On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?

On 31 Jul 2006 12:02:33 -0700, wrote:

Regarding the "Breeding stock" - is there some problem in your
drainage with the viability of eggs or the survivabilty of the fry, or
is there some genetic predisposition towards smaller fish that is being
compensated for. And what is the management goal, as many fish as
possible of as many large fish as possible.


Bottom line, Tim: The Rapid River today would be nothing more than a
place to kayak and canoe if it wasn't for C&R. The unique strain of
brook trout *found only in the Rapid River* would have become all but
extinct. Fifteen years ago you caught one *small* brook trout for
every ten land locked salmon. The trout were small - all the trophies
had long been taken and eaten, and their size kept on getting smaller
and smaller, while the land locked salmon fed on them.

A simple law prohibiting keeping *any* brook trout saw the meat eaters
leave and the brook trout population explode. In a short three years
we were catching 3 pounders. Six and seven pounders are not uncommon
today. Now, I know you don't like the idea that C&R saved the Rapid,
but that's your problem and no one else's. C&R works when a fishery
is endangered. Yes, there is a certain percentage of mortality, but
anything less than 100% is good.

Peta showed up, btw, a few years ago. They came by boat, two women
and a man. They threw rocks in the water where some folks were
fishing. The fishermen returned their fire rock for rock. They left
by boat, two women and a man.

Dave

jeff wrote:
wrote:


Really? Even if it had been limited fishing? Even if it had been 1
brook trout over 30 pounds? C'mon, I know you're smarter than this
Dave.


well...um...what do you do with the 30,000 brook trout under 30 pounds
you catch while trying to catch the one over 30 pounds?

jeff (serial killer of fish)

This 30-pound restriction is onerous and unreasonable. I propose
loosening it up a bit:

1 brook trout at least twice the current world record by weight

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

In article , rw56
says...
This 30-pound restriction is onerous and unreasonable. I propose
loosening it up a bit:

1 brook trout at least twice the current world record by weight

That should fool the AR folks.
- Ken

Dave LaCourse wrote:

On 31 Jul 2006 12:02:33 -0700, wrote:


Regarding the "Breeding stock" - is there some problem in your
drainage with the viability of eggs or the survivabilty of the fry, or
is there some genetic predisposition towards smaller fish that is being
compensated for. And what is the management goal, as many fish as
possible of as many large fish as possible.



Bottom line, Tim: The Rapid River today would be nothing more than a
place to kayak and canoe if it wasn't for C&R. The unique strain of
brook trout *found only in the Rapid River* would have become all but
extinct. Fifteen years ago you caught one *small* brook trout for
every ten land locked salmon. The trout were small - all the trophies
had long been taken and eaten, and their size kept on getting smaller
and smaller, while the land locked salmon fed on them.

A simple law prohibiting keeping *any* brook trout saw the meat eaters
leave and the brook trout population explode. In a short three years
we were catching 3 pounders. Six and seven pounders are not uncommon
today. Now, I know you don't like the idea that C&R saved the Rapid,
but that's your problem and no one else's. C&R works when a fishery
is endangered. Yes, there is a certain percentage of mortality, but
anything less than 100% is good.

Peta showed up, btw, a few years ago. They came by boat, two women
and a man. They threw rocks in the water where some folks were
fishing. The fishermen returned their fire rock for rock. They left
by boat, two women and a man.

Dave






dave...tim's real argument is that you're being mean to the fish. it's a
moral dilemma - kill them and eat them, or be mean to them and release
them. it's not about assuring the population, it's about self-respect
and being courteous to the fishies. ...and the numbers of brook trout
alive in the rapid - where's the morality in that argument?

rw wrote:
wrote:

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.

That would effectively be C&R almost everywhere all the time. I've
caught quite a few trout this year (it's been a very good year so far)
and none of them were close to five pounds except for a bull trout
(strictly C&R).

Furthermore, a laboratory study (I can't find the source at the moment)
showed strong evidence that culling larger fish led to genetic changes
on the population in a surprisingly short time, reducing the average
size of the fish. If anything, people should be allowed to keep smaller
fish and be required to release "trophy" fish.

"One trout over 5 lbs" is not a slot limit. The slot limit for trout
on the lower Deschutes is a model: two fish between 10" and 13" per
day. Simple AND highly effective. All rainbows in the lower Deschutes
(a unique strain called redsides hereabouts) are wild and native, and
they are thriving. Although artificial lures and gear are allowed, most
people fly fish, by choice. Most also fish 100% C&R, again by choice.
Those who do take fish, within the slot, have essentially no impact on
population numbers. If more people killed fish, the slot could be
further tightened (one fish between 10" and 13", for example, or two
fish between 10" and 12"). Lots of options available.

Such a true, highly restrictive slot limit could, I believe, have served
the same purpose as the mandatory C&R reg on the Rapid, without turning
the fishery into the common trout petting zoo, where "sportsman" engage
in harassment of wildlife for fun.

--
John Russell aka JR

jeff wrote:

dave...tim's real argument is that you're being mean to the fish. it's a
moral dilemma - kill them and eat them, or be mean to them and release
them.

I'm glad someone finally distilled that "argument" to its essence.
That's exactly what he seems to be saying. You either show your "love"
by killing the fish outright, or you show your "hatred" by releasing it
to fight again.


Chuck Vance

Conan The Librarian wrote:

I'm glad someone finally distilled that "argument" to its essence.
That's exactly what he seems to be saying. You either show your "love"
by killing the fish outright, or you show your "hatred" by releasing it
to fight again.

Has nothing to do with "being mean," "hatred" or "love."

