Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life

On Feb 27, 8:22 pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:38:09 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer



wrote:
I was just reading about the elevated levels of mercury in the fish
caught in some of the most pristine waters in North America.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/...tml?source=rss

I was thinking the average Catch and Release fisherman isn't doing
anything to stop this because they simply do not care about eating
fish, though the claims of conservation and love of things wild are
rampant. I anglers were forced to eat the fish they caught there'd be
a lot less apathy, IMO.

Sad thing when you can not eat the fish in the last wilderness in this
country.

Bone

How long have you been supporting this catch and kill logic? I've
known you for 12 years or so and it hasn't changed. If we started to
eat the trout and salmon on my home waters, there would be NO fish
except stocked trout to fish for. Catch and release works, Tim. I've
seen it with my own eyes - a river came back from almost being empty
of brook trout because of meat gatherers, to a place where 5 lb brook
trout are caught every week. If you catch them and eat them, there
will be nothing but stocked trout.

Catch and release does not cause poluted waters - umcaring man does.
The reservoir system for Boston has warnings about not eating a
certain amount of the fish. THAT water is catch and kill, so your
logic has some flaws.

Dave

THAT water is catch and kill, so your logic has some flaws.

You failed to understand my logic. I never blamed pollution on C&R.
What I said was that there will be no pressure from C&R anglers to
correct this (despite their so called conservation POV) as it doesn't
'affect' them. This is too bad because of the potential lobby if
anglers still had fishing to eat fish (as opposed to just counting
score) as part of the angling program.

Prove me wrong Dave. Write a letter to TU saying the reservoir
pollution making it unsafe for pregnant women and children to eat fish
is something they need to focus on. Show me the response that says
they'll get 'right on it'.

Lest you think I'm hyocritical, this is a path I have taken in the
past but, there's no interest from anyone I talked to to do anything
about it. In fact, I got the feeling they flyfishing community (by and
large) was kind of happy with it this way. People aren't eating their
hero shots.

Halfordian Golfer

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 14:06:21 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

Prove me wrong Dave. Write a letter to TU saying the reservoir
pollution making it unsafe for pregnant women and children to eat fish
is something they need to focus on. Show me the response that says
they'll get 'right on it'.

There is nothing TU or anyone else can do about it. The fish (bass,
pickeral, white perch, laketrout, bullheads, etc) have been
contaminated for years. Yet, fishing is still allowed and most people
still eat their catch. It is not a place where c & r types would go
(generally), but is a meat gatherer's heaven.

Catch and release *works*, Tim, as I have illustrated with the Rapid
River example. Without c & r, the river would be dead, or worse,
stocked with cee-ment pond mutant rainbows, brookies, browns.

There are many put and take ponds/streams in this area. Ya wanna eat
some Purina fish, have a go at 'em, but leave the native fish alone.
Man has ****ed up just about everything he has touched, and without c
& r in the Rapid, that too will find its way on the effed up list.

BTW, I have taken *many* wild fish, the first person to catch them as
witnessed by their reaction, in Russia, Canada, and Alaska. And I
released them for someone else to enjoy.

Tell me something, Tim: When you go fishing, do you catch a fish, put
it in your creel, and continue to fish (assuming it is a 1 fish/day
limit)? Or do you release it and wait for a really big one? I saw an
old geezer do just that on the Rapid one time a few years ago with a
landlocked salmon. He put a skinny 14 incher in his creel and
continued to fish. When he caught a 16 incher he was about to "trade
in" the dead fish for the "better" one when I told him I would report
him to the local warden. The man reluctantly released the 16 incher
and moved on to another spot. I followed him for awhile, but I know
that when I left him he threw the 14 incher back and kept a better
fish. I'm not saying you do the same, Tim, but when you catch a fish
and keep it, shouldn't you stop fishing altogether (again, assuming it
is a one fish limit). If you continue to fish, are you a hypocrite?

Dave

On Mar 5, 3:58 pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 14:06:21 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer

wrote:
Prove me wrong Dave. Write a letter to TU saying the reservoir
pollution making it unsafe for pregnant women and children to eat fish
is something they need to focus on. Show me the response that says
they'll get 'right on it'.

