To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
snip
I continue to hear traditional subsistence anglers be denegrated and
mocked by this group and by TU.
What is a "traditional subsistence angler" ?

People who fish to catch and kill fish to eat.

I don't think so. I was taught to eat everything I killed
and that to do otherwise was wrong. If we caught 150 catfish
from a farm pond, we cleaned and eventually ate 150 catfish.
But that had nothing at all to with subsistence and neither
does sport fishing in the US today. You'd have to be a moron
to spend money on a fishing license, gear and bait and expect
to break even when you can go to the grocery store and pick
up a Mrs. Pauls for far less.

It really chaps my butt when so called brothers of the angle denegrate
people who understand this, who like to eat wild fish, harvest the
bounty of nature, while claiming moral high ground when their only
using the animal to promote the latest vest fashion. ...

I've seen bait fishermen and their filthy offspring catching
and killing fish. They usually have tobacco spittle dried into
their scraggly chin hairs, obscene tatoos and rags for clothes.
And the men look even worse.

--
Ken Fortenberry

By definition, then, C&R anglers are unethical spportsmen. It can be no
other way because the hunter is wasting the meat of all fish that
succomb from the stress of being caught and release, around 5% on
average. The C&K angler that *quits* when he has a limit definately
maintains the ethical high ground.

TBone

Dave LaCourse wrote:
On 25 Aug 2006 08:41:51 -0700, wrote:

It really chaps my butt when so called brothers of the angle denegrate
people who understand this, who like to eat wild fish, harvest the
bounty of nature, while claiming moral high ground when their only
using the animal to promote the latest vest fashion. Turns out the fish
from the high seas fish farms are poison. Only wild fish is the real
McCoy. As I said years ago, when I was 'sent to the grocer': What price
then, for wild brook trout meat?

Tim, how can we make you understand that if all the rivers and streams
in this great land were catch and kill, there would be nothing but
stocked fish in them.

To wit, The Rapid River in Maine.

It used to be catch and kill (1 brookie/day). Fifteen years ago if
you caught a 15 inch brook trout, it was the catch of the day. And
many fishermen would kill that 15 incher and eat it. I *know* how
good it must have tasted, but that fish was part of the breeding
stock. The ration then was about 1 brook trout for every 10 salmon
landed. Today things have changed.

After declaring brook trout catch and release ONLY, they have come
back to the point where five pounders are not uncommon. Five
pounders! Now when you catch a fish, if you don't see the take, you
don't know whether it's a brookie or a salmon. During the fight, of
course, you can tell. The ratio now is about 50/50, unheard of 15
years ago.

Conclusion: Catch and release has brought the brook trout population
*specific* to this river back to normal. It has saved this strain of
brook trout from extinction.

As you would have it, you'd say, "Who gives a ****. Stock pellet
rainbows. Everyone'll be happy." And *that* my friend is bull****.

Dave

Gee Dave, the world manages fisheries around the concept of harvest. I
wonder how in the world they do that!!!!!

Your pal,

TBone

wrote in message
oups.com...

Wolfgang wrote:
"Conan The Librarian" wrote in message
...
wrote:

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

What is a "traditional subsistence angler" ?

People who fish to catch and kill fish to eat.

Translation: An angler who fishes for sport but agrees with your
views
on C&R.


Chuck Vance (I daresay there aren't many truly "subsistence"
anglers
in the US, and none at all in ROFF)

See what happens when people work on the assumption that timmy is
interested
in discussion?

A subsistence angler in the U.S. (traditional or otherwise) would, if
caught, quickly end up in jail for consistently violating catch and
possession restrictions......and timmy would be somewhere near the back
of
the lynch mob, where it's nice and safe.

Wolfgang

Mmmmmmm park duck, golf course goose...mmmmmmm battenkill browns.....

Dumbass.

Wolfgang

wrote in message
ups.com...

Dave LaCourse wrote:
On 25 Aug 2006 08:41:51 -0700, wrote:

It really chaps my butt when so called brothers of the angle denegrate
people who understand this, who like to eat wild fish, harvest the
bounty of nature, while claiming moral high ground when their only
using the animal to promote the latest vest fashion. Turns out the fish
from the high seas fish farms are poison. Only wild fish is the real
McCoy. As I said years ago, when I was 'sent to the grocer': What price
then, for wild brook trout meat?

Tim, how can we make you understand that if all the rivers and streams
in this great land were catch and kill, there would be nothing but
stocked fish in them.

To wit, The Rapid River in Maine.

