Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
No, the accidental killing of fish is not to feed the bugs
it is an unfortunate but unavoidable consequence of fishing.
Happens in nature all the time.

My wife and I were camped at a backcountry campsite on Slough
Creek in Yellowstone. Slough Creek is by biological necessity
pure C&R. A big cutt swallowed my hopper and was practically
dead before I ever brought him to hand. I was reluctant to put
that dead fish back in the water because of the bear danger
but that was the only legal thing to do so it was done. Now if
you had caught that fish, decided to stick it in the pan and
eat it rather than "waste" it how would you explain *that* to
the ranger ?

Ken you said: "No, the accidental killing of fish is not to feed the
bugs it is an unfortunate but unavoidable consequence of fishing.
Happens in nature all the time."

Really? In nature, how many animals stress, maim and kill other
animals purely for sport.

How many ? I don't know but I have personally watched a couple
of juvenile wolves chase and kill a young elk just for ****s
and grins. They couldn't have been hungry, they had just woke
up after sleeping off their portions of a big kill, and the
rest of the pack was still sleeping. They made no attempt to
eat their kill but left it on the valley floor for the coyotes
and birds. Perhaps they were practicing hunting techniques ?
I've not witnessed it myself but I've read that killer whales
will sometimes toss their prey around like volleyballs until
the prey is dead and then just leave it.

But having said that I added that sentence mainly so you'd
recognize your own words.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Mar 21, 12:52 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
You're killing fish to feed the bugs and racoons? Try that with a
warden around.
No, the accidental killing of fish is not to feed the bugs
it is an unfortunate but unavoidable consequence of fishing.
Happens in nature all the time.

My wife and I were camped at a backcountry campsite on Slough
Creek in Yellowstone. Slough Creek is by biological necessity
pure C&R. A big cutt swallowed my hopper and was practically
dead before I ever brought him to hand. I was reluctant to put
that dead fish back in the water because of the bear danger
but that was the only legal thing to do so it was done. Now if
you had caught that fish, decided to stick it in the pan and
eat it rather than "waste" it how would you explain *that* to
the ranger ?

"Slough Creek is by biological necessity pure C&R"

Please explain. This makes no sense.

LOL !! Just like a moth to the flame.

Here you go, another batch of public servants whose time you
can waste proselytizing for your kooky religion:

http://www.nps.gov/yell/naturescience/fish_contact.htm

HTH

--
Ken Fortenberry

I have no need to ask the public servants this question, though I will
be more than glad to if you won't even try. There's never a biological
imperative for pure C&R, by definition and the extremely simple fact
that a slot could be enforced that was just above a practical maximum,
the statistical anomaly, for the fishery making it, in effect, pure
C&R. Look back through this thread, we've been over this. In addition
to the slots, there are many other management techniques that would
accomplish exactly the same thing.

But, I want to hear about your statement: Slough Creek is by
biological necessity pure C&R

By this "imperative" you're statiting that the fish in slough creek
would perish if we did not hook and haul them for sport.

You meant to say that: If we want to allow all the tshirt buyng, gas
guzzlin', lodge dwelling, ale quaffing angling consumers to buy our
stuff we need to let them all fish as much as they want but we also
can't let them kill any fish because then the tshirt buyin, gas
guzzlin', lodge dwellin', ale quaffing city dwalling nature lovers
would freak out at the site of a fish dripping blood getting cleaned
in the restroom sink at the hamilton concession and baseball cap store
and they'll stop buying things there too. This is what is known as the
modern ecosystem, sure I'll give you that, in a world of mutliple use
politically correct compromise consumerism that is the NPS.

But please, don't say there is a biological necessity for pure C&R on
slough creek.

Halfordian Golfer

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
...
But, I want to hear about your statement: Slough Creek is by
biological necessity pure C&R ...

Like I said, waste the biologists time, I've already spent
way too much of mine arguing with a religious zealot. What
they will tell you is this, the only alternative to C&R on
Slough Creek is no fishing at all.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Mar 21, 1:15 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
No, the accidental killing of fish is not to feed the bugs
it is an unfortunate but unavoidable consequence of fishing.
Happens in nature all the time.

