Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life

On Mar 12, 4:04 pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:
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

People en masse do a lot of stupid things. People en masse put a shrub
in the whitehouse. People en masse have lobbies and special
interests.

I'll listen to the fisheries managers thank you very much. As Forrest
said, C&R on the Rapid is a Social invention, not a biological one. If
you want to argue that, than you take the time to write him.

Have a great trip. I thought you'd already left?


Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
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.

I've demonstrated the fallacy of this argument 100 times.

LOL !! Yet another crackpot claim.

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.

Why not contrast 4 times a year with 4 times a year or 50 times
a year with 50 times a year ? You don't make sense.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Mar 5, 6:59 pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 15:40:16 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer

wrote:
Maybe I'm not sure what the word "wild" means.

buzzer We have a winner in the loges, Doctor.

OK Dr. maybe you can help.

Here's my problem (relaxing on the alt flyfishing couch)...I always
thought the word "wild" was an antonym for "domesticated" and that it
was a 'relative' term describing the degree from which something is
disassociated from man. There are like 18 definitions but, really, it
means not cultivated or domesticated by man. Yet, it seems everyone
else around here thinks it means something else because they keep
talking about wild trout that live in the freeking park and have
humans elbow to elbow hooking them in to pet them. That's not wild
man. So they say they mean "streamborn" well, that's not one of the
meanings I've been able to find and, well, it would have to include
whitlock-vibert boxes and such but then danged that hand of
man...that's not wild. So I calm down and say, "OK fine, I accept that
definition" and then they say that they're catch and releasing "wild"
rainbow trout. Get that...wild rainbow trout...in Colorado! Let me
tell you brother...thay got here by stocking and now they threaten the
indiginous fish, so...is that what they mean by wild? And ya know what
Doc...a 3 year rainbow holdover is pretty damned hard to tell from one
that was borne in the stream. And what about fry and fingerlings? No,
I think they mean that we should C&R release indiginous species.
That's kind of what this guy Louis keeps saying...

Dr. to Tim: Have you thought about applying your own C&K ethic to non-
indiginous salmonids in Colorado? I mean kill and eat every brook
trout, brown trout and rainbow trout in Colorado you catch, as well as
every Bass you see, but...if it's a Cutthroat, let it go. In that way
you'd be helping the indiginous fish, setting an excellent
conservation ethic for your children and grandchildren and having some
delicious campside meals. Will you try that and let me know if you
feel better?

Halfordian Golfer

On Mar 12, 5:10 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
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.

I've demonstrated the fallacy of this argument 100 times.

LOL !! Yet another crackpot claim.

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.

Why not contrast 4 times a year with 4 times a year or 50 times
a year with 50 times a year ? You don't make sense.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Because that would ignore the statistics.

The vast majority of licensed anglers fish less than that, once or
twice a year....and they're really not very good at it. When I lived
in a tourist area people were shocked to learn that I caught fish
period but would be shocked to know how many. They fish all weekend by
the campground and don't catch anything. That is the average,
statistical, license holder. Flyfishermen, statistically, fish more
days, longer and are more effective.

--
Halfordian Golfer

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:27:18 -0700 (PDT), Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

Dr. to Tim: Have you thought about applying your own C&K ethic to non-
indiginous salmonids in Colorado? I mean kill and eat every brook
trout, brown trout and rainbow trout in Colorado you catch, as well as
every Bass you see, but...if it's a Cutthroat, let it go. In that way
you'd be helping the

Tim, my fishing does not bother my ethics. I *know* that catch and
release works - saw it with my very own eyes. And, it continues to
work.

Now, whenever I catch a laketrout (called togue) that has found his
way into the river, if he is big enough, I will keep it. I have in
the past. And if I catch a bass big enough to eat, I will keep it.
Otherwise the bass will be slit open and returned to the river.

Dave

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Why not contrast 4 times a year with 4 times a year or 50 times
a year with 50 times a year ? You don't make sense.

Because that would ignore the statistics.

The vast majority of licensed anglers fish less than that, once or
twice a year....and they're really not very good at it.

You're still not making sense. If what you say is true, (as if ;-),
then you should be comparing once or twice C&R with once or twice
selective harvest and not fifty versus four.

