On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?

wrote in message
oups.com...

A (2) over 18", mandatory kill, would have worked as well, would it
not? There is no sound biological reason, ever, for pure catch and
release. If the fishery can not withstand the mortality incident to
catch and release, it must be closed to fishing. The distinction may be
subtle but it is a vitally important one.

Your pal,

TBone
Guilt replaced the creel

Well Tim given the numerous ways you have exhibited a serious impairment
when it comes to logical thought, I shouldn't be surprised by that line of
reasoning.
In a likely futile effort to show you the falaciousness of the line of
thought you expressed above, I offer the following for you to think through:

1. What is the sound biological superiority of a system where numerous fish
in the smaller more vulnerable to injury size classes ar caught, handled,
measured and released before killing 2 fish over the size that includes most
of the breeding stock, over a system where all fish regardless of size are
released - usually with less handling involved?

2. Given the drive of many "meat" fishermen to "get their limit" , there is
a strong liklihood that a slot limit (especially where the ratio of fish "in
the slot" to the total # of fish present is low) can easily lead to a
situation where more fish are caught & released (and handled more) than if
pure C&R regs were in place.

For someone such as youself that believes that the fish suffer from C&R,
that only fishing to feed your gut can be morally supported, and that all
fishing regs must be for sound biological reasons, about the only system
that would meet your criteria and still alow fishing would be one that
required you to kill & keep every fish you catch - REGARDLESS OF SIZE -
until you had reached the determined limit.

Social science is far more the driving factor behind slot limits than is
biological science. Indeed, that is the case for most regulations that allow
any sport fishing whatsoever. Biological science generally only comes into
play to achieve or at least give the perception of progress toward
achievement of socially deesired outcomes. And I have no problem with that
approach..

Bob Weinberger

On 30 Jul 2006 07:17:32 -0700, wrote:

A (2) over 18", mandatory kill, would have worked as well, would it
not?

No. Those are breeding stock, and there were NONE after the hundred
of people flocked to the river to catch their trophy brook trout.
They took what they caught, small, medium, large, trouphy, it mattered
not. If you caught an 18 inch brookie in those days, it was rare, if
indeed it ever happened.

There is no sound biological reason, ever, for pure catch and
release. If the fishery can not withstand the mortality incident to
catch and release, it must be closed to fishing.

You miss the point, Tim: The Rapid CAN and HAS withstood the
mortality incident to catch and release. It has flourished. It is
once more a river where brookies grow to unelievable sizes. What it
could NOT withstand was all the meat takers killing the brookies. At
one point on a Sunday afternoon about 17 years ago, I counted 20
people *waiting* for a spot to fish the river at the dam. There was
already 15 fishing it. The normal and comfortable size of the people
fishing the dam today is 7. Other parts of the river were filled with
fly fishermen trying to catch a big brookie to kill. And when they
had raped the river and taken just about all the brookies from 6 to 26
inches, they left and never returned because the state saw their error
and made the river catch and release for brook trout. I took an
unheard-of-17-years-ago-brookie in May that measured about 24 inches.
It was seven pounds, at least, and is now alive and well in the river
waiting for me. The river has come back from the catch and kill days
and is now a famous world class brookie stream thanks to c&r.

The distinction may be
subtle but it is a vitally important one.

So, you are willing to close a rare river, one that holds a unique
strain of brook trout just to feed yourself. Now *that* sounds not
only selfish, but foolish to boot. And, I suppose, you would be
willing to then stock the river with, let me guess, browns and
rainbows? Then we could all go and catch cookie cutter fish, bred
especially for meat eaters, but they taste like....... fish food. We
could use a pellet flies, or worms......mmmmm, sounds like fun.

Dave

Dave LaCourse wrote:
...The normal and comfortable size of the people
fishing the dam today is 7....

DAMN! Wouldn't ya just know it!

Wolfgang
size 12......if becky's cami.......um.....well, never mind.

wrote:
...The Norwegians clearly understand fishing and fisheries management.
But mostly they speak of 'respect for life"....

Well, o.k., yeah, that seems like a good enough reason to kill fish.

Wolfgang

wrote:

Conan The Librarian wrote:

You may feel that way, but none of the links you posted support that
claim. If you have any evidence that efforts like those you cited have
been garnering "steadily increasing public support", please do post them.

http://www.peta.org/feat/annualreview05/numbers.asp

And exactly where was the part that showed that the public is
increasingly supporting efforts to end sport-fishing?