There is nothing TU or anyone else can do about it. The fish (bass,
pickeral, white perch, laketrout, bullheads, etc) have been
contaminated for years. Yet, fishing is still allowed and most people
still eat their catch. It is not a place where c & r types would go
(generally), but is a meat gatherer's heaven.

Catch and release *works*, Tim, as I have illustrated with the Rapid
River example. Without c & r, the river would be dead, or worse,
stocked with cee-ment pond mutant rainbows, brookies, browns.

There are many put and take ponds/streams in this area. Ya wanna eat
some Purina fish, have a go at 'em, but leave the native fish alone.
Man has ****ed up just about everything he has touched, and without c
& r in the Rapid, that too will find its way on the effed up list.

BTW, I have taken *many* wild fish, the first person to catch them as
witnessed by their reaction, in Russia, Canada, and Alaska. And I
released them for someone else to enjoy.

Tell me something, Tim: When you go fishing, do you catch a fish, put
it in your creel, and continue to fish (assuming it is a 1 fish/day
limit)? Or do you release it and wait for a really big one? I saw an
old geezer do just that on the Rapid one time a few years ago with a
landlocked salmon. He put a skinny 14 incher in his creel and
continued to fish. When he caught a 16 incher he was about to "trade
in" the dead fish for the "better" one when I told him I would report
him to the local warden. The man reluctantly released the 16 incher
and moved on to another spot. I followed him for awhile, but I know
that when I left him he threw the 14 incher back and kept a better
fish. I'm not saying you do the same, Tim, but when you catch a fish
and keep it, shouldn't you stop fishing altogether (again, assuming it
is a one fish limit). If you continue to fish, are you a hypocrite?

Dave

Dave,

You asked a crux question: but when you catch a fish and keep it,
shouldn't you stop fishing altogether?

That is a primary point, but not of this particular thread. There are
no "limits" to C&R. We accept more anglers astream for longer periods
of time. This directly affects the 'wildness' of the act and
profoundly affects the quality. Not just from the other angler
presence but the affect that a mass of fishermen have on a fishery.
The fish no longer act wild. They become more selective but will sit
there a foot downstream from my boots. When you do catch a fish it is
often grotesquely disfigured from multiple catchings. Pure C&R release
only 'works' if you accept those things as 'working'. I do not. I
think it teaches the absolute wrong sporting ethic. We kid ourselves
that we 'respect' the wildlife as we revive it from hooking and
hauling. We harass a wild animal all day long for sport alone. We
stress, maim and kill fish for fun. That's just a 'fact'. You can
accept this or not. I think that when we are responsible sportsmen, we
do not harass animals for fun and we stress and maim them only as rare
accidents that are side-affects of hunting food and existing on the
food chain. Way different than killing an animal for fun. Don't you
think? So, you take all that "truth" and contrast it with the other
truth that there is *never* a management or biological imperative for
pure C&R and the whole thing seems silly and wrong.

Yes. If the limit is one fish, there is no question about it, you
should stop fishing, leave the hole for another and thank the Lord for
his generous bounty.

Your pal,

TBone
Guilt replaced the creel.

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.

JT -

How can a fish that is caught repeatedly by a human possibly be
'wild'? If a fish is born in a raceway that has an automatic feeder
and lives completely in the absence of man. With the racoons and bears
for it's natural life, and dies in that raceway, is that not a more
"wild" fish than any fish that shares the river every day with
hundreds of humans? Maybe I'm not sure what the word "wild" means.

Sincere question.

Thanks,

TBone

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 15:36:51 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

You asked a crux question: but when you catch a fish and keep it,
shouldn't you stop fishing altogether?

No. I will continue to fish. I practice good catch and release
habits - land the fish quickly, no net unless absolutely necessary and
then it is a rubber mesh one, barbless hooks. I have fished dries
with the hook cut off. If I feel a good tug when I set the hook, I
consider it a catch.

That is a primary point, but not of this particular thread. There are
no "limits" to C&R. We accept more anglers astream for longer periods
of time. This directly affects the 'wildness' of the act and
profoundly affects the quality.

I'll guarantee you a spot on a beautiful river in Maine where the fish
will be as wild as you want. The "quality" of the fish is excellent.


Not just from the other angler
presence but the affect that a mass of fishermen have on a fishery.
The fish no longer act wild. They become more selective but will sit
there a foot downstream from my boots.

