Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life

On Mar 11, 4:24 pm, "JT" wrote:
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message

...



http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi...-8649.1999.tb0...

What's interesting about the abstract in this URL, (if I understand it
correctly) the fish that start eating other fish vary from a size of 17.5 cm
to 36 cm and an age of 3 to 9 years old. A slot limit of that range would be
devastating. Plus you would be catching and keeping fish that were both fish
and insect eaters.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems pretty clear to me.

JT

I'm confused by what you're saying? What slot limit would be
devastating? Can you provide a bit more context?

I ask because folks seem to always forget that there is still a daily
bag and possession limit.

Thanks,

TBone

"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message
...

I'm confused by what you're saying? What slot limit would be
devastating? Can you provide a bit more context?

I ask because folks seem to always forget that there is still a daily
bag and possession limit.

Thanks,

TBone

In the URL you provided, they said fish as young as 3 years old and 17.5 cm
to fish 9 years old and 36 cm become piscivory (roughly fish 7 to 14 1/4
inches).

Quote:
"Brown trout switched to piscivory from 3 years onwards, and a body length
of 17·5 cm, according to back calculation from scales. Fast growers switched
to piscivory at a younger age and smaller size than slow growers. The most
slow-growing trout switched to fish feeding at 9 years old and a mean body
length of 36 cm."

What I'm saying is the size range of fish that are eating fry is much too
large. In no way could you effectively put a slot limit in play that would
not take fish from both groups (piscivory & invertebrate feeders). If you
put a catch and keep slot limit anywhere in the range, you are going to be
taking fish that are reproducing invertebrate feeders only.

Based on your previous posts, you suggested that taking the fish that are
eating the fry would help with recruitment.
So, I'm curious what you would suggest as a slot limit for Brown trout based
on these findings in Lake Femund?

HTH,
JT

On Mar 12, 10:51 am, "JT" wrote:
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message

...

I'm confused by what you're saying? What slot limit would be
devastating? Can you provide a bit more context?

I ask because folks seem to always forget that there is still a daily
bag and possession limit.

Thanks,

TBone

In the URL you provided, they said fish as young as 3 years old and 17.5 cm
to fish 9 years old and 36 cm become piscivory (roughly fish 7 to 14 1/4
inches).

Quote:
"Brown trout switched to piscivory from 3 years onwards, and a body length
of 17·5 cm, according to back calculation from scales. Fast growers switched
to piscivory at a younger age and smaller size than slow growers. The most
slow-growing trout switched to fish feeding at 9 years old and a mean body
length of 36 cm."

What I'm saying is the size range of fish that are eating fry is much too
large. In no way could you effectively put a slot limit in play that would
not take fish from both groups (piscivory & invertebrate feeders). If you
put a catch and keep slot limit anywhere in the range, you are going to be
taking fish that are reproducing invertebrate feeders only.

Based on your previous posts, you suggested that taking the fish that are
eating the fry would help with recruitment.
So, I'm curious what you would suggest as a slot limit for Brown trout based
on these findings in Lake Femund?

HTH,
JT

Hi JT, don't have enough data to say for sure.

Let's say 1 fish over 35cm angler must quit fishing.

One thing you really must accept JT is that C&R is incredibly rare.
I'd suggest less than .5% of all waters are mandated C&R. So, the
restrictive regulations and limited harvest must work. Correct?

Halfordian Golfer

Thanks,

Tim

"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message
...

Let's say 1 fish over 35cm angler must quit fishing.

You will quite possibly have to release several fish before you catch one
that is 35 cm if you even catch one of that size. How do you feel about that
and how can you actually fish waters with this regulation given your beliefs
about mortality and C&R fishing?

One thing you really must accept JT is that C&R is incredibly rare.

I agree, C&R is rare, I wish that wasn't the case. When I was a young boy
and my Dad was teaching me how to flyfish along with C&R, we could go down
to the local river and catch several fish in an evening. At the time, there
were catch limits in place. Over the years the fishing declined to the point
that it was tough to catch a fish. The regulations have since change to C&R
and the river is once again coming back.
It's very similar to the story that Dave tells about the Rapid River.

I'd suggest less than .5% of all waters are mandated C&R. So, the
restrictive regulations and limited harvest must work. Correct?

Yes, I think "limited" harvest will preserve a fishery to a point, however I
contend that C&R would be more effective. And based on your theory about
recruitment, I don't think you can deny the URL you provide shoots holes in
that theory.

JT

On Mar 12, 1:46 pm, "JT" wrote:
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message

...

Let's say 1 fish over 35cm angler must quit fishing.

You will quite possibly have to release several fish before you catch one
that is 35 cm if you even catch one of that size. How do you feel about that
and how can you actually fish waters with this regulation given your beliefs
about mortality and C&R fishing?

One thing you really must accept JT is that C&R is incredibly rare.

I agree, C&R is rare, I wish that wasn't the case. When I was a young boy
and my Dad was teaching me how to flyfish along with C&R, we could go down
to the local river and catch several fish in an evening. At the time, there
were catch limits in place. Over the years the fishing declined to the point
that it was tough to catch a fish. The regulations have since change to C&R
and the river is once again coming back.
It's very similar to the story that Dave tells about the Rapid River.

