in defense of Tim

"Willi" wrote in message
...
Tom Nakashima wrote:
Large Alaskan Leopard Rainbows you never feel you have control
until they're in the net as they will always put up a great fight. I'll
admit I over played him, but he was our dinner, all 5 1/2 pounds. I
always like to check out the fly-set on the rainbows after I bring them
in and it gives me great pleasure when they're near perfect sets. After
my catch, I packed up, brought out the folding chair, popped the last of
the beer that had been kept cold from the riverwater attached to the
bottom of our boat. My friend looked at me as if he wanted to say
something, but before he did, I told him I was done for day without ever
glancing up. I think he understood.
fwiw,
-tom

Nice discription Tom. Good read.
What is a "perfect set?"
Willi

Well gosh Willi, after reading your other post in; in defense of Tim,
I'm thinking perhaps there are no perfect sets.

You wrote:
No matter how careful you are as an angler, you can't stick a piece of
metal through a fish's mouth and drag it around without leaving some
indication that this had been done.
Willi

Since reading your posts, I've learned about lactic acid the rainbows
produced, and playing fish in general, things I didn't know before, but
enjoy doing research on. I think Wolfgang once said in a post, when a
person doesn't know or understand, "educate them"
You do a fine job of that, I enjoy your contributions to the newsgroup.
-tom

Tom Nakashima wrote:
...I think Wolfgang once said in a post, when a
person doesn't know or understand, "educate them"

Hm......

You sure about that? Doesn't sound like something I'd say......well,
not explicitly, anyway.

For one thing, I'm not in the habit of advising people to do what I'm
in no position to do myself (there aren't many things I know enough
about in sufficient detail to justify the hubris of presuming to
educate others) and have no good reason to suppose that they can.

For the most part, I restrict myself to pointing out glaring instances
of what appear to be unconscious deficiencies in education. With the
resources available today (more on that in a thread coming soon to a
newsgroup near you), I think it's safe to allow anyone who is
interested to pursue education in just about any area on his or her
own. Lack of motivation or a basic capacity to benefit from this rich
vein of opportunity is a problem beyond the remedial skills of any
erstwhile teacher here.....as is demonstrated daily......hourly.

You do a fine job of that,

Yes, he does, doesn't he?

I enjoy your contributions to the newsgroup.

So do I......um.....mostly.

Wolfgang

"rw" wrote in message
m...
Tim has a point of view about C&R. It's a pretty extreme point of view,
and not one I share wholeheartedly by any means, but it has a logical
consistency,

Tim has been saying the same thing here for 10+ years so he has certainly
been consistent. To describe that consistency as logical is very generous.
Tim has been at his best in his critique (dare I say satire?) of the modern
catch and release ethos, pointed, challenging stuff anyone should think
about. But when he goes beyond just telling us what's wrong with impaling
dozens of fish with hooks every day, there are some problems.

Examples:

slot limits
minimum size limits
PETA and similar group accepting harvest only angling
just the plain ordinary messy world

.... just what do fisheries managers do with the limited tools available and
what the angling public will accept?

Here's a recent example. Tim etc have argued for years that if the number of
fish in a fishery cannot accept some harvest it should be closed and catch
and release should not be used as a conservation method.

We've had that conundrum here in British Columbia with some steelhead
streams. Used to be that about 200 fish per year was considered adequate to
allow a c&r fishery but many have dropped to 50 to 100 for several years.
They were closed management arguing we no fish could be spared to c&r
mortality. Trouble is this didn't stop the poachers and poaching increased!
Unable to fish at all some people fished illegally and killed what they
caught - no other honest anglers were around to complain. Many more fish
died than would have to c&r mortality. So now they are reopening streams
just to have a presence of honest anglers that will discourage poaching

cheers.

--

Some of my angling snaps:

http://gallery.fishbc.com/gallery/vi...bumName=RalphH

"RalphH" wrote ...

Some of my angling snaps:

http://gallery.fishbc.com/gallery/vi...bumName=RalphH

Nice pics, Ralph. Where's Ruby Lake?

Dan

north of Sechelt British Columbia which is north of Vancouver British
Columbia. There is a very nice resort on the lake and the resort has a
superb Italian Travitorre restaurant. Sakinaw Lake is next door. Both Ruby
an Sakinaw are large deep lakes but there are many small lakes in the area
loaded with cutthroat.

