C&R Data

On Nov 9, 4:40 pm, daytripper wrote:
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 22:46:09 -0000, Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

On Nov 9, 3:22 pm, daytripper wrote:
[snip]
o there is nothing obvious about a slot limit that would reduce the overall,
seasonal mortality rate. indeed, the opposite is *far* more likely: each fish
legally taken has a 0% probability of survival, while each fish released has
at least a 97% probability of survival...

You know better, we've been all over this.

I agree we've been all over this. I disagree with your conclusions, however,
as they are invariably unsupported by studies or common sense.

For one thing, if you had to kill a legal fish, in a slot, and quit, there'd be a lot less
angler pressure.

That does not describe a "slot limit", and you know it. That describes
something quite different - and you know that, too.

The quality of the experience would at once improve.

Can you support that conclusion in any fashion, short of simply repeating it?

Yes, I can. An example of this is documented by John Gierach. The
short period of time that the St. Vrain was made C&R saw an abundance
of anglers. The parking lot would be full. Merely because of this
regulation. As soon as the reg was lifted it went back to more or less
what it had always been.

What I suspect you really mean is, if the tourists were not to fish waters
that you'd like to fish, *you* would have a higher quality experience.

I sometimes do measure the quality of fishing I perceive as
proportional to the relative wildness of the environs, yes. Further
what C&R means is "only those who don't fish to harvest fish" have a
higher quality experience, true? Those that do are excluded.

Further, the fish that remained in the system would have less
competition and watershed biomass production would be optimal.

Once again, you are stating broad conclusions that you cannot support.
Do you believe the Yellowstone River is overpopulated with trout, now?

I didn't say that but I'll give you some concrete example. Stunted
brook trout. Lots of 'em. None over 6. Stunted Bluegill. Lots of 'em.
None over 2. Even when requested to kill brook trout for real
conservation (restoration of the greenback cutthroat) modern C&R types
wouldn't do it. Informal polls here from time to time have concluded
that a whole lot of anglers simply don't want to mess with their fish.
Of course, if 3% of the fish are killed inadvertently through catch
and release, this is a contradictiction of what we hold as extreme
values as sportsmen - killing an animal solely for sport or trophy.

It's also not stated, but somehow implied, that trending as close to 0
angler induced mortality through angling is even a good thing.

Regulations, for better or worse, are not based on your particular morality.

Take a poll and let us know what the preponderance of opinion is on that
particular question. My bet is nearly 100% of people would agree close to 0
angler induced mortality is a good thing.

Polls are for wiping your ass with. "Polls" elected Bush.

With the loss of predation and improved natality rates, some harvest is not
only a good thing, it's required to maintain maximum yield from a
watershed.

"Loss of predation"? Where'd that come from?

C'mon DayTripper how many bears and coyotes do you see fishing where
you fish?

Again, your conclusion could only be even remotely supportable if there was an
extant imbalance - an "over-population" of fish - in the system. If you can
provide even a single study that supports the notion that there are too many
trout in the Yellowstone, I'd be happy to review it...

What I'm saying is that the Yellowstone could support some harvest and
the sport would be as good or better than it is.


Cheers

/daytripper

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 02:22:08 -0000, Halfordian Golfer
wrote:
[...]
Yes, I can. An example of this is documented by John Gierach. The
short period of time that the St. Vrain was made C&R saw an abundance
of anglers. The parking lot would be full. Merely because of this
regulation. As soon as the reg was lifted it went back to more or less
what it had always been.

Right. Exactly what I thought you really meant. You want to change the
regulations to cut down on the number of people that enjoy flyfishing on
streams near you. Your ideal (and mine, as well) is to have a stream to
yourself. The difference is, I'm a realist and am willing to allow the status
quo to exist - even if it means I avoid such areas - and you're being selfish.

I sometimes do measure the quality of fishing I perceive as
proportional to the relative wildness of the environs, yes. Further
what C&R means is "only those who don't fish to harvest fish" have a
higher quality experience, true? Those that do are excluded.

Are there no catch & kill waters to accommodate them?
Is the entire Yellowstone C&R?

fwiw, in New England there are very few sections of rivers that are C&R. To my
knowledge there are no exclusively C&R rivers or streams at all. So there are
plenty of places to go kill a fish. You pay your money and you make your
choice.