I'd suggest less than .5% of all waters are mandated C&R. So, the
restrictive regulations and limited harvest must work. Correct?

Yes, I think "limited" harvest will preserve a fishery to a point, however I
contend that C&R would be more effective. And based on your theory about
recruitment, I don't think you can deny the URL you provide shoots holes in
that theory.

JT

In your first example this is simply culling or Selective Harvest. It
is the backbone of our management strategies and has been for a long
time. Every single lobster that comes on a lobsterman's boat is
measured. Some go in the well, some go back to grow up. One of the
reasons for this discourse is to distinguish clearly between the two.
Most fisheries managers are referring to selective harvest when they
say catch and release. Anyway, it comes back to intent.

Limited harvest will preserve a fishery forever, not to a point. Pure
C&R creates incident mortality. Selective harvest can target this, so
it's more useful as a management tool. That said, any fishery which
can not withstand the mortality incident to pure C&R (which is always
the same or more impactful than restricted angling) should be closed
to fishing.

I have seen the endgame of Catch and Release and it's not pretty.
You'll recognize him. He is a man with plaid waders holding up a one-
eyed lipless re-catch splashing through the hole you're fishing
screaming "Aye and that makes thirrrrrrrrrty, you're buyin' the
dinner" loud enough that it rattles the lichen off the rocks.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

Halfordian Golfer wrote:

Limited harvest will preserve a fishery forever, not to a point. Pure
C&R creates incident mortality. Selective harvest can target this, so
it's more useful as a management tool. That said, any fishery which
can not withstand the mortality incident to pure C&R (which is always
the same or more impactful than restricted angling) should be closed
to fishing.

Why do you seem to have the desire to "cull" large fish? Can you cite
ANY study that shows that taking out large fish improves the fishery? I
cited two (and can find more) that show that the taking of large fish
has a detrimental effect.

Willi

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
...
Limited harvest will preserve a fishery forever, not to a point. Pure
C&R creates incident mortality. Selective harvest can target this, so
it's more useful as a management tool. That said, any fishery which
can not withstand the mortality incident to pure C&R (which is always
the same or more impactful than restricted angling) should be closed
to fishing. ...

You're not making sense. The only difference between C&R and
selective harvest is C&R kills less fish. The only thing slot
limits/selective harvest addresses is the size of the fish
harvested, it does not address incidental death due to catch
and release which is exactly the same in both cases.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:53:16 -0700 (PDT), Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

One thing you really must accept JT is that C&R is incredibly rare.
I'd suggest less than .5% of all waters are mandated C&R. So, the
restrictive regulations and limited harvest must work. Correct?

It is not the state mandating or using C&R, but the individual
fishermen. WE know C&R is a valuable tool in preserving a water.
Kill the fish and you end up with stockers. It is not difficult to
understand that, yet you seem to have this great hang-up about it.
Mortality is *final*. There is nothing left after you kill a
beautiful fish. No one else can catch it and marvel at its beauty and
strength.

You should not fish in a river that has wild fish, Tim. You should
stick to put and take fisheries.

Dave

On Mar 12, 3:22 pm, Willi wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Limited harvest will preserve a fishery forever, not to a point. Pure
C&R creates incident mortality. Selective harvest can target this, so
it's more useful as a management tool. That said, any fishery which
can not withstand the mortality incident to pure C&R (which is always
the same or more impactful than restricted angling) should be closed
to fishing.

Why do you seem to have the desire to "cull" large fish? Can you cite
ANY study that shows that taking out large fish improves the fishery? I
cited two (and can find more) that show that the taking of large fish
has a detrimental effect.

Willi

Never said that. I am interested in culling the fish that makes the
most sense for the given situation and large fish are good candidates
because they start to create negative yield from a fishery. Slots on
both sides with restricted bags and restricted fishing, instead of C&R
and watch the quality of the fishery soar.

Your pal,

TBone

On Mar 12, 3:47 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
...
Limited harvest will preserve a fishery forever, not to a point. Pure
C&R creates incident mortality. Selective harvest can target this, so
it's more useful as a management tool. That said, any fishery which
can not withstand the mortality incident to pure C&R (which is always
the same or more impactful than restricted angling) should be closed
to fishing. ...

You're not making sense. The only difference between C&R and
selective harvest is C&R kills less fish. The only thing slot
limits/selective harvest addresses is the size of the fish
harvested, it does not address incidental death due to catch
and release which is exactly the same in both cases.

--
Ken Fortenberry

I've demonstrated the fallacy of this argument 100 times. Look at it
this way. I fish 4 times a year. I kill 2 each time. That means I've
killed 8 fish. Contrast that to the angler who fishes 50 times and
averages 20 fish an outing. That's 1000 fish hooked and hauled.
Assuming 1% mortality (probably way more when you consider the
accumulated nature of stress) and you've killed 10 fish minimum.
Assume I had to hook 100 to catch my 8 so I killed 9. Unlimited C&R
kills more than restricted C&K and that's just a fact whether you like
it or not.

Halfordian Golfer