Shad flies

"Cornmuse" wrote in message
...

"Chas Wade" wrote in message
news:PKKRb.173865$na.285095@attbi_s04...
I think it's chock full of good stuff, but I'm
not fond of his C&R philosophy. I think C&R is like putting out a bird
feeder. If you want a good look at them, you have to trick them. I'm
sure the positives outweigh the negatives. I'm just as sure that
McPhee chose to include the data that met with his opinion and ignored
some other stuff.

Agreed. I can't see how C&R can be a bad thing, though I have to respect
the throrough and coherent manner in which he stated his argument. It
made
me stop and think, but certainly not change my mind. I need to run some
errands, but when I get back I will put together a summary of JM's points
for discussion on this board.

Joe C.


Okay, I'm back. In his book "The Founding Fish" McPhee goes to great
lengths to quote quite a few resources regarding their opinions on catch and
release. McPhee is quite firmly in the camp of catch and kill for food, and
though I certainly don't want to put words in his mouth, it seems this comes
from a belief that C&R is torturous to the fish. McPhee quotes from PETA,
though also makes efforts to expose the rather ridiculous excesses of their
philosophy. The book is excellently researched and a magnificent read for
its historical placement of this important game fish. The most telling part
regarding his C&R philosophy that I can quote is this:

"To go a shade further than Bryant, catch-and-release fishing may be cruelty
masqerading as political correctness. You can't help wondering what sorts
of things people are doing today that seemed clearly right and good, yet
will one day seem wrong and bad. If I were strolling through the annals of
incorrectness - up past the invertible heroism of General Custer and on
through the safaris of Dennis Finch-Hatton - I would expect to discern, out
in the future, catch-and-release fishing. At its best it is what Thomas
McGuane calls "the thrill of the release, of a trout darting from your
opening hands or resting its weight very slightly in your palms underwater,
then easing off." At its worst it is dire - an unintended failure. In the
words of a shad biologist who works for a firm in Pennsylvania called
Ecology III Environmental Services, "A lot of good Samaritans are killing
fish." You watch a guy in Connecticut catch a shad in a boat. He stickes a
finger in past a gill cover and it comes out the mouth. He lifts the shad
to show its size and beauty, then lowers the shad into the water and removes
his finger. Roughing gills is what biologists call "a pure death sign."
Gill membranes are sensitive, elaborate, and easily broken. Whan they are
damaged, a fish loses its ablity to extract oxygen from water. In a video
called "Fishing for the American Shad," instructor John Punola reaches for a
roe shad, saying, "Shad are very fragile. I can pick him up easily by the
gills." Even the most adroit underwater release can turn loose a fish sick
with stress, destined not to recover. And the more the catch-and-release
angler fumbles - the more he manhandles fish up in air, twisting and yanking
to disgorge the hook- the lower the chance of survival. Boyd Kynard: "That
air-handling time, it's the worst, it's the hardest thing on them."

"Cornmuse" wrote:

... Just the right excerpts snipped ...

Yes, that's the essence of his position. My complaint is that he
doesn't mention any of the statistics we're used to about mortality of
fish released. My favorite one of those is the fact that the cutthroat
trout in the Yellowstone river in the park are caught an average of 9
times per year. Without thinking that thrugh too carefully, a
mortality rate of 10% or higher would remove all the fish each year,
and we know that's not happening.

Another item he doesn't mention is that if we reduced the fishing
enough to keep the population healthy but had a strict catch and kill
regulation, many fewer people would fish, and the advocacy grouop
defending the fish and their ecosystem would be tremendously reduced.

I suspect that different species have different handling mortality.
He's consentrated on shad, and I only know what he wrote about those
fish. He only comments that mishandling is hard on the fish, a well
understood fact. He doesn't mention any statistics about C&R mortality
of shad. I'll give him the benifit of the doubt and suggest that there
aren't any statistics yet.

Chas
remove fly fish to reply
http://home.comcast.net/~chas.wade/w...ome.html-.html
San Juan Pictures at:
http://home.comcast.net/~chasepike/wsb/index.html

"Chas Wade" wrote in message
news:k2ZRb.134850$5V2.682516@attbi_s53...
"Cornmuse" wrote:

... Just the right excerpts snipped ...

Yes, that's the essence of his position. My complaint is that he
doesn't mention any of the statistics we're used to about mortality of
fish released. My favorite one of those is the fact that the cutthroat
trout in the Yellowstone river in the park are caught an average of 9
times per year. Without thinking that thrugh too carefully, a
mortality rate of 10% or higher would remove all the fish each year,
and we know that's not happening.

Another item he doesn't mention is that if we reduced the fishing
enough to keep the population healthy but had a strict catch and kill
regulation, many fewer people would fish, and the advocacy grouop
defending the fish and their ecosystem would be tremendously reduced.

I suspect that different species have different handling mortality.
He's consentrated on shad, and I only know what he wrote about those
fish. He only comments that mishandling is hard on the fish, a well
understood fact. He doesn't mention any statistics about C&R mortality
of shad. I'll give him the benifit of the doubt and suggest that there
aren't any statistics yet.