Chuck Vance

Bob Weinberger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

A (2) over 18", mandatory kill, would have worked as well, would it
not? There is no sound biological reason, ever, for pure catch and
release. If the fishery can not withstand the mortality incident to
catch and release, it must be closed to fishing. The distinction may be
subtle but it is a vitally important one.

Your pal,

TBone
Guilt replaced the creel

Well Tim given the numerous ways you have exhibited a serious impairment
when it comes to logical thought, I shouldn't be surprised by that line of
reasoning.
In a likely futile effort to show you the falaciousness of the line of
thought you expressed above, I offer the following for you to think through:

1. What is the sound biological superiority of a system where numerous fish
in the smaller more vulnerable to injury size classes ar caught, handled,
measured and released before killing 2 fish over the size that includes most
of the breeding stock, over a system where all fish regardless of size are
released - usually with less handling involved?

2. Given the drive of many "meat" fishermen to "get their limit" , there is
a strong liklihood that a slot limit (especially where the ratio of fish "in
the slot" to the total # of fish present is low) can easily lead to a
situation where more fish are caught & released (and handled more) than if
pure C&R regs were in place.

For someone such as youself that believes that the fish suffer from C&R,
that only fishing to feed your gut can be morally supported, and that all
fishing regs must be for sound biological reasons, about the only system
that would meet your criteria and still alow fishing would be one that
required you to kill & keep every fish you catch - REGARDLESS OF SIZE -
until you had reached the determined limit.

Social science is far more the driving factor behind slot limits than is
biological science. Indeed, that is the case for most regulations that allow
any sport fishing whatsoever. Biological science generally only comes into
play to achieve or at least give the perception of progress toward
achievement of socially deesired outcomes. And I have no problem with that
approach..

1) You mean as opposed to the complete randomness of year class
mortality with unlimited catch and release while carring and stressing
the population? Or do you mean by the increased number of fishermen
catching and releasing trout and the effects on the stream side biota
from increased angling? Or from the benefit of removing large,
piscavorious specimen who are taking more from the system (forage) than
return (growth stunt)? Maximizing yield is just one of the goals of
management. Slot limits, culling equal sound management. Pure catch and
release equal target of opportunity for the animal rights groups. It's
that simple.

2) The fact is, this is the very way in which most excellent fisheries
are managed in Colorado. Pure catch and release is the exception and,
where it does exist, the quality of fishing is usually pathetic if
non-existant. I can't imagine anyone who honestly feels standing elbow
to elbow in the Frying Pan river is a quality fishing experience.

Your pal,

TBone
It is impossible to catch and release a wild trout.

Dave LaCourse wrote:
On 30 Jul 2006 07:17:32 -0700, wrote:

A (2) over 18", mandatory kill, would have worked as well, would it
not?

No. Those are breeding stock, and there were NONE after the hundred
of people flocked to the river to catch their trophy brook trout.
They took what they caught, small, medium, large, trouphy, it mattered
not. If you caught an 18 inch brookie in those days, it was rare, if
indeed it ever happened.

There is no sound biological reason, ever, for pure catch and
release. If the fishery can not withstand the mortality incident to
catch and release, it must be closed to fishing.

You miss the point, Tim: The Rapid CAN and HAS withstood the
mortality incident to catch and release. It has flourished. It is
once more a river where brookies grow to unelievable sizes. What it
could NOT withstand was all the meat takers killing the brookies. At
one point on a Sunday afternoon about 17 years ago, I counted 20
people *waiting* for a spot to fish the river at the dam. There was
already 15 fishing it. The normal and comfortable size of the people
fishing the dam today is 7. Other parts of the river were filled with
fly fishermen trying to catch a big brookie to kill. And when they
had raped the river and taken just about all the brookies from 6 to 26
inches, they left and never returned because the state saw their error
and made the river catch and release for brook trout. I took an
unheard-of-17-years-ago-brookie in May that measured about 24 inches.
It was seven pounds, at least, and is now alive and well in the river
waiting for me. The river has come back from the catch and kill days
and is now a famous world class brookie stream thanks to c&r.

The distinction may be
subtle but it is a vitally important one.