In one case, you're catching a fish for a serious purpose. A purpose
that can justify the suffering inflicted on the fish. In the other,
you're doing it for amusement, for a passing lark.

Hunting does not trivialize the prey. Mandatory C&R reduces them to
playthings. Some folks have no problem with that; others do.

--
John Russell aka JR

On 8/1/06 9:15 AM, in article , "JR"
wrote:

Conan The Librarian wrote:

I'm glad someone finally distilled that "argument" to its essence.
That's exactly what he seems to be saying. You either show your "love"
by killing the fish outright, or you show your "hatred" by releasing it
to fight again.

Has nothing to do with "being mean," "hatred" or "love."

In one case, you're catching a fish for a serious purpose. A purpose
that can justify the suffering inflicted on the fish. In the other,
you're doing it for amusement, for a passing lark.

The crux comes when one attempts to apply a human feeling- suffering- on a
non human- the fish- who may, or quite possibly may not, have such feeling.
It seems to me that if you reject "being mean", "hatred" and "love" (human
notions), you should also reject "suffering". No?

Or does it become more of a discussion about US and our feelings rather than
about the fish?

I think it is an excellent topic for discussion.

Hunting does not trivialize the prey. Mandatory C&R reduces them to
playthings. Some folks have no problem with that; others do.

The above statement, or in particular the "playthings" portion of it- might
trivialize the many reasons in favor of C&R, which effect the fishes' life
just as much as C&K would.

Part of the problem is that it is difficult- for me anyhow- to think in a
binary fashion. For example, I have seen C&K fisherman that, if you are
thinking in human terms, were quite brutal to their prey. And I have seen
C&R fisherman with whom the fish probably were not really aware (if they are
aware at all....) that they had been hooked and released.

Sentience is not an easy concept.

Bill

JR wrote:
Conan The Librarian wrote:

I'm glad someone finally distilled that "argument" to its essence.
That's exactly what he seems to be saying. You either show your
"love" by killing the fish outright, or you show your "hatred" by
releasing it to fight again.


Has nothing to do with "being mean," "hatred" or "love."

In one case, you're catching a fish for a serious purpose. A purpose
that can justify the suffering inflicted on the fish. In the other,
you're doing it for amusement, for a passing lark.

Hunting does not trivialize the prey. Mandatory C&R reduces them to
playthings. Some folks have no problem with that; others do.

I think C&R can be approached respectfully. If the angler takes care to
try to avoid harming the fish (pinching barbs, landing them quickly and
properly, not catching as many as he might, etc.) I think he's acting
respectfully.

On the other hand, I think someone who spends hundreds or thousands of
dollars on gear and travel to catch and kill a few fish is deluding
himself if he thinks the killing makes his motives pure.

Also, there is plenty of hunting that trivializes the prey. It's popular
around here for people to shoot ground squirrels. The ground squirrels
aren't hurting anyone -- they're just targets. Sometimes hunters shoot
an elk or a moose and leave the meat to rot. They can't be bothered.
They just want the trophy. It's very illegal, but it happens. And then
there's the despicable practice (IMO) of game-farm hunting, ala Dick
Cheney.

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

William Claspy wrote:
On 8/1/06 9:15 AM, in article , "JR"

In one case, you're catching a fish for a serious purpose. A purpose
that can justify the suffering inflicted on the fish. In the other,
you're doing it for amusement, for a passing lark.

The crux comes when one attempts to apply a human feeling- suffering- on a
non human- the fish- who may, or quite possibly may not, have such feeling.
It seems to me that if you reject "being mean", "hatred" and "love" (human
notions), you should also reject "suffering". No?

Or does it become more of a discussion about US and our feelings rather than
about the fish?

I'm not imposing a human feeling. I think all the discussions of
"whether fish suffer" and "whether fish feel pain" do unfortunately
always seem to rehash questions of whether they feel pain *the way we
do* and whether they suffer *the way we would*. These questions can
never be resolved and are pointless anyway. I think it is self-evident
that, as sentient beings (see your last sentence below), fish suffer in
response to certain stimuli. Fish suffer the way fish do, and we suffer
the way we do. (I know, I know.... doh! g). That we might not suffer
the same way (have the same "feelings") is beside the point. Some folks
find it easy to believe the enjoyment they derive from catching a fish
is justified because a fish's suffering is not *really* suffering (i.e.,
is not the same as human suffering). It's a convenient rationalization.

I think it is an excellent topic for discussion.

Hunting does not trivialize the prey. Mandatory C&R reduces them to
playthings. Some folks have no problem with that; others do.

The above statement, or in particular the "playthings" portion of it- might
trivialize the many reasons in favor of C&R, which effect the fishes' life
just as much as C&K would.

I don't think so. That they're reduced to playthings, to be harassed
for fun only, is a fact. The "many reasons" only can only help to
justify--or fail to justify--the fact; they cannot be trivialized by a
simple statement of the fact.

I have no problem with C&R, only with pure, mandatory 100% C&R. If
there are any conservation reasons for mandatory C&R that couldn't be
satisfied by a highly restrictive slot limit, then the population is, I
believe, too fragile to allow fishing in the first place.

Part of the problem is that it is difficult- for me anyhow- to think in a
binary fashion. For example, I have seen C&K fisherman that, if you are
thinking in human terms, were quite brutal to their prey. And I have seen
C&R fisherman with whom the fish probably were not really aware (if they are
aware at all....) that they had been hooked and released.

You've seen fish go completely limp or behave in completely the same
fashion after hooking as before?

Sentience is not an easy concept.

Often it's not an easy state. At least not before a few cups of coffee,
anyway.

--
John Russell aka JR