You must be talking the Kiddie Hole at the San Juan. I fished it once
and will never fish it again. You are correct that the fish were beat
up, but if you come to my rivers, I'll guarantee you a landlocked
salmon that will tail walk across a pool and a big brook trout that
will defy you landing it. They are just as wild as the fish I've seen
in Labrador, Russia and Alaska. AND, they are there because of.......
ta daaaaa...... a catch and release policy making killing them
illegal. There would not be any of these wonderful brookies left if
the State did not step in and stop the slaughter. My two oldest
grandsons have caught them, as has my granddaughter. My two youngest
grandsons will soon experience these fish. They would not have been
able to if the meat gatherers had killed them.

When you do catch a fish it is
often grotesquely disfigured from multiple catchings.

Not on my rivers/lakes. In late season they *may* have some hook
marks (and I emphasize "may"), but I have never seen gotesque
disfigured fish on these rivers. The San Juan, yes, but not on any
Maine river.

Pure C&R release
only 'works' if you accept those things as 'working'. I do not.

Horse puckies! Wipe your mouth, Tim, there's still some horse **** on
your lips. d;o)

I
think it teaches the absolute wrong sporting ethic. We kid ourselves
that we 'respect' the wildlife as we revive it from hooking and
hauling. We harass a wild animal all day long for sport alone. We
stress, maim and kill fish for fun. That's just a 'fact'. You can
accept this or not. I think that when we are responsible sportsmen, we
do not harass animals for fun and we stress and maim them only as rare
accidents that are side-affects of hunting food and existing on the
food chain. Way different than killing an animal for fun. Don't you
think? So, you take all that "truth" and contrast it with the other
truth that there is *never* a management or biological imperative for
pure C&R and the whole thing seems silly and wrong.

That is your opinion, Tim. It's not mine. I think you are wrong.

Yes. If the limit is one fish, there is no question about it, you
should stop fishing, leave the hole for another and thank the Lord for
his generous bounty.

Good. That's the only thing you've said that makes any sense. d;o)

Be well.

Dave

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 15:40:16 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

Maybe I'm not sure what the word "wild" means.

buzzer We have a winner in the loges, Doctor.

Halfordian Golfer wrote:

How can a fish that is caught repeatedly by a human possibly be
'wild'? If a fish is born in a raceway that has an automatic feeder
and lives completely in the absence of man. With the racoons and bears
for it's natural life, and dies in that raceway, is that not a more
"wild" fish than any fish that shares the river every day with
hundreds of humans? Maybe I'm not sure what the word "wild" means.

Sincere question.

Thanks,

TBone



Wild as it refers to trout, is generally accepted as meaning streambred
fish (I think you know this). The same would apply to other animals.
This is to distinguish between wild and animals bred by man.

Wild, as I understand it, means the absence of man. Animals with
frequent contact with man usually don't act like a wild animal. I agree
with you that in heavily fished fisheries, the fish often don't act
wild. However, I've seen this on fisheries with slot limits as well as
those with C&R regulations. It's the amount of contact with people the
fish are forced to deal with and not the fishing regulation that makes
the difference.

Willi

Dave LaCourse wrote:

You must be talking the Kiddie Hole at the San Juan. I fished it once
and will never fish it again. You are correct that the fish were beat
up, but if you come to my rivers, I'll guarantee you a landlocked
salmon that will tail walk across a pool and a big brook trout that
will defy you landing it. They are just as wild as the fish I've seen
in Labrador, Russia and Alaska. AND, they are there because of.......
ta daaaaa...... a catch and release policy making killing them
illegal. There would not be any of these wonderful brookies left if
the State did not step in and stop the slaughter. My two oldest
grandsons have caught them, as has my granddaughter. My two youngest
grandsons will soon experience these fish. They would not have been
able to if the meat gatherers had killed them.

When you do catch a fish it is
often grotesquely disfigured from multiple catchings.

Not on my rivers/lakes. In late season they *may* have some hook
marks (and I emphasize "may"), but I have never seen gotesque
disfigured fish on these rivers. The San Juan, yes, but not on any
Maine river.



The State of Alaska did a study of C&R effect on Rainbows in the Alagnak
River Drainage. (I think this is in the area or close to the area of
Alaska you fished. It is strict a fly in area. They found that out of
the 1900 Rainbows that they captured, 30% had at least one previous
hooking scar. This is in the middle of nowhere Alaska!