It used to be catch and kill (1 brookie/day). Fifteen years ago if
you caught a 15 inch brook trout, it was the catch of the day. And
many fishermen would kill that 15 incher and eat it. I *know* how
good it must have tasted, but that fish was part of the breeding
stock. The ration then was about 1 brook trout for every 10 salmon
landed. Today things have changed.

After declaring brook trout catch and release ONLY, they have come
back to the point where five pounders are not uncommon. Five
pounders! Now when you catch a fish, if you don't see the take, you
don't know whether it's a brookie or a salmon. During the fight, of
course, you can tell. The ratio now is about 50/50, unheard of 15
years ago.

Conclusion: Catch and release has brought the brook trout population
*specific* to this river back to normal. It has saved this strain of
brook trout from extinction.

As you would have it, you'd say, "Who gives a ****. Stock pellet
rainbows. Everyone'll be happy." And *that* my friend is bull****.

Dave

Gee Dave, the world manages fisheries around the concept of harvest. I
wonder how in the world they do that!!!!!

They deplete fish stocks all over the world.

Dumbass.

Wolfgang

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
What is a "traditional subsistence angler" ?
People who fish to catch and kill fish to eat.
I don't think so. I was taught to eat everything I killed
and that to do otherwise was wrong. ...

By definition, then, C&R anglers are unethical spportsmen. It can be no
other way because the hunter is wasting the meat of all fish that
succomb from the stress of being caught and release, around 5% on
average. The C&K angler that *quits* when he has a limit definately
maintains the ethical high ground.

That's your ethical high ground and you're welcome to it,
my ethical high ground is far more nuanced.

I've returned dead cutthroat to the stream because of C&R
regulations, sometimes in situations where it was unwise to
do so (think grizzly country), but I'm not so egocentric as
to think that if I don't eat the dead fish that it's being
"wasted". There are other links in the food chain, ya know .

--
Ken Fortenberry

In article , says...
Conan The Librarian wrote:

(I daresay there aren't many truly "subsistence"
anglers in the US, and none at all in ROFF)

Apparently people who investigate such matters would
disagree.

And, according to the definition above, I'm a subsistence
angler/hunter. Still working on the last 50 pounds or so
of moose meat (did a crock pot of meat last week, froze
some of it), and added 40 pounds of halibut from AK to the
freezer this summer (had some last night, yum yum!).

That's one possible definition. By that definition I'm a
subsistence angler too. There's no way I would ever define
myself as such. It's far more cost effective to walk over
to the grocery store and buy the farm raised fish. Fishing is
pure recreation for the vast majority of fishermen in the United
States.
- Ken

Jonathan Cook wrote:

Conan The Librarian wrote:


(I daresay there aren't many truly "subsistence"
anglers in the US, and none at all in ROFF)


Apparently people who investigate such matters would
disagree.

From the Lake Erie Lakewide Management Plan, technical report
#3, 1997, by Lauren Lambert:

"Thirty-four percent of the individuals surveyed exhibited
characteristics of subsistence fishing. For this study,
someone displaying characteristics of subsistence fishing was
an individual who said: a) the fish caught was a primary
source of their diet, or b) the fish caught was either somewhat
or very important to their or somebody else's diet, or c) that
six or more of their meals per month were prepared from the
fish caught at the study site."

If extrapolatable, 34% of all the licensed anglers in the
US is _millions_ of subsistence anglers.

You can claim some ridiculuously high, starve if you don't
fish, definition of subsistence angling, or you can have a
meaningful definition that fisheries specialists can use
in their management of the resources. There's nothing wrong
with Tim's use of the phrase. He's more in line with the
way the specialists use it than what I'm hearing from the
rest of y'all.

Fair enough. I'm wrong. I see no mention of "recreational" anglers
though. Just how do they define them (us)?


Chuck Vance

Jonathan Cook wrote:
Conan The Librarian wrote:

(I daresay there aren't many truly "subsistence"
anglers in the US, and none at all in ROFF)

Apparently people who investigate such matters would
disagree.

From the Lake Erie Lakewide Management Plan, technical report
#3, 1997, by Lauren Lambert:

"Thirty-four percent of the individuals surveyed exhibited
characteristics of subsistence fishing. For this study,
someone displaying characteristics of subsistence fishing was
an individual who said: a) the fish caught was a primary
source of their diet, or b) the fish caught was either somewhat
or very important to their or somebody else's diet, or c) that
six or more of their meals per month were prepared from the
fish caught at the study site."