--
Some of my angling snaps:

http://gallery.fishbc.com/gallery/vi...bumName=RalphH
"Daniel-San" (Rot13) wrote in message
. ..

"RalphH" wrote ...

Some of my angling snaps:

http://gallery.fishbc.com/gallery/vi...bumName=RalphH

Nice pics, Ralph. Where's Ruby Lake?

Dan

rw wrote:
Tim has a point of view about C&R. It's a pretty extreme point of view,
and not one I share wholeheartedly by any means, but it has a logical
consistency, even if he does undermine his case with some bogus
factoids. It's made me think about what I'm doing.

At least 95% of the fishing I do is C&R. I might conceivably catch 30 to
50 fish in a day if I worked at it (on a really good day), but that
"score" wouldn't reflect the quality of the fishing, and I'm not
interested in it. I like the memory of one or two good fish hooked and
landed in a perfect spot, maybe with a difficult presentation, where I
could actually foresee the whole thing playing out ahead of time. That
is trout fishing Nirvana to me.

Think about it, C&R ROFF fishermen. Don't count fish. Quit and be
satisfied once you feel good about the outing. Enjoy the scenery. Take
some photos. That's a point where Tim is correct, I believe, but he
doesn't express it in those terms.

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

I wondered about the Alaska statistic about the number of injuries, and then I
remembered their fondness for pegging beads above the hook. Even the legal 2
inches is enough slack to put the bead in the mouth and the hook in an eye.
Fishing one or two single egg flies around here and up in Alaska not gill
hooked or even injured a steelhead yet, and that's probably about 50 fish.

I say blame the beads, not C&R.

Chas
remove fly fish to e mail directly

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 02:41:18 -0500, chas
wrote:

I wondered about the Alaska statistic about the number of injuries, and then I
remembered their fondness for pegging beads above the hook. Even the legal 2
inches is enough slack to put the bead in the mouth and the hook in an eye.
Fishing one or two single egg flies around here and up in Alaska not gill
hooked or even injured a steelhead yet, and that's probably about 50 fish.

I say blame the beads, not C&R.

Hmmmmm. I've fished beads for three years in Alaska and have never
seen a hook in the eye. The whole reason for the beads was to cut
down on mortality. I was told that fishing with a normal egg pattern
resulted in the rainbows striking the egg so hard that hook-ups were
deep within the mouth, often causing injury and bleeding. With the
bead, when you feel/see the strike, you set the hook pulling the bead
out of the mouth and hooking the fish in the jaw. Most hook-ups I
witnessed were in the upper jaw, while the rest were in the lower jaw,
and that's about 400 fish. No gills or eyes were damaged.

For the past two years, I've used the same technique in Maine fishing
the sucker spawn for brook trout. Not once did I foul hook a fish,
and all the hook-ups were in the jaw (lip). I used to fish the sucker
spawn with egg patterns and often hooked the trout deep on the
"tongue" or elsewhere inside the mouth, sometimes causing bleeding.

So, I can't blame the beads.

Dave

chas wrote:

I wondered about the Alaska statistic about the number of injuries, and then I
remembered their fondness for pegging beads above the hook. Even the legal 2
inches is enough slack to put the bead in the mouth and the hook in an eye.
Fishing one or two single egg flies around here and up in Alaska not gill
hooked or even injured a steelhead yet, and that's probably about 50 fish.

I say blame the beads, not C&R.

Chas
remove fly fish to e mail directly


But I'm sure you "injured" a few of them by the Alaskan study's criteria.

The study cited not just "serious" injuries, such as a damaged eye, but
minor ones such as being able to distinguish the small area where the
hook had penetrated the mouth - any visual indication that a fish has
been hooked. "Novice anglers injured proportionally more fish than
experienced anglers (70% and 56% injury rate, respectively)." Based on
their criteria, the majority of fish caught by the anglers in the study
were "injured".

ALL heavily fished, C&R water (or water with strict slot limits) is
going to have LOTS of fish that have some "minor" indication of having
been hooked. ANY heavily fished water is also have a considerable number
of fish with significant injuries ie. damage to the eye, gill cover,
missing maxillaries etc.

No matter how careful you are as an angler, you can't stick a piece of
metal through a fish's mouth and drag it around without leaving some
indication that this had been done.


Willi