My wife and I were camped at a backcountry campsite on Slough
Creek in Yellowstone. Slough Creek is by biological necessity
pure C&R. A big cutt swallowed my hopper and was practically
dead before I ever brought him to hand. I was reluctant to put
that dead fish back in the water because of the bear danger
but that was the only legal thing to do so it was done. Now if
you had caught that fish, decided to stick it in the pan and
eat it rather than "waste" it how would you explain *that* to
the ranger ?

Ken you said: "No, the accidental killing of fish is not to feed the
bugs it is an unfortunate but unavoidable consequence of fishing.
Happens in nature all the time."

Really? In nature, how many animals stress, maim and kill other
animals purely for sport.

How many ? I don't know but I have personally watched a couple
of juvenile wolves chase and kill a young elk just for ****s
and grins. They couldn't have been hungry, they had just woke
up after sleeping off their portions of a big kill, and the
rest of the pack was still sleeping. They made no attempt to
eat their kill but left it on the valley floor for the coyotes
and birds. Perhaps they were practicing hunting techniques ?
I've not witnessed it myself but I've read that killer whales
will sometimes toss their prey around like volleyballs until
the prey is dead and then just leave it.

But having said that I added that sentence mainly so you'd
recognize your own words.

--
Ken Fortenberry

You are close to the one answer that I feel can justify extremely
limited pure C&R, that of man's honing of essential hunting skills for
the real thing. This is what these animals are doing. If the killer
whale threw the seal 30 feet out of the water and then got in his Saab
and drove to Sushi Den for dinner, I'd think your comparison was
reasonable. But it's not, the killer whale shows no compassion and the
seal assumes it will be killed. It is not sport.

Other than that, there are still several other unfortunate problems
with your analogy.

In addition to blatant anthropomorphizing about the wolf and killer
whale's intent and "enjoyment" in the kill, you have degraded the
human species to that level and, inadvertently, I'm sure, compared C&R
fishing to the acts of wolfish barbarism.

Halfordian Golfer

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
snip
Other than that, there are still several other unfortunate problems
with your analogy. ...

It wasn't "my analogy" it was my direct answer to your question.

--
Ken Fortenberry

This is really what your argument comes down to: a
philosophical/religious/ascetic position about C&R fishing. Your
argument is akin to PETA's stance on animals or one of the sects of
monks that search the ground before each step to avoid stepping on
an insect or a wide range of philosophic positions dictating how
different societies interact with animals.

Many people claim the moral/religious high ground. It's not something
YOU "own".
From my experience, the height of that ground usually has more to do with
where you stand than it does how high the ground really is.

Having heard the many permutations of your argument over the years, I
feel I have a good sense of your position. Although I still wouldn't agree
with your position, if you totally gave up ANY TYPE of C&R, I would
have respect for you for giving up something you enjoy because you feel
it is immoral.

But that is not the case and it makes your position rather hollow.

Willi

On Mar 21, 2:34 pm, Willi wrote:
This is really what your argument comes down to: a
philosophical/religious/ascetic position about C&R fishing. Your
argument is akin to PETA's stance on animals or one of the sects of
monks that search the ground before each step to avoid stepping on
an insect or a wide range of philosophic positions dictating how
different societies interact with animals.

Many people claim the moral/religious high ground. It's not something
YOU "own".
From my experience, the height of that ground usually has more to do with
where you stand than it does how high the ground really is.

Having heard the many permutations of your argument over the years, I
feel I have a good sense of your position. Although I still wouldn't agree
with your position, if you totally gave up ANY TYPE of C&R, I would
have respect for you for giving up something you enjoy because you feel
it is immoral.

But that is not the case and it makes your position rather hollow.

Willi

I can not give up "all types" of C&R under the current fishing
regulations.

I care not a wit about your respect if it is based on the contingency
of changing who I am to get it. Nobody asked you to read these threads
and I'm not getting paid to debate it either.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Willi wrote:
This is really what your argument comes down to: a
philosophical/religious/ascetic position about C&R fishing. Your
argument is akin to PETA's stance on animals or one of the sects of
monks that search the ground before each step to avoid stepping on
an insect or a wide range of philosophic positions dictating how
different societies interact with animals.

Many people claim the moral/religious high ground. It's not something
YOU "own".
From my experience, the height of that ground usually has more to do with
where you stand than it does how high the ground really is.

Having heard the many permutations of your argument over the years, I
feel I have a good sense of your position. Although I still wouldn't agree
with your position, if you totally gave up ANY TYPE of C&R, I would
have respect for you for giving up something you enjoy because you feel
it is immoral.

