If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
"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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
"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. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Catch abd Release | rw | Fly Fishing | 1 | December 16th, 2005 03:04 PM |
Catch & release | James Luning | Bass Fishing | 9 | May 26th, 2005 11:16 PM |
Catch & Release | Ken Fortenberry | Bass Fishing | 128 | August 14th, 2004 10:23 PM |
Catch and Release - Why? | bassrecord | Bass Fishing | 26 | July 6th, 2004 06:02 AM |