Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:09:40 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

On the other hand, a large 18" brown that has become piscavorious will
consume an awful lot of little, uh, 'potential opportunity' for your
children. With slot limits and mandatory catch/kill/quit your children
might see fishing like you never thought possible, and not for some
old scarred, lipless, one eyed fungus-sided re-catch either.

Really? Landlocked salmon eat lots of small salmon and brookies.
Large brookies eat lots of small land locked salmon and brookies.
Yet, both species survive quite nicely in a c & r stream. The loons
take their fair share also, yet the river thrives.

Read my lips, Tim: The river came back once c & r was implemented.
It was dying thanks to all the meat gatherers.

Dave

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:58:43 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

Culling works too Dave. Has for a really long, long time.

Yep, sure does. I would like to see a slot limit on landlocks on this
river. There is already a limit of 1 salmon/day 14+ inches until Sept
1. But leave the brookies survive.

Dave

On Mar 1, 5:53 am, Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:58:43 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer

wrote:
Culling works too Dave. Has for a really long, long time.

Yep, sure does. I would like to see a slot limit on landlocks on this
river. There is already a limit of 1 salmon/day 14+ inches until Sept
1. But leave the brookies survive.

Dave

That's all I'm sayin'.

Regarding the brookies there. Is it the case that they are so
threatened that they can not withstand the mortality incidental to
sustained C&R for them? If they can withstand some mortality, than
would it make at least as much sense to direct that mortality to some
specific class, like the 1 fish over X pounds limit?

Your pal,

TBone

Halfordian Golfer wrote:

That's all I'm sayin'.

Regarding the brookies there. Is it the case that they are so
threatened that they can not withstand the mortality incidental to
sustained C&R for them? If they can withstand some mortality, than
would it make at least as much sense to direct that mortality to some
specific class, like the 1 fish over X pounds limit?

Your pal,

TBone




There have been several notable fish populations whose genetics have
been lost: the big Brookies that populated the East coast in colonial
times and the big Bonneville Cutts are two examples. Although these
fish are still around, the genes that allowed them to grow to the
prodigious size they once did, are gone. There is a new study out that
shows that the common regulation that fosters the harvesting of the
larger fish leads over time to a population of smaller fish. That makes
sense to me. If you remove the larger fishes' genes from the population,
the result will be smaller fish. Especially in a fishery with the
genetics to produce exceptional fish, taking the larger fish is a big
mistake ( unless the reg is like what Colorado has on some streams that
allows the taking of one fish over 18 inches in a stream that you could
fish every day during the season and still not catch a fish that big -
de facto C&R). Much better, IMO, to allow some harvest within a slot,
or a harvest for smaller fish.

Willi

On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 10:10:23 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

Regarding the brookies there. Is it the case that they are so
threatened that they can not withstand the mortality incidental to
sustained C&R for them? If they can withstand some mortality, than
would it make at least as much sense to direct that mortality to some
specific class, like the 1 fish over X pounds limit?

Tim, the river isn't broken. It does not require a fix, so why fix
it. Why experiement with it. Just leave it alone and let it thrive.

It is bad enough that some fool illegally introduced small mouths to
the lake that this river flows into and they are now starting to find
their way upstream. It's taken 20 years for them to come up-river.
I was encouraged all of last year to catch many brookies in the 6 to
10 inch range, as well as into the 3 - 5 pound range. The river is
healthy inspite of the bass. Although it is heavily fished, it is
nowhere near as heavily fished as it used to be when you could kill a
brookie.

Dave

"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message
...
On the other hand, a large 18" brown that has become piscavorious will
consume an awful lot of little, uh, 'potential opportunity' for your
children. With slot limits and mandatory catch/kill/quit your children
might see fishing like you never thought possible, and not for some
old scarred, lipless, one eyed fungus-sided re-catch either.

We agree to disagree Bone...

I'm not sure what waters you fish, however I fish several C&R streams and
have caught fish that were obviously caught before (noticeably hooked in the
jaw) however I have never caught a fish that looked as you described above.

Based on what I have read, heard here and elsewhere, I stand behind C&R for
keeping a stream viable for the future generations.

JT

JT wrote:
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote:
... With slot limits and mandatory catch/kill/quit your children
might see fishing like you never thought possible, and not for some
old scarred, lipless, one eyed fungus-sided re-catch either.