They also found that 58% of fish captured by hook and line experienced
at least one new hooking injury (which would lead to a scar or was in a
sensitive area).

http://www.absc.usgs.gov/research/Fi...nd_release.htm

Willi

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 18:51:58 -0700, Willi
wrote:

The State of Alaska did a study of C&R effect on Rainbows in the Alagnak
River Drainage. (I think this is in the area or close to the area of
Alaska you fished. It is strict a fly in area. They found that out of
the 1900 Rainbows that they captured, 30% had at least one previous
hooking scar. This is in the middle of nowhere Alaska!

They also found that 58% of fish captured by hook and line experienced
at least one new hooking injury (which would lead to a scar or was in a
sensitive area).

What's your point, Willi? Yes, c & r trout are going to be caught
more than once. But the grotesque samples that Timbo quotes.....
well, I have only seen that once and that was the San Juan, and
specifically fish caught at the Kiddie pool or in the shallows by it
where the fish were feeding on nymphs that were disturbed from the
bottom as I waded.

I personally have never caught a fish in Alaska, Labrador, or Russia
that had any hook marks on it. I have noted very little (if any!)
damage to any taken in Maine rivers, Penns Creek, and a couple of the
forks of the Salmon River in Idaho.

If all the streams containing wild trout (native if you wish) were
catch and kill, and everyone practiced it, there would only be cement
trout raised in a cement pond with grotesgue body features long before
they were introduced into the streams.

My boyhood water, The Connecticut Lakes Region of New Hampshire,
contained nothing but native brook trout in the river and Back Lake
(where we had a camp). That was in the 1940s/50s. Not that long ago,
really. We used to catch and kill six trout/person/day. We'd leave
with a cooler ful of frozen fish ranging in length from 8 inches to 5
pounds, *all* of them native brook trout. We'd have brook trout as a
meal once a week for a long time. Today, there are no more 3 or 5
pound brookies in Back Lake (or damn few), but there are Rainbows (not
native). Fish the river and you catch brook trout that have been
stocked along with landlocked salmon. I have been back to Back Lake
and the Connecticut River on several occasions in the past ten years,
but it is nowhere near like it was when I was a kid. There is a
"trophy section" of the Connecticut between Lake Francis and First
Lake. Big deal! The entire river used to be trophy water. There was
a "three pounder club" on Back Lake at Bacon's Camps. Not any more.

OTOH, the Rapid, Magalaway, Kennebago, East Outlet of Moosehead, et al
ARE just like my boyhood haunts *used* to be..... full of wild (native
if you like) brook trout, and salmon that have been in the waters for
so many years that they may as well be native.

Timbo's world scares the hell out of me. If it was just you, me,
Timbo and half a dozen others it would be just fine to kill a trout
for lunch. Only trouble, there are more folks fishin' for native
trout than there are native trout. Everyone kills one/day and the
resource will not last. It didn't last in The Connecticut Lakes
Region, and I am sorry for that. My remaining two grandsons *will*
see wild brook trout in Maine.

Dave

Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 18:51:58 -0700, Willi
wrote:

The State of Alaska did a study of C&R effect on Rainbows in the Alagnak
River Drainage. (I think this is in the area or close to the area of
Alaska you fished. It is strict a fly in area. They found that out of
the 1900 Rainbows that they captured, 30% had at least one previous
hooking scar. This is in the middle of nowhere Alaska!

They also found that 58% of fish captured by hook and line experienced
at least one new hooking injury (which would lead to a scar or was in a
sensitive area).

What's your point, Willi? Yes, c & r trout are going to be caught
more than once. But the grotesque samples that Timbo quotes.....
well, I have only seen that once and that was the San Juan, and
specifically fish caught at the Kiddie pool or in the shallows by it
where the fish were feeding on nymphs that were disturbed from the
bottom as I waded.

I personally have never caught a fish in Alaska,
that had any hook marks on it.

Then I say you didn't look close enough! The State of Alaska found that
30% of those they captured had hook scars (and this in a river that has
to be reached by float plane).

Look at the article.

I guess my point is that C&R does have impact on a fishery. It's just a
tool for fishery management. It's not evil but it's also not THE answer.

Willi