I didn't say that but I'll give you some concrete example. Stunted
brook trout. Lots of 'em. None over 6. Stunted Bluegill. Lots of 'em.
None over 2.

And that's a red herring. The article under discussion was on the Yellowstone,
and I doubt that's the river where you found stunted brookies and bluegills.

fwiw, bluegills apparently will overpopulate any water where predation -
natural or from fishing - is minimal. My own pond is rife with the li'l
bastids, because the neighbor kids keep the bass and pickerel and put back the
'gills. If I insisted they kill the gills that they hook, the most likely
outcome would leave me finding a whole lot of dead gills tossed in the bushes
around the pond. They'd feel bad, I'd feel bad, and the dead gills - well,
they wouldn't feel anything. Is that progress?

Even when requested to kill brook trout for real
conservation (restoration of the greenback cutthroat) modern C&R types
wouldn't do it. Informal polls here from time to time have concluded
that a whole lot of anglers simply don't want to mess with their fish.

I understand, those folks look at killing fish as a thing to be avoided, and
unless you stick an F&W cop behind every tree, it's unlikely to change.

Of course, if 3% of the fish are killed inadvertently through catch
and release, this is a contradictiction of what we hold as extreme
values as sportsmen - killing an animal solely for sport or trophy.

There is always collateral damage in any sport, which is why most folks would
be pleased to know said damage is quite modest.

With the loss of predation and improved natality rates, some harvest is not
only a good thing, it's required to maintain maximum yield from a
watershed.

"Loss of predation"? Where'd that come from?

C'mon DayTripper how many bears and coyotes do you see fishing where
you fish?

Actually, coyotes are rampant 'round these parts. Bears, not so much.
But I'm skeptical that those animals are considered predators of trout in
free-flowing rivers; the real predation around here is from herons,
cormorants, otters and mink, and up north you can add in the loons.

But I don't think "loss of predation" or "improved natality rates" - even if
either of those states exist on the Yellowstone - are germane to the
discussion at hand - which is what drove my question/remark.

What I'm saying is that the Yellowstone could support some harvest and
the sport would be as good or better than it is.

I will allow there is likely some truth to at least the first part of that,
but you and I both know that's not what you've been selling...

Cheers

/daytripper

On Nov 9, 8:38 pm, daytripper wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 02:22:08 -0000, Halfordian Golfer
wrote:
[...]

Yes, I can. An example of this is documented by John Gierach. The
short period of time that the St. Vrain was made C&R saw an abundance
of anglers. The parking lot would be full. Merely because of this
regulation. As soon as the reg was lifted it went back to more or less
what it had always been.

Right. Exactly what I thought you really meant. You want to change the
regulations to cut down on the number of people that enjoy flyfishing on
streams near you. Your ideal (and mine, as well) is to have a stream to
yourself. The difference is, I'm a realist and am willing to allow the status
quo to exist - even if it means I avoid such areas - and you're being selfish.

This is where the rubber meets the road. You say I am selfish because
I want to have a quality of experience fishing which includes the
fundamental right to harvest nature's bounty and which goes to the
very root of hunting and fishing, which is, simply 'hunting for fish'.
I am willing to fish much, much less to enjoy the undiluted
experience. This is the essence of flyfishing. It is exactly what
Robert Traver meant in his "Testament of An Angler", and you know it.
Selfish is pretending that a wild animal is a golf ball so that I can
hit it a hundred times to improve my stroke or so that I can make a
living and travel to places like "Christmas Island". Selfish is not
primal subsistence gathering of the most original and natural
sources.

I sometimes do measure the quality of fishing I perceive as
proportional to the relative wildness of the environs, yes. Further
what C&R means is "only those who don't fish to harvest fish" have a
higher quality experience, true? Those that do are excluded.

Are there no catch & kill waters to accommodate them?
Is the entire Yellowstone C&R?

For all intents and purposes, definitely. Why do you think I carried
the tag line "guilt replaced the creel" all these years? I received a
float trip as a birthday present some 20 years ago. The *1st thing*
the guide said was - "we do not kill fish on my boat". You can imagine
my internal dialog.

fwiw, in New England there are very few sections of rivers that are C&R. To my
knowledge there are no exclusively C&R rivers or streams at all. So there are
plenty of places to go kill a fish. You pay your money and you make your
choice.

