Little J No More

[FarmerDave]

CaptMatt wrote:
This is a selfish conversation. The benefit of what angler likes what is not the important issue. Shouldn't the regs be determined by what's good or bad or sustainable for the fishery?

Well, that depends on what your definition of sustainable is. Can you name a single stream where harvest was eliminated the trout population? If not, then I guess they are making regulations that do maintain sustainability.

you need to consider that it is all relative, and it is also a business. What would arguably be the absolute best for the wild trout is: 1. Eliminate all stocking, or at least stop stocking all trout from hatchery strains of fish. 2. make all trout fishing illegal. that might be what PETA would like to see, but i doubt any angler wants that. It just isn't going to happen. so here is the deal. The PF&BC is responsible for performing a balancing act where they set limits to maintain good fishing opportunities while trying to please all types of anglers as best they can. They can't completely satisfy eveyone, but but they do manage to please the majority to some degree. Making all wild trout C&R would please only a few and displease the majority. That is not very good business practice.

There is no doubt that the vast majority of trout streams can handle some harvest. Humans as a species afterall, are also natural predators.

 

[JackM]

Main Entry: fish·ery
Pronunciation: 'fi-sh&-rE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -er·ies
1 : the occupation, industry, or season of taking fish or other sea animals (as sponges, shrimp, or seals) : FISHING
2 : a place for catching fish or taking other sea animals
3 : a fishing establishment; also : its fishermen
4 : the legal right to take fish at a particular place or in particular waters
5 : the technology of fishery -- usually used in plural

 

[JackM]

Also, speaking of hypocrisy, is it hypocritical for us catch-and-release anglers to fish the open regulation water early in the season, educating the stocked trout and bruising their lips, before moving on to the regulated waters as April rolls into May and beyond? Shouldn't we be required to fish strictly in the C & R waters all year long?

 

[CaptMatt]

FarmerDave wrote:

CaptMatt wrote:
This is a selfish conversation. The benefit of what angler likes what is not the important issue. Shouldn't the regs be determined by what's good or bad or sustainable for the fishery?

Well, that depends on what your definition of sustainable is. Can you name a single stream where harvest was eliminated the trout population? If not, then I guess they are making regulations that do maintain sustainability.

With all due respects its not up to me to decide what’s "sustainable" or you, or most people. I'm not a Fisheries biologist I don't know. I cant name a stream that has or ever has been wiped out by over harvest I’m sure it could happen but who am I to say where, when or why? I am trying to make some points without getting caught up on one side or the other. I think deep down we can all agree about this on some level and I think as sportsman we do. If we could have this discussion over a beer instead of online we could probably understand one another better.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

it sure seems jack your pushing to stick up for those guys that harvest trout. shouldnt they be resticted to approved trout water....yet they poach streams over here all the time.
i dont see what your problem is with helping to protect wild trout. it just baffles me. :-?

 

[CaptMatt]

JackM wrote:
Also, speaking of hypocrisy, is it hypocritical for us catch-and-release anglers to fish the open regulation water early in the season, educating the stocked trout and bruising their lips, before moving on to the regulated waters as April rolls into May and beyond? Shouldn't we be required to fish strictly in the C & R waters all year long?

Im not sure that hatchery fish and wild fish should all be considered "trout". I hope you understand what I mean by that. Hatchery fish ae pretty much a renewable resource minus the technical "thingys"

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

if they would had more catch and release streams i would be all for not fishing any approved trout water. i hardly do now anyways. something about going to the stream and fishing over nothing that turns me off to it.

 

[Wulff-Man]

Jack, I'm starting to worry about you!

Yeah they could prohibit C&R in evrything but C&R water. Then we would have to just throw the fish we catch up on the bank, or give them to the poor folks who fish for food and not for sport. That would make sure that those hatchery fish didn't last too long and didn't provide too much "family fun," and it would be a good use of the resource and the $ that goes into the hatchery system.

Are you just toying with us now?

 

[JackM]

salvelinusfontinalis wrote:
it sure seems jack your pushing to stick up for those guys that harvest trout. shouldnt they be resticted to approved trout water....yet they poach streams over here all the time.
i dont see what your problem is with helping to protect wild trout. it just baffles me. :-?

I don't condone the actions of a small fraction of trout anglers that poach. They are law breakers plain and simple. I also have no problem "protecting wild trout." If your arguments were persuading me that C & R regulations are required to "protect wild trout," we would be spending more time agreeing. I still see the situation more as protecting the parochial interests of the C & R angler. It sounds admirable to suggest we are "protecting the trout" or "protecting the fishery," but yet we are still dragging these marvelous creatures through the stream to hand for our own entertainment. Even when we release them gently to be caught another day, I somehow doubt they are eager to thank us for the experience.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

then why do you release trout? i do for a variety of reasons. one of which is i dont like to eat fish. look im not saying all catch and release. and im not saying it for my interest alone. some little brook trout streams twindle down to trickles where only a few survive the summer to breed in the fall. what would happen if someone kept those few fish? i was also the one that stated on a previous thread that some brook trout fisheries should be OFF LIMITS. meaning i dont fish them in the interst of the fishery and no one else should. but harvest on those streams is allowed.
so yes C&R is protecting wild trout

 

[JackM]

Toying with you? No, I don't think so. I was just trying to recognize where the hypocrisy is in what I have been saying and it occurred to me that perhaps the belief that harvesting anglers are enjoying the resource at our expense had a flip-side. That is, do C & R anglers enjoy the resource at the expense of the harvesting angler? It then struck me that this might be the case where a C & R angler fishes open water early in the season, then migrates to the regulated water later on instead of always fishing the restricted water. Maybe it would be fairer to educate and bruise the lips on the stockers in the DHALOs and FFO C&R waters that we intend to fish over for the remainder of the year.

 

[Wulff-Man]

I'm trying not to read any more of this stuff and get back to work, but it's like trying to avert my eyes from a train wreck! :lol:

(Don't take offense, Jack. I'm sorry if what I'm saying comes off wrong.)

 

[JackM]

I release trout because I do not like fish as a meal very often, but I like to fish. I also don't want to be troubled to drag around a dying fish for hours, then clean it and cook it. Further, under principles of relative non-violence, I do not wish to cause another living creature to suffer without purpose. Finally, I find that releasing the fish will allow both myself and or others to enjoy the thrill of catching it at least one more time, if not more. Thanks for asking.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

well then see we do agree :-D

 

[CaptMatt]

There are valid points hidden in all the EXTREME Ideas. I've tried to bring them out but it's not working. Sal, I agree with your views but there a little on the "too extreme" side for me. Jack, I agree with your points but I do not agree that your points are in the best interest of wild trout.... let’s call it management instead of protection. Instead I think your points highlight the bad points that many are making causing yourself to seem "insensitive" to the "protection of wild trout". your views should cause them to examine thier own though.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

ya i know im an extremist....ive said it many times! :-D

they seem insensitive because i dont think jack likes me or my thoughts very much.......

 

[CaptMatt]

Okay but extremists rarely are taken seriously and are viewed as nut jobs. Not referring to you sir but the term itself.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

but iam rarely taken seriously and iam a nut job :-D

 

[CaptMatt]

SO then leave the Wild Trout Issue to me. Just kidding, I dont have the answers I can just recognize the POTENTIAL problems.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

fair enough :-D
im just trying to get my photos on photobucket so i can send pics to the photos section on the 4 big rainbows i caught today. hey imagine that they were caught in a c&r section of a stream.
so im done of awhile...