Put and Kill -so disgusting

Wayne Harrison wrote:

Gene C wrote in message . ..

I find this extremely depressing on many levels.



timbo must have lost his isp.

Although it's probably a troll, I'll take it up.


I assume from your post that the trout put in that stream can't live
through the Summer. So you want the fish left in the stream so they'll
die from temps that are too high to support them just so you can have
fun catching them? Who's the one that's selfish and short sighted?

I'm not a fan of put and take fisheries. I would much prefer that the
funds spent there be used for improving self sustaining fisheries. In
put and take waters, harvesting the fish before they die seems very
appropriate to me.

Willi

I have no objection to stocking where natural reproduction can't take
place. Stocking places where natural reproduction is possible is
detrimental to natural trout.
Ernie

I'd be curious to know the exact number of states which have naturally
reproducing trout populations. Of that number, how many had to have trout
introduced into them to establish that population?

While hatchery trout may not taste or fight like wild trout, and while put &
take fishing is far less desirable than stalking and catching fish from
natural populations, such programs do provide money that goes into
conservation budgets. The people who make use of such programs not only buy
licenses but rods, reels, flies, lines and all the cute little gadgets that
make other fly fishers happy. Many of them will never fling flies anyplace
else. Some will progress and move onto other waters.

Having such places actually does decrease pressure on natural populations in
marginal waters.

While the purists among us can sneer and moan about such things, there are
many people who are quite happily served by such fishing arrangements. And
everyone of them who fishes there is not standing next to you throwing his
line over yours.

When I grew up, where I grew up, seafood consisted of breaded, fried shrimp
shipped frozen and tasteless. I was fortunate to move and find out that
other seafood existed. Even today, there are parts of the nation where "red
lobster" provides the best seafood available. Sad but true.

----
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
Drowning flies to Darkstar

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/i...age92kword.htm

Seriously, consider what they'd been through. Suppose you'd been rousted
out of the only home you'd ever known, trucked in the dark to some
unknown place, and dumped in sudden daylight into strange smelling
water. Would eating be the first thing on your mind?

Ask Frank Reid. I think this exact same thing happened to him at Penns
2002.

That's just wrong, but true on many levels. I think there were a few folks
upstream of me using ultra light waders to filter what beano should have
stopped.

--
Frank Reid
Reverse email to reply

(Gene C) wrote in message . com...

I find this extremely depressing on many levels.

Ahh, well you are in good company! :-)

Gene, the oldtimers on ROFF have seen more arguments for and against
catch and release than you can ever imagine...indeed if you did a
google search it'd keep your mind spinning for days (not that there's
anything wrong with it!).

The food might be a little scarce for that many fish but we
could have had fun catching them for the next 5 months!

I'm not a fan of PETA but I also see no point in pushing fish to a
slow death of suffocation.

As arguments go, bringing the ethical treatment of animals into
the mix (e.g., PETA) can backfire...I mean, once you start to
thinking, then which is worse -- suffocation over an hour, or
starvation over 5 months, intermixed with the occasional violent
hook, drag, can't breath, photo-flashed, and finally put back?

Besides, properly stringered fish breathe just fine -- the longer
they stay alive, the better they taste :-)

Any comments?

I bet more than you expected, eh? Anyways, happy fishing,

Jon.

Steve,
Most of California's lakes and streams are capable of natural reproduction.
The ones that aren't are usually because man screwed them up with logging,
mining, damming, and overgrazing.
The Department of Fish and Game spends a huge percentage of their budget
on fish hatcheries, but they should be restoring the habitat. There are
miles and miles of mountain streams where cattle, sheep and horses have
overgrazed the National Forests and trampled the streams into mud, yet
nothing is done about it. It wouldn't be difficult or expensive to install
electric fences powered by solar batteries to keep the livestock back.from
the edges of the streams.
There is a stream in Northern California named Yellow Creek by Lake
Almanor. I went there and found a shallow stream with small trout. They
did an experiment where they fenced the cattle back. I went there again
three years after the installation and found a deep clear cold running
stream full of big natural trout. There were waist high wild flowers along
the stream. It was a joy to see.
For some reason our nearsighted Fish and Game and National Forest Service
can't see the advantage of having clear running streams with stable banks
and clean water with natural reproducing fish. It would beat the hell out
of fishing for finless rubber hatchery trout.
Ernie


slenon" wrote in message
I'd be curious to know the exact number of states which have naturally
reproducing trout populations. Of that number, how many had to have trout
introduced into them to establish that population?
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69

"Stan Gula" wrote in
:

"rw" wrote in message
. ..
Wayne Harrison wrote:

explanations?

Wrong fly? :-)

Seriously, consider what they'd been through. Suppose you'd been rousted
out of the only home you'd ever known, trucked in the dark to some
unknown place, and dumped in sudden daylight into strange smelling
water. Would eating be the first thing on your mind?


My first though would be: "How can I get laid", but then I'm a man, not a
fish.



Actually, the described scene somewhat describes some of my intimate
encounters already!

Scott

For some reason our nearsighted Fish and Game and National Forest Service
can't see the advantage of having clear running streams with stable banks
and clean water with natural reproducing fish. It would beat the hell out
of fishing for finless rubber hatchery trout.
Ernie

I whole-heartedly agree with you. Cattle do not make good foresters. I'd
love to see more land protected and kept wild.

Not to play devil's advocate, really curious, do you think CA could manage a
trout fishery that would meet the needs of its populace without using some
hatchery stocking procedures?

----
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
Drowning flies to Darkstar

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/i...age92kword.htm

"Wayne Harrison" wrote...
long story short: we tried six or eight combinations of dry flies, nymphs, and
boogers, and never moved a single fish.

explanations?

Aside from the 'shock' answer offered by others, perhaps they were fed
at the hatchery?

HTH,
Tom G

"Tom Gibson" wrote in message
om...
"Wayne Harrison" wrote...
long story short: we tried six or eight combinations of dry flies,
nymphs, and
boogers, and never moved a single fish.

explanations?

Aside from the 'shock' answer offered by others, perhaps they were fed
at the hatchery?

HTH,
Tom G

upon reflection, i suppose it must be the trauma factor. i think trout
will eat even if not "hungry".

yfitons
wayno

Steve,
If they only planted hatchery fish in waters that couldn't reproduce, used
catch and release in waters that could, kept livestock back from the
streams, stopped loggers from destroying the habitat, kept mining under
control, stopped pollution and restricted water projects from taking the
water needed for the fisheries, this state would be one great fishing
statye.
Ernie

"slenon" wrote
Not to play devil's advocate, really curious, do you think CA could manage
a
trout fishery that would meet the needs of its populace without using some
hatchery stocking procedures?
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69