I suspect that if Mr. McPhee had come armed with a boatload of statistics
you'd have no trouble at all in dismissing them.

I learned a long time ago that there is an enormous surplus of fools in this
world. There are, in fact, so many that one can always find plenty on every
side of every issue. Naturally, it follows that whatever stance I, for
example, might take on any issue, there are innumerable fools who agree as
well as an approximately equal number who disagree. I got a shiny new
nickel say you can guess which group concerns me more.

Wolfgang
who, it will be apparent, is not afraid to take an occasional risk with one
of his precious nickels.

Wolfgang wrote:

I learned a long time ago that there is an enormous surplus of fools in this
world.

That's quite apparent, Wolfgang, because you treat just about everyone
on ROFF as though you believed they were fools.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

"rw" wrote in message
. ..
Wolfgang wrote:

I learned a long time ago that there is an enormous surplus of fools in
this
world.

That's quite apparent, Wolfgang, because you treat just about everyone
on ROFF as though you believed they were fools.

Not true. But I understand that it must look that way to some people.
Take, for example, someone who persists in responding to messages that he
doesn't read.

Wolfgang

"Wolfgang" wrote:

"rw" wrote in message
...
Wolfgang wrote:

I learned a long time ago that there is an enormous surplus of
fools in
this
world.

That's quite apparent, Wolfgang, because you treat just about
everyone
on ROFF as though you believed they were fools.

Not true. But I understand that it must look that way to some people.
Take, for example, someone who persists in responding to messages that
he
doesn't read.


You're the fool. If you'd read my message before you responded to it,
you'd have seen that I've been looking for statistics and haven't found
them. When they show up I'll look at them and then make my decision.
I have a lot of faith in Mr. McPhee, so I'm disapointed that he didn't
back up his position. Since he chose anecdotal support instead of
scientific support on this issue when he's fetteted out so much good
scientific support for other parts of this book and many other books
he's written, I suspect he has no scientific information to back his
position.

Even given that opinion, I didn't accuse him of being a fool or an
ashole or a peta idiot. I left it that I doubted that he found any
data, rather than accusing him of dishonesty. I hold to that position.

Go back to your sandbox.

Chas
remove fly fish to reply
http://home.comcast.net/~chas.wade/w...ome.html-.html
San Juan Pictures at:
http://home.comcast.net/~chasepike/wsb/index.html

"Chas Wade" wrote in message
newsJhSb.179035$I06.1852208@attbi_s01...


You're the fool.

The difference is that for me it's a job.......not a way of life.

If you'd read my message before you responded to it,
you'd have seen that I've been looking for statistics and haven't found
them.

Well, that's just plain stupid. You have no way of knowing whether or not I
read what you wrote. As a matter of fact, I did.....but you still don't
know that.

When they show up I'll look at them and then make my decision.

Bull****. You made your decision.....or, to state it more accurately,
someone made it for you......a long time ago.

I have a lot of faith in Mr. McPhee,

Of course you do, else what is a simulacrum of authority for?

so I'm disapointed that he didn't back up his position.

McPhee probably doesn't have a position. In the unlikely event that he
does, you would be well advised to consult with whoever told him what it is.

Since he chose anecdotal support instead of
scientific support on this issue when he's fetteted out so much good
scientific support for other parts of this book and many other books
he's written, I suspect he has no scientific information to back his
position.

As I stated earlier, you would have no trouble at all in dismissing whatever
staistics he might have put forward to support his "position". Ironically,
such a dismissal would be the only justifiable action you'd be likely to
take in this exhibition of inane drivel. The simple fact is that
"scientific support" and statistics have absolutely nothing to contribute to
the sham debate between the advocates of catch and release on the one hand
and catch and kill on the other. To anyone but an abject fool the
usefulness of both as management tools is self evident. Which, or what
combination, to use in a particular situation is the only problem to which
science and statistics are applicable and then only for purely pragmatic
reasons. None of this goes to the core issue. The concerns of
organizations like PETA most emphatically DO address the core issue. The
fact that such organizations are populated primarily by disingenuous idiots
does no more to diminish this truth than does their opposition's pigheaded
and equally dishonest refusal to address it.

Even given that opinion, I didn't accuse him of being a fool or an
ashole or a peta idiot.

True, but if you had read what I wrote, you would have noticed that I didn't
say anything about custard being a better building material than blue fog.

I left it that I doubted that he found any
data, rather than accusing him of dishonesty.

Beyond your own memory and interpretation of whatever he may have presented
in his book, you have no way of knowing what data he found. And you DID
accuse him of dishonesty. Remember, "I'm just as sure that McPhee chose to
include the data that met with his opinion and ignored some other stuff."?
Reminds me of somebody. Anyway, your own little lie notwithstanding, I
agree that McPhee is certainly a facile liar.......he's a prefessional (in
the sense that he gets paid for it) writer......that's his job.

I hold to that position.

Actually, as demonstrated above, you don't. But that's o.k., you just go
ahead and pretend.

Go back to your sandbox.

Go **** yourself.

Wolfgang
hey, if it feels good, do it......right?