If extrapolatable, 34% of all the licensed anglers in the
US is _millions_ of subsistence anglers.

You can claim some ridiculuously high, starve if you don't
fish, definition of subsistence angling, or you can have a
meaningful definition that fisheries specialists can use
in their management of the resources. There's nothing wrong
with Tim's use of the phrase. He's more in line with the
way the specialists use it than what I'm hearing from the
rest of y'all.

And, according to the definition above, I'm a subsistence
angler/hunter. Still working on the last 50 pounds or so
of moose meat (did a crock pot of meat last week, froze
some of it), and added 40 pounds of halibut from AK to the
freezer this summer (had some last night, yum yum!).

Jon.

Excellent references. Amazing to think how quickly we've lost this
touch with our place in nature (and in the food chain).

Never had moose. How is it?

Halfordian Golfer
Guilt replaced the creel.
T

"Jonathan Cook" wrote in message
...
Conan The Librarian wrote:

(I daresay there aren't many truly "subsistence"
anglers in the US, and none at all in ROFF)

Apparently people who investigate such matters would
disagree.

Well, there's a first!

From the Lake Erie Lakewide Management Plan, technical report
#3, 1997, by Lauren Lambert:

"Thirty-four percent of the individuals surveyed exhibited
characteristics of subsistence fishing. For this study,
someone displaying characteristics of subsistence fishing was
an individual who said: a) the fish caught was a primary
source of their diet, or b) the fish caught was either somewhat
or very important to their or somebody else's diet, or c) that
six or more of their meals per month were prepared from the
fish caught at the study site."

See the part where it says, "For this study..."?

If extrapolatable, 34% of all the licensed anglers in the
US is _millions_ of subsistence anglers.

Uh huh.....and then there's millions of subsistence hunters, millions of
subsistence farmers, tens of millions of subsistence gardeners, millions of
subsistence orchardists, millions of subsistence vintners, millions of
subsistence brewers, millions of subsistence mushroom hunters.....and, last
but by no means least, hundreds of millions of subsistence shoppers. Wow.
That's a whole LOT of subsisting!

You can claim some ridiculuously high, starve if you don't
fish, definition of subsistence angling,

And you and and anybody else can claim whatever dumbass definition you
please, too. So?

or you can have a
meaningful definition that fisheries specialists can use
in their management of the resources.

Any definition can be meaningful. Hell, it doesn't even require so much as
consensus between two people for it to have meaning. The question that
arises is one of how useful a particular definition is. The authors of the
study quoted above have made a point of delimiting the scope of their
definition. See the part where it says, "For this study..."?

There's nothing wrong with Tim's use of the phrase.

Well, aside from the fact that he's a dumbass hag-ridden troll to whom
discussion is anathema, yes, there's plenty wrong with it. For one thing
(and it's enough), he has failed to define terms.....for the usual and
obvious reasons.

He's more in line with the
way the specialists use it than what I'm hearing from the
rest of y'all.

And it didn't occur to you that perhaps no one else was interested in using
the term the way some "specialists" (leaving for another time a discussion
of the obvious fact that all kinds of specialists can use all kinds of terms
in all kinds of different ways) do?

And, according to the definition above, I'm a subsistence
angler/hunter.

You'd be amazed at what you are according to some definitions.
Others......well, I think you can probably guess.

Still working on the last 50 pounds or so
of moose meat (did a crock pot of meat last week, froze
some of it), and added 40 pounds of halibut from AK to the
freezer this summer (had some last night, yum yum!).

Got any good recipes to share?

Wolfgang

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
What is a "traditional subsistence angler" ?
People who fish to catch and kill fish to eat.
I don't think so. I was taught to eat everything I killed
and that to do otherwise was wrong. ...

By definition, then, C&R anglers are unethical spportsmen. It can be no
other way because the hunter is wasting the meat of all fish that
succomb from the stress of being caught and release, around 5% on
average. The C&K angler that *quits* when he has a limit definately
maintains the ethical high ground.

That's your ethical high ground and you're welcome to it,
my ethical high ground is far more nuanced.

I've returned dead cutthroat to the stream because of C&R
regulations, sometimes in situations where it was unwise to
do so (think grizzly country), but I'm not so egocentric as
to think that if I don't eat the dead fish that it's being
"wasted". There are other links in the food chain, ya know .

--
Ken Fortenberry

Your license is a fishing license not a "feed the wildlife" license.

My wife thinks we shouldn't hunt deer because enough get hit by cars.

Halfiordian Golfer
Guilt replaced the creel