Let me guess, you are not now, nor have you ever been a fisheries
biologist or a trained scientist of any stripe. Right ? LOL !!

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:57:55 -0700 (PDT), Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

Unlimited C&R
kills more than restricted C&K and that's just a fact whether you like
it or not.

Before I leave, I have to say that your statement above makes no
sense. I have seen C&K devistate a river, and I have watched the fish
gradually come back after C&R was implemented. It is NOT a fact.
I've seen catch and kill rape a river almost to the point of complete
failure of a species. Catch and release *DOES NOT* kill more fish than
catch and kill.

If saving the unique strain of brook trout on the Rapid as a
political/social move, then I am all for it. The meat gatherers were
doing a job on that river and now it is once again a beautiful place
to fish.

Color me gone fishing for big bows and browns..........

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
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


Do you have any studies that show that harvest increases the quality of
a trout fishery?

Willi

On Mar 12, 6:20 pm, Willi wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
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

Do you have any studies that show that harvest increases the quality of
a trout fishery?

Willi

Yes.

I love to flyfish every place that allows it but can hardly stomach
the places that don't allow it.

Think about it. Would you rather fish:
the X Fork of the You Know....or the Frying Pan?
The Roaring Fork, or the Frying Pan?
The Elk or the Taylor Reservior Tail Water?
A Wyoming Beaver pond or Cheesman Canyon?

I say that tongue in cheek but, it's also intended to ring somewhat
true, but you must define quality for it to make any sense at all and
quality for me includes isolation and fish that act wild.

Don't take it from me, though, take it from John Gierach who talks
about when the St. Vrain became famous for a short period of time when
it became C&R. The parking lot filled up with cars but the fishing
was, more or less, as it always had been. When it was made normal
again, the cars left and it stayed the fair to middling creek that it
is.

This is with a 4 fish limit now: the fishing can be excellent. If it
were to get crummy, or if we wanted to tweak it, we could make it 2.
This is with no size restrictions, we could add one. Also, these are
browns. Very wary.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer



Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer
Seriously.

I say that tongue in cheek but, it's also intended to ring somewhat
true, but you must define quality for it to make any sense at all and
quality for me includes isolation and fish that act wild.

Don't take it from me, though, take it from John Gierach who talks
about when the St. Vrain became famous for a short period of time when
it became C&R. The parking lot filled up with cars but the fishing
was, more or less, as it always had been. When it was made normal
again, the cars left and it stayed the fair to middling creek that it
is.

This is with a 4 fish limit now: the fishing can be excellent. If it
were to get crummy, or if we wanted to tweak it, we could make it 2.
This is with no size restrictions, we could add one. Also, these are
browns. Very wary.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer



Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

Halfordian Golfer wrote:

Do you have any studies that show that harvest increases the quality of
a trout fishery?

Willi

Yes.

I love to flyfish every place that allows it but can hardly stomach
the places that don't allow it.

Think about it. Would you rather fish:
the X Fork of the You Know....or the Frying Pan?
The Roaring Fork, or the Frying Pan?
The Elk or the Taylor Reservior Tail Water?
A Wyoming Beaver pond or Cheesman Canyon?

I say that tongue in cheek but, it's also intended to ring somewhat
true, but you must define quality for it to make any sense at all and
quality for me includes isolation and fish that act wild.

Don't take it from me, though, take it from John Gierach who talks
about when the St. Vrain became famous for a short period of time when
it became C&R. The parking lot filled up with cars but the fishing
was, more or less, as it always had been. When it was made normal
again, the cars left and it stayed the fair to middling creek that it
is.

This is with a 4 fish limit now: the fishing can be excellent. If it
were to get crummy, or if we wanted to tweak it, we could make it 2.
This is with no size restrictions, we could add one. Also, these are
browns. Very wary.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer


I agree that in Colorado, the designation of C&R (or most special regs
INCLUDING your "selective" harvest with its slot limits) often leads to
over crowding and I tend not to fish those waters for that reason.

But that DOESN'T answer my question. In some of your posts you assert or
at least imply that "selective" harvest will improve the quality of a
fishery (those large fish eaters etc). Can you show ANY study that
showed that harvest of any type improved the quality of a self
sustaining trout fishery? I can show you study after study that
demonstrate that reducing harvest can improve a fishery.

Willi