So, you are willing to close a rare river, one that holds a unique
strain of brook trout just to feed yourself. Now *that* sounds not
only selfish, but foolish to boot. And, I suppose, you would be
willing to then stock the river with, let me guess, browns and
rainbows? Then we could all go and catch cookie cutter fish, bred
especially for meat eaters, but they taste like....... fish food. We
could use a pellet flies, or worms......mmmmm, sounds like fun.

Your argument reminds me of my wife who does not think we need a
hunting season on deer because enough of them get killed by cars.
Great, so lets manage our fisheries based on random mortality
introduced by stressing the **** out of the population. I hate to say
it but you folks won't last 30 seconds with Ingrid.

As far as the second question, the recovery of the green back cutthroat
is a good indication of how this can work. You MUST kill every brook
trout, and you are required to release all Greenbacks. Now, when the
greenbacks can withstand some mortality, that will be allowed. As it
is, the culling of all the brook trout is beneficial, even considering
the mortality of C&R.

Catch and release dogma. It's really, really bad.

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

rw wrote:
wrote:

You should know better. Fishing will not be banned, only golfing for
fish will be banned. Fishing for sound biological management reasons
will never be banned.

What make you think that C&R trout fishing isn't a sound biological
management practice in many cases?


It's never, ever necessary. A 'practical; slot limit can be set just
above or below the target. Imagine a 1 trout over 5 pounds limit, for
example. Far more defensable to fish for food than to fish for fun,
again, the Norwegians explain this better than I can.

Your pal,

TBone
A cash flow runs through it

wrote in news:1154359164.510328.40420@
75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

It's never, ever necessary.

And meat fishing is, of course.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

wrote in message
oups.com...

Bob Weinberger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

A (2) over 18", mandatory kill, would have worked as well, would it
not? There is no sound biological reason, ever, for pure catch and
release. If the fishery can not withstand the mortality incident to
catch and release, it must be closed to fishing. The distinction may be
subtle but it is a vitally important one.

Your pal,

TBone
Guilt replaced the creel

Well Tim given the numerous ways you have exhibited a serious impairment
when it comes to logical thought, I shouldn't be surprised by that line
of
reasoning.
In a likely futile effort to show you the falaciousness of the line of
thought you expressed above, I offer the following for you to think
through:

1. What is the sound biological superiority of a system where numerous
fish
in the smaller more vulnerable to injury size classes ar caught, handled,
measured and released before killing 2 fish over the size that includes
most
of the breeding stock, over a system where all fish regardless of size
are
released - usually with less handling involved?

2. Given the drive of many "meat" fishermen to "get their limit" , there
is
a strong liklihood that a slot limit (especially where the ratio of fish
"in
the slot" to the total # of fish present is low) can easily lead to a
situation where more fish are caught & released (and handled more) than
if
pure C&R regs were in place.

For someone such as youself that believes that the fish suffer from C&R,
that only fishing to feed your gut can be morally supported, and that all
fishing regs must be for sound biological reasons, about the only system
that would meet your criteria and still alow fishing would be one that
required you to kill & keep every fish you catch - REGARDLESS OF SIZE -
until you had reached the determined limit.

Social science is far more the driving factor behind slot limits than is
biological science. Indeed, that is the case for most regulations that
allow
any sport fishing whatsoever. Biological science generally only comes
into
play to achieve or at least give the perception of progress toward
achievement of socially deesired outcomes. And I have no problem with
that
approach..

1) You mean as opposed to the complete randomness of year class
mortality with unlimited catch and release while carring and stressing
the population? Or do you mean by the increased number of fishermen
catching and releasing trout and the effects on the stream side biota
from increased angling? Or from the benefit of removing large,
piscavorious specimen who are taking more from the system (forage) than
return (growth stunt)? Maximizing yield is just one of the goals of
management. Slot limits, culling equal sound management. Pure catch and
release equal target of opportunity for the animal rights groups. It's
that simple.

2) The fact is, this is the very way in which most excellent fisheries
are managed in Colorado. Pure catch and release is the exception and,
where it does exist, the quality of fishing is usually pathetic if
non-existant. I can't imagine anyone who honestly feels standing elbow
to elbow in the Frying Pan river is a quality fishing experience.

Your pal,

TBone

Which do you think does the most to shred the tattered remnants of your
credibility; the speciousness of your arguments, the inanity of their
presentation, your absolute inability to understand the questions put to
you, or your complete mystification as to the nature of the issues under
consideration?

It is impossible to catch and release a wild trout.

Dumbass.

Wolfgang