We agree to disagree Bone...

I'm not sure what waters you fish, however I fish several C&R streams and
have caught fish that were obviously caught before (noticeably hooked in the
jaw) however I have never caught a fish that looked as you described above.

I have caught such fish as Tim describes. And it is pathetic. I
consider tailwaters phony fisheries and the stocked fish therein
phony fish. Better to let folks eat those things than to release
them over and over until they're monstrosities. I'm talking about
the San Juan River in New Mexico.

Based on what I have read, heard here and elsewhere, I stand behind C&R for
keeping a stream viable for the future generations.

There is no one and only true fishery management method for all
streams everywhere. C&R is good for some streams, selective harvest
for others. What we need is a little less dogma and a little more
science.

--
Ken Fortenberry

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
et...

I have caught such fish as Tim describes. And it is pathetic. I
consider tailwaters phony fisheries and the stocked fish therein
phony fish. Better to let folks eat those things than to release
them over and over until they're monstrosities. I'm talking about
the San Juan River in New Mexico.

I'm not talking about stocked fish, I'm talking about wild trout. Hell, some
of the stocked fish I have seen look terrible before they have been caught
once. I have no problem with keeping a planter for the fry pan, (and do on
occasion) I have a hell of a time killing a wild trout to eat.


There is no one and only true fishery management method for all
streams everywhere. C&R is good for some streams, selective harvest
for others. What we need is a little less dogma and a little more
science.

I would agree, however the wild freestone C&R streams I fish, I feel C&R is
the best means to keep them productive into the future.

JT
-How you doing with your health these days? Last report was good, hope
things are continuing the same.

JT wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
There is no one and only true fishery management method for all
streams everywhere. C&R is good for some streams, selective harvest
for others. What we need is a little less dogma and a little more
science.

I would agree, however the wild freestone C&R streams I fish, I feel C&R is
the best means to keep them productive into the future.

JT
-How you doing with your health these days? Last report was good, hope
things are continuing the same.

Eh, could be better. My remission went into remission, c'est la vie,
no point in whining about it.

But thanks for asking.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Mar 4, 4:25 pm, "JT" wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message

et...



I have caught such fish as Tim describes. And it is pathetic. I
consider tailwaters phony fisheries and the stocked fish therein
phony fish. Better to let folks eat those things than to release
them over and over until they're monstrosities. I'm talking about
the San Juan River in New Mexico.

I'm not talking about stocked fish, I'm talking about wild trout. Hell, some
of the stocked fish I have seen look terrible before they have been caught
once. I have no problem with keeping a planter for the fry pan, (and do on
occasion) I have a hell of a time killing a wild trout to eat.

There is no one and only true fishery management method for all
streams everywhere. C&R is good for some streams, selective harvest
for others. What we need is a little less dogma and a little more
science.

I would agree, however the wild freestone C&R streams I fish, I feel C&R is
the best means to keep them productive into the future.

JT
-How you doing with your health these days? Last report was good, hope
things are continuing the same.

Pure catch and release is never necessary in any fishery and has
absolutely no biology or management imperative, with the exception of
managing to cater to those who take a 'pure sport' or 'trophy' view
over managing for maximum yield. If some harvest can not be sustained
than certainly the harvest incidental to pure C&R can not be
justified. Targeted mortality is better than random. Further, you need
to be careful with the word wild freestone creek, and the distinction
of wild in general. Some claim the residual streamborne population of
rainbow trout in, say, the Frying Pan or San Juan is "Wild" and, while
it sounds good and looks good on license plate frames and TShirts, it
is not conservation and it is not natural. Nor is it wild as the
preponderance of man in the environment and the re-catch philosophy is
in stark contradiction to that term. We release "wild" rainbows in
streams managed with nothing but foreign, introduced species,
including the brown and brook trout, and then bemoan the hatcheries
that made them possible. Yet, the biggest risk to extinction of the
Cutthroat trout (that is indiginous to Colorado) is hybridization, and
we merrily fool ourselves into thinking this is the natural order or
somehow better than eating that parasite in our system. Ken's point is
spot on: What we need is a little less dogma and a little more
science.

Halfordian Golfer
It is impossible to catch and release a wild trout.