willi

Hi Willi,

The wildlife guys manage this equation every single day. If you want
to look at the specific regulations for maximum sustained yield of the
fisheries in Colorado, simply open the pamphlet. What you're looking
for does not live more simply than this. Fisheries management has
always been about maintaining the maximal harvest that sustains the
populations of fishes. You can throw a bunch of radish seeds in the
garden and get a lush growth of green, but to get a radish that is
worth eating you must thin down the radishes around it. Which will
yield more biomass? While it is incredibly difficult to say, and would
involve math well beyond what you and I and the average farmer can
converse. But, we know that we need 1 inch radishes and to get them we
kill everything within 1/2 of the sprout. Pond and fisheries
management is the identical concept. Do you want a million 1/4 inch
trout, 1,000 12" trout or 100 24" trout? The guys down at the shop get
to answer that every day and I think they do a good job. The general
bag limit is 4 trout any size. We can send urls to reports until the
cows come home, but this is empirical. If you think you have a report
or 2 of 1 or 3 above please post the URL so I see what you're
comparing.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

I GIVE UP TIM.

I thought I was very specific. I can show you voluminous studies that
show that reduced harvest increases the number of "catchable" and large
trout as well as increasing the total trout biomass in a stream. Just
like in the study YOU cited:

http://www.wnrmag.com/stories/2007/oct07/fishery.htm

that showed that reduced limits "improved" the fishery.

I asked you to show me ONE study that shows that increased harvest of
trout (of any type) increases these numbers in a self sustaining trout
stream or ONE study that shows that increased harvest reduced stunting
in a trout stream. I'm asking for a straight forward concrete thing,
not a philosophical rambling or YOUR ideas or YOUR analysis.

Either I'm terrible at explaining myself, or you're purposefully being
dense because you can't provide any studies (which I think is the case)
or whatever.

Like I said - I GIVE UP.

Willi

I'm trying to understand your question which is why I asked you to
provide the URLs for case 1 and 3 because I'm just not getting what
you're trying to say. If you look at the letter to the DOW regarding
regulations and shunted fish, you'll see that I don't have a good
answer except to kill brook trout in colorado and stock the crap out
of cutts.

But the first question...it's way too nebulous. It's like you're
trying to get me to say that killing a fish will increase the biomass
when I explained clearly that given predation and natural cycles it
gets incredibly complex to say which years will produce more fish,
which food is the dominant prey, which fertilizers are entering the
system and more. Even to the extent that killing them accross all year
classes is sometimes the best approach (i.e. the general bag limits)
to maintaining "maximum yield" in a lot of cases, a minimum, maximum
or slot in some others but that pure C&R is simply a slot set to
random, except that incidental mortality is not kind to the very young
and the very old. Please post the URL to a study you're trying to
prove so I can see what you mean.

Thanks,

Tim

"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message
...
On Mar 13, 1:40 pm, "JT" wrote:
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message

...



On Mar 13, 8:52 am, "JT" wrote:
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message

...

On Mar 12, 3:47 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
...
Limited harvest will preserve a fishery forever, not to a point.
Pure
C&R creates incident mortality. Selective harvest can target
this,
so
it's more useful as a management tool. That said, any fishery
which
can not withstand the mortality incident to pure C&R (which is
always
the same or more impactful than restricted angling) should be
closed
to fishing. ...

You're not making sense. The only difference between C&R and
selective harvest is C&R kills less fish. The only thing slot
limits/selective harvest addresses is the size of the fish
harvested, it does not address incidental death due to catch
and release which is exactly the same in both cases.

--
Ken Fortenberry

I've demonstrated the fallacy of this argument 100 times. Look at it
this way. I fish 4 times a year. I kill 2 each time. That means I've
killed 8 fish. Contrast that to the angler who fishes 50 times and
averages 20 fish an outing. That's 1000 fish hooked and hauled.
Assuming 1% mortality (probably way more when you consider the
accumulated nature of stress) and you've killed 10 fish minimum.
Assume I had to hook 100 to catch my 8 so I killed 9. Unlimited C&R
kills more than restricted C&K and that's just a fact whether you
like
it or not.

This is weak, you talk about my calculations being off base! Are you
going
to set the number of times I can go fish a stream each year too.
That's
what
you would have to do given your example.

Ridiculous and you know it!

JT

In reality the numbers are actually a little skewed in your favor I
think. The overwhelming number of licensees don't catch anything. Long
been said 1% of the anglers catch 99% of the fish. These are just
facts. Why not write a letter to CDOW and get his/her opinion. Love to
see it.

On that last note, that's actually a great question JT one I asked in
one of the polls. It brings up the 365 Book but we'll talk about that
in its own thread.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

Avoiding this Question?

It's okay to catch and release several fish before you catch a
fish that meets a slot limit? What about the incident mortality in all
the
fish you release before catching a keeper!?

JT

I answered that directly JT.

