A Plea for help & a head's up

"Willi" wrote in message
...
Wayne Knight wrote:
//snip//
sorry, delayed harvest may be the latest "greatest' thing in trout
fisheries
"management", imo, there is something seriously wrong with stocking an
area
and desiginating it C&R only.
I agree with your sentiment. C&R seems stupid to me in a put and take
fishery.

I'm not as familiar with eastern waters as I am with those in the
Rockies, but it seems to me that there are numerous waters back east
that are being stocked that could be better managed with less stocking
and possibly more restrictive limits. Montana did a series of studies on
the effects of stocking in waters that have good natural reproduction
and found that the stocking of catchables actually reduces the number
and size of the fish in those waters.


I understand the sentiment, but delayed harvest waters that are stocked in
October can be a blast to fish in in the spring. Access generally is not
very hard and after a few months in the stream the fish are fun to catch.
It's not as psychically rewarding as catching wild fish in a remote spot,
but if you have limited time and want to have a pretty good fishing
experience, it's not bad. They are especially good places to take youngsters
who are learning to fly-fish.

Frank Reid and Allen Epps posted great TRs earlier that were good
descriptions of spring-time fishing in delayed-harvest water. Don't know
that their stream was D-H, but the experience appears similar.

I suspect that most people who are taking fish do so in the summer, so
designating the water as C&R only in the winter probably prevents few of
them from fishing, but it does provide an attractive opportunity for fly
fishermen. The result, IMO, is an overall larger number of fishermen in the
course of a year, and more sales of licenses and fly fishing tackle (and
more much-needed tax revenue for the fish & game department) - revenue that
would not have happened without the delayed-harvest program. It may also be
true that streams within commuting distance of major metropolitan areas lend
themselves to delayed-harvest programs.

Bob

Bob Patton wrote:


I suspect that most people who are taking fish do so in the summer, so
designating the water as C&R only in the winter probably prevents few of
them from fishing, but it does provide an attractive opportunity for fly
fishermen.

If it "prevents few of them from fishing", what is the purpose of the
regulation?

Willi

"Willi" wrote in message
...

//snip//
If it "prevents few of them from fishing", what is the purpose of the
regulation?

Willi


The few that it does prevent are those that follow the stocking truck and
take most of the fish out of the stream by the end of October or whenever it
arrives. Then the catch-and-release folks (a different market niche) make
multiple trips to the stream over the next 6 - 8 months. Overall result is a
good experience for fly fishermen in the winter and spring, and a good
experience for everybody else in summer and fall. More fishermen, more
tackle, more licenses.

Now, there's another argument, from a totally different perspective: the
stocking truck as a rural supplement to food stamps. But that's for another
time and place.

Bob

"Bob Patton" rwpmailatcharterdotnet wrote in message
...
//snip//
The few that it does prevent are those that follow the stocking truck and
take most of the fish out of the stream by the end of October or whenever
it
arrives. Then the catch-and-release folks (a different market niche) make
multiple trips to the stream over the next 6 - 8 months. Overall result is
a
good experience for fly fishermen in the winter and spring, and a good
experience for everybody else in summer and fall. More fishermen, more
tackle, more licenses.

//snip//

Sorry for my own response to my own somewhat unclear post. I should have
inserted in between the first two sentences something to indicate that
preventing the stockers from immediately being taken allows the
catch-and-release folks to make trips . . .

Bob
Who eventually will learn to proofread.

"Bob Patton" rwpmailatcharterdotnet wrote in message
...

....Now, there's another argument, from a totally different perspective:
the
stocking truck as a rural supplement to food stamps. But that's for
another
time and place.

Another time, perhaps, but I don't think you'll find a better place.

Wolfgang

"Bob Patton" rwpmailatcharterdotnet wrote in message
...

I understand the sentiment, but delayed harvest waters that are stocked in
October can be a blast to fish in in the spring. Access generally is not
very hard and after a few months in the stream the fish are fun to catch.
It's not as psychically rewarding as catching wild fish in a remote spot,
but if you have limited time and want to have a pretty good fishing
experience, it's not bad. They are especially good places to take
youngsters
who are learning to fly-fish.

Frank Reid and Allen Epps posted great TRs earlier that were good
descriptions of spring-time fishing in delayed-harvest water. Don't know
that their stream was D-H, but the experience appears similar.

I suspect that most people who are taking fish do so in the summer, so
designating the water as C&R only in the winter probably prevents few of
them from fishing, but it does provide an attractive opportunity for fly
fishermen. The result, IMO, is an overall larger number of fishermen in
the
course of a year, and more sales of licenses and fly fishing tackle (and
more much-needed tax revenue for the fish & game department) - revenue
that
would not have happened without the delayed-harvest program. It may also
be
true that streams within commuting distance of major metropolitan areas
lend
themselves to delayed-harvest programs.

Oh yeah? Well......well....um....****!

Wolfgang
to whom nothing is more distressing than a reasonable and rational argument,
well presented.