Which is why I maintain the vigil I do. There needs to be balance in
the system. You know deer hunting is outstanding in Colorado these
days. There just are not new recruits to hunting. Oh the deer
populations will manage. There will be more highway fatalities,
disease and starvation, but nature will manage. I teach youth to
respect wildlife by not playing with them, not harassing them for fun,
to not 'tap on the aquarium', simply because it is mean. I teach young
anglers that, if they are to fish, they must accept the responsibility
of the act. To fish enough to catch a few to eat or to have a good
experience even, but then, to quit. To not be selfish with the
resource.

I didn't say that but I'll give you some concrete example. Stunted
brook trout. Lots of 'em. None over 6. Stunted Bluegill. Lots of 'em.
None over 2.

And that's a red herring. The article under discussion was on the Yellowstone,
and I doubt that's the river where you found stunted brookies and bluegills.

Of course not but the dynamics are certainly the same. Where there is
not enough natural predation (and that includes man as a part of
nature) this will happen. Ever caught a really skinny brown trout in
good rainbow trout habitat?

fwiw, bluegills apparently will overpopulate any water where predation -
natural or from fishing - is minimal. My own pond is rife with the li'l
bastids, because the neighbor kids keep the bass and pickerel and put back the
'gills. If I insisted they kill the gills that they hook, the most likely
outcome would leave me finding a whole lot of dead gills tossed in the bushes
around the pond. They'd feel bad, I'd feel bad, and the dead gills - well,
they wouldn't feel anything. Is that progress?

Depends on what you're managing the water for. I know as a radish
grower that it is imperative to thin your radishes to 1 an inch for
the same reasons. Yup, a lot of little radishes end up on the ground
(or eaten).

Even when requested to kill brook trout for real
conservation (restoration of the greenback cutthroat) modern C&R types
wouldn't do it. Informal polls here from time to time have concluded
that a whole lot of anglers simply don't want to mess with their fish.

I understand, those folks look at killing fish as a thing to be avoided, and
unless you stick an F&W cop behind every tree, it's unlikely to change.

I completely agree. It's an education issue and it will not change as
long as the new recruits to the sport approach it in the same way that
they approach other 'competitive' endeavors, golf being the primary
and most frequent comparison.

Of course, if 3% of the fish are killed inadvertently through catch
and release, this is a contradictiction of what we hold as extreme
values as sportsmen - killing an animal solely for sport or trophy.

There is always collateral damage in any sport, which is why most folks would
be pleased to know said damage is quite modest.

Understood. But, you and I know better. Any angler that has spent
thousands of hours astream knows better. It is well documented that we
perceive our actions before and after in the 'pastoral'. Yet, we know
what we do is a blood sport. We know we blind, stress, torture and
kill a wild animal as the real collateral damage. We just feel better
when we know that we didn't 'kill it'. We cause untold carnage on a
good 12 hours astream that's simply not counted and is our dirty
little secret, right? Ever send a 4" baby trout in to a rock? You know
you have as have I. Ever gut hook a trout on a nymph, hook one in the
spine or hauled it in by the eyeball? Ever have a feisty big brown
twist and get the 6X razor sharp tippet in the gills? Anyone except a
complete newbie to the sport knows these things. We just don't talk
about it much.

With the loss of predation and improved natality rates, some harvest is not
only a good thing, it's required to maintain maximum yield from a
watershed.

"Loss of predation"? Where'd that come from?

C'mon DayTripper how many bears and coyotes do you see fishing where
you fish?

Actually, coyotes are rampant 'round these parts. Bears, not so much.
But I'm skeptical that those animals are considered predators of trout in
free-flowing rivers; the real predation around here is from herons,
cormorants, otters and mink, and up north you can add in the loons.

Exactly. Those herons in particular completely avoid places that are
heavily used by man. They are a spooky lot.

But I don't think "loss of predation" or "improved natality rates" - even if
either of those states exist on the Yellowstone - are germane to the
discussion at hand - which is what drove my question/remark.

What I'm saying is that the Yellowstone could support some harvest and
the sport would be as good or better than it is.

I will allow there is likely some truth to at least the first part of that,
but you and I both know that's not what you've been selling...

Cheers

/daytripper

My friend, I am not 'selling' anything.

Your pal,

Tim