In your first example this is simply culling or Selective Harvest. It
is the backbone of our management strategies and has been for a long
time. Every single lobster that comes on a lobsterman's boat is
measured. Some go in the well, some go back to grow up. One of the
reasons for this discourse is to distinguish clearly between the two.
Most fisheries managers are referring to selective harvest when they
say catch and release. Anyway, it comes back to intent.

You said that it was not the same with lobsters. It is.


It's not even close and I was asking it of you directly.... Answer it as if
I was talking to you face to face while we were fishing next to each other
on a stream. Not some double talk or BS about culling Lobster in a
commercial fishing business.

I'm waiting,
JT

On Mar 13, 2:39 pm, "JT" wrote:
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message

...



On Mar 13, 1:40 pm, "JT" wrote:
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message

...

On Mar 13, 8:52 am, "JT" wrote:
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message

...

On Mar 12, 3:47 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
...
Limited harvest will preserve a fishery forever, not to a point.
Pure
C&R creates incident mortality. Selective harvest can target
this,
so
it's more useful as a management tool. That said, any fishery
which
can not withstand the mortality incident to pure C&R (which is
always
the same or more impactful than restricted angling) should be
closed
to fishing. ...

You're not making sense. The only difference between C&R and
selective harvest is C&R kills less fish. The only thing slot
limits/selective harvest addresses is the size of the fish
harvested, it does not address incidental death due to catch
and release which is exactly the same in both cases.

--
Ken Fortenberry

I've demonstrated the fallacy of this argument 100 times. Look at it
this way. I fish 4 times a year. I kill 2 each time. That means I've
killed 8 fish. Contrast that to the angler who fishes 50 times and
averages 20 fish an outing. That's 1000 fish hooked and hauled.
Assuming 1% mortality (probably way more when you consider the
accumulated nature of stress) and you've killed 10 fish minimum.
Assume I had to hook 100 to catch my 8 so I killed 9. Unlimited C&R
kills more than restricted C&K and that's just a fact whether you
like
it or not.

This is weak, you talk about my calculations being off base! Are you
going
to set the number of times I can go fish a stream each year too.
That's
what
you would have to do given your example.

Ridiculous and you know it!

JT

In reality the numbers are actually a little skewed in your favor I
think. The overwhelming number of licensees don't catch anything. Long
been said 1% of the anglers catch 99% of the fish. These are just
facts. Why not write a letter to CDOW and get his/her opinion. Love to
see it.

On that last note, that's actually a great question JT one I asked in
one of the polls. It brings up the 365 Book but we'll talk about that
in its own thread.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

Avoiding this Question?

It's okay to catch and release several fish before you catch a
fish that meets a slot limit? What about the incident mortality in all
the
fish you release before catching a keeper!?

JT

I answered that directly JT.

In your first example this is simply culling or Selective Harvest. It
is the backbone of our management strategies and has been for a long
time. Every single lobster that comes on a lobsterman's boat is
measured. Some go in the well, some go back to grow up. One of the
reasons for this discourse is to distinguish clearly between the two.
Most fisheries managers are referring to selective harvest when they
say catch and release. Anyway, it comes back to intent.

You said that it was not the same with lobsters. It is.

It's not even close and I was asking it of you directly.... Answer it as if
I was talking to you face to face while we were fishing next to each other
on a stream. Not some double talk or BS about culling Lobster in a
commercial fishing business.

I'm waiting,
JT

JT You asked this question.

"It's okay to catch and release several fish before you catch a
fish that meets a slot limit? What about the incident mortality in all
the
fish you release before catching a keeper!?"

With all due respect, we've talked about this many, many times. In at
least a dozen responses.

Remember the thread about catching a keeper on the first catch and
quitting?

Remember the one about killing deer on the roadway on the way for the
0500 fishing date?

Remember this one:
"I've demonstrated the fallacy of this argument 100 times. Look at it
this way. I fish 4 times a year. I kill 2 each time. That means I've
killed 8 fish. Contrast that to the angler who fishes 50 times and
averages 20 fish an outing. That's 1000 fish hooked and hauled.
Assuming 1% mortality (probably way more when you consider the
accumulated nature of stress) and you've killed 10 fish minimum.
Assume I had to hook 100 to catch my 8 so I killed 9. Unlimited C&R
kills more than restricted C&K and that's just a fact whether you like
it or not."

This is based on one simple fact: There are no limits imposed on C&R
while there are hard and fast limits imposed when you kill and quit.
Please let that sink in.

Still, it's all about intent JT. With pure C&R you (we) stress, maim
and injure a fish for the hell of it. In theory pure C&R fishing is no
difference than chasing a deer with a snowmobile or paint ball hunting
for deer. If it is significantly different, than please tell me why.


TBone

"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message
...

JT You asked this question.

"It's okay to catch and release several fish before you catch a
fish that meets a slot limit? What about the incident mortality in all
the
fish you release before catching a keeper!?"

With all due respect, we've talked about this many, many times. In at
least a dozen responses.

Remember the thread about catching a keeper on the first catch and
quitting?

You're still are side stepping my question. Answer the direct question.


Remember the one about killing deer on the roadway on the way for the
0500 fishing date?