But that is not the case and it makes your position rather hollow.

I can not give up "all types" of C&R under the current fishing
regulations. ...

Then you have less "spank" in your conscience than any of us
you freely accuse of having none. If I thought for one second
that C&R was immoral, wanton killing I just flat out wouldn't
do it.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Mar 21, 3:50 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Willi wrote:
This is really what your argument comes down to: a
philosophical/religious/ascetic position about C&R fishing. Your
argument is akin to PETA's stance on animals or one of the sects of
monks that search the ground before each step to avoid stepping on
an insect or a wide range of philosophic positions dictating how
different societies interact with animals.

Many people claim the moral/religious high ground. It's not something
YOU "own".
From my experience, the height of that ground usually has more to do with
where you stand than it does how high the ground really is.

Having heard the many permutations of your argument over the years, I
feel I have a good sense of your position. Although I still wouldn't agree
with your position, if you totally gave up ANY TYPE of C&R, I would
have respect for you for giving up something you enjoy because you feel
it is immoral.

But that is not the case and it makes your position rather hollow.

I can not give up "all types" of C&R under the current fishing
regulations. ...

Then you have less "spank" in your conscience than any of us
you freely accuse of having none. If I thought for one second
that C&R was immoral, wanton killing I just flat out wouldn't
do it.

--
Ken Fortenberry

You know, you're absolutely right. I'll be fishing for my legal bag
limit this summer.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

On Mar 12, 7:40 pm, Willi wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Do you have any studies that show that harvest increases the quality of
a trout fishery?

Willi

Yes.

I love to flyfish every place that allows it but can hardly stomach
the places that don't allow it.

Think about it. Would you rather fish:
the X Fork of the You Know....or the Frying Pan?
The Roaring Fork, or the Frying Pan?
The Elk or the Taylor Reservior Tail Water?
A Wyoming Beaver pond or Cheesman Canyon?

I say that tongue in cheek but, it's also intended to ring somewhat
true, but you must define quality for it to make any sense at all and
quality for me includes isolation and fish that act wild.

Don't take it from me, though, take it from John Gierach who talks
about when the St. Vrain became famous for a short period of time when
it became C&R. The parking lot filled up with cars but the fishing
was, more or less, as it always had been. When it was made normal
again, the cars left and it stayed the fair to middling creek that it
is.

This is with a 4 fish limit now: the fishing can be excellent. If it
were to get crummy, or if we wanted to tweak it, we could make it 2.
This is with no size restrictions, we could add one. Also, these are
browns. Very wary.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

I agree that in Colorado, the designation of C&R (or most special regs
INCLUDING your "selective" harvest with its slot limits) often leads to
over crowding and I tend not to fish those waters for that reason.

But that DOESN'T answer my question. In some of your posts you assert or
at least imply that "selective" harvest will improve the quality of a
fishery (those large fish eaters etc). Can you show ANY study that
showed that harvest of any type improved the quality of a self
sustaining trout fishery? I can show you study after study that
demonstrate that reducing harvest can improve a fishery.

Willi

Hi Willi,

I haven't seen any of the study URL's that I'd asked about to help
clarify your question, which, I'm sorry but is not specific enough to
be useful.

Here is a specific study on optimal partial harvesting:
http://tiny.cc/2g3hKhttp://tiny.cc/2g3hK (download the pdf).

Abstract When growth is density dependent, partial harvest of the
standing
stock of cultured species (fish or shrimp) over the course of the
growing season
(i.e., partial harvesting) would decrease competition and thereby
increase indi-
vidual growth rates and total yield.

Now, this is the basic fisheries management theory. Not 'exactly' what
you asked but it demonstrates the concepts clearly.

In practice the latest trend is to look beyond maximum sustainable
yield to whole ecosystems management and adaptive management
strategies.

For example, Whales and other 'top predators' consume more ocean fish
than man. Managing the top predators and consuming the lower trophic
species becomes the management strategy while the high trophic species
recovers.

This is what I meant by 'whole pond management'.

So, I need to see a study of what you refer to, or have considerable
more detail in your question to discuss it.

It is undeniable and unequivocal. Partial Harvest increases individual
growth rate and total yield, at the very least in some situations, of
recruitment, available forage, size and nature of habitat, etc.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer
A cash flow runs through it.