Remember this one:
"I've demonstrated the fallacy of this argument 100 times. Look at it
this way. I fish 4 times a year. I kill 2 each time. That means I've
killed 8 fish. Contrast that to the angler who fishes 50 times and
averages 20 fish an outing. That's 1000 fish hooked and hauled.
Assuming 1% mortality (probably way more when you consider the
accumulated nature of stress) and you've killed 10 fish minimum.
Assume I had to hook 100 to catch my 8 so I killed 9. Unlimited C&R
kills more than restricted C&K and that's just a fact whether you like
it or not."

This argument is rediculous. Work the numbers where the other fisherman
C&R'ed the same number of fish and fished the same number of days.

This is based on one simple fact: There are no limits imposed on C&R
while there are hard and fast limits imposed when you kill and quit.
Please let that sink in.

Let this sink in... If we go fishing and I catch and release 20 fish there
is the "potential" based on studies (that you have posted) less than 1% of
those fish will die.... If it takes you 20 fish to reach a slot limit so you
can kill your keeper, it's certain that one fish died in that river system.
How has that bettered the fishery?


Still, it's all about intent JT. With pure C&R you (we) stress, maim
and injure a fish for the hell of it. In theory pure C&R fishing is no
difference than chasing a deer with a snowmobile or paint ball hunting
for deer. If it is significantly different, than please tell me why.

If there was a law/rule in place that said chasing and clubbing deer from a
snow mobile was legal, then by God you would be all for it eh?

If it's a moral issue for you, stay away from the C&R steams or hang up your
flyrod. You have already mentioned how difficult it is for you to kill a
fish, yet you are supporting C&K

Your argument contradicts itself...

I'm with Ken and Willi, I give up too!

JT

On Mar 13, 4:34 pm, "JT" wrote:
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message

...

JT You asked this question.

"It's okay to catch and release several fish before you catch a
fish that meets a slot limit? What about the incident mortality in all
the
fish you release before catching a keeper!?"

With all due respect, we've talked about this many, many times. In at
least a dozen responses.

Remember the thread about catching a keeper on the first catch and
quitting?

You're still are side stepping my question. Answer the direct question.



Remember the one about killing deer on the roadway on the way for the
0500 fishing date?

Remember this one:
"I've demonstrated the fallacy of this argument 100 times. Look at it
this way. I fish 4 times a year. I kill 2 each time. That means I've
killed 8 fish. Contrast that to the angler who fishes 50 times and
averages 20 fish an outing. That's 1000 fish hooked and hauled.
Assuming 1% mortality (probably way more when you consider the
accumulated nature of stress) and you've killed 10 fish minimum.
Assume I had to hook 100 to catch my 8 so I killed 9. Unlimited C&R
kills more than restricted C&K and that's just a fact whether you like
it or not."

This argument is rediculous. Work the numbers where the other fisherman
C&R'ed the same number of fish and fished the same number of days.



This is based on one simple fact: There are no limits imposed on C&R
while there are hard and fast limits imposed when you kill and quit.
Please let that sink in.

Let this sink in... If we go fishing and I catch and release 20 fish there
is the "potential" based on studies (that you have posted) less than 1% of
those fish will die.... If it takes you 20 fish to reach a slot limit so you
can kill your keeper, it's certain that one fish died in that river system.
How has that bettered the fishery?



Still, it's all about intent JT. With pure C&R you (we) stress, maim
and injure a fish for the hell of it. In theory pure C&R fishing is no
difference than chasing a deer with a snowmobile or paint ball hunting
for deer. If it is significantly different, than please tell me why.

If there was a law/rule in place that said chasing and clubbing deer from a
snow mobile was legal, then by God you would be all for it eh?

If it's a moral issue for you, stay away from the C&R steams or hang up your
flyrod. You have already mentioned how difficult it is for you to kill a
fish, yet you are supporting C&K

Your argument contradicts itself...

I'm with Ken and Willi, I give up too!

JT

JT,

I answered your question directly. Several times. I hate to say this
JT, but this *specific* question is usually one of the 1st or 2nd
questions that come up every time in this debate. I don't know how
else to answer you. All fishermen try really hard to minimize
incidental loss while hunting or fishing. It happens. A friend of mine
was hunting Elk alone and he shot a cow elk and wounded it. He was
tracking it, saw it and shot it. It was then that he realized he had
killed a second elk. This is a tough guy who was distraught about it.
Once as kid I shot a sparrow hawk while dove hunting. Anyone with a
shred of outdoors ethics is upset by this, but it happens and is
unavoidable.

And if I were starving, had a snowmobile and a club. Yes.

Halfordian Golfer

By the way, in order to survive, this is almost exactly how the
indiginous people survived.

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:04:09 -0700 (PDT), Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

By the way, in order to survive, this is almost exactly how the
indiginous people survived.

Indigenous people stampeded herds off cliffs, took the tasty bits, and left the
rest to rot. They were few and we are many; we can't apply the same 'ethics'
today, there isn't enough game.
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com