Little J No More

[JackM]

CaptMatt wrote:

Jack,... I think your points...[are] causing yourself to seem "insensitive" to the "protection of wild trout". your views should cause them to examine thier own though.

I don't mind if I seem insensitive. I am not trying to impress anyone with my sensitivity to wild trout. I am happy to manage them so that everyone can enjoy them; but I do not want to see them managed just so that I can enjoy them or other C&R only anglers. If the fishery can sustain regulations that allow harvest, then, for the most part, harvest should permitted. If it means a few less trout each season for the C&R angler to catch, so be it. If harvest regulations would damage the fishery significantly, then I favor restictive regs. I even favor restrictive regs on some stream sections just for the purpose of enhancing the C&R anglers' experience, but these must be carefully limited and fairly proportioned. When this thread started 10 pages back, I opined that the C & R regulations were "working as planned" in causing the thread author to choose to fish elsewhere so he can occasionally harvest or at least have that option. My opinion in that regard has not changed.

 

[CaptMatt]

JackM wrote:
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.

That’s Funny. I don’t keep a lot of saltwater for the reason that I don’t want to deal with them when I get home (cleaning cooking etc). And I won’t eat them unless they are fresh. Unless it's a cobia. I NEVER keep snook, which have been put down a rough road or redfish. But any way, I'm with you about dragging them around all day. I don’t worry about putting them through the ordeal of "catching them" that’s a little too "tree huggery". I do enjoy releasing them. Hell they don’t remember a little while after any way.

 

[CaptMatt]

You may have interpreted that post wrong. I was sticking up for you to a point. I dont think that you are insenitive to the issue.

 

[FarmerDave]

CaptMatt wrote:

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.

With all due respect Matt, you asked a very vague question, and I tried to answer it. Your question absolutely did depend on your definition of sustainability. since you admittedly do not have a definition of sustainability, then that point is not a valid one. Furthermore, I never said it was up to me to decide. Clearly I only gave my opinion (which is all any of us have been doing throughout this thread). I even used the words I guess when I said they are maintaining sustainability of wild trout.

However, there is more to this. I was refering to the sustainability of the trout, while you were asking about the sustainability of the fishery. There is a difference as Jack implied. This muddies the water even more. Each of us has our own idea of what is an ideal fishery, and they often differ. Yours might be one where you and your clients are the only ones who fish there and you always practice C&R. Mine might be where i can experience solitude and maybe catch a few trout. and maybe even eat the occasional trout if I chose to. Others might be looking for sheer numbers of trout so they can fill their freezers. , My point was that the Commission is trying to balance what everyone wants, not just what a select few want.

I absolutely agree with your last part. In fact, I think we agree more than you realize. There are lots of things I would like to see changed in the regulations that would make for a better fishing experience for me. but the Commission is not in business to just please me.

 

[JackM]

CaptMatt, it may surprise you and others to know that I often talk gently to the fish as I land and release them. Asking their patience of me while I remove the barbless hook. I have not gone so far as to kiss them-- that would be too Bassmaster-ish-- but I have been known to politely thank them for the pleasure of their acquaintance.

 

[FarmerDave]

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. :-?

the same guys poach the regular streams as well. not all catch and eat people are poachers, so you shouldn't punish the many for the actions of a few.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

ok that was a little out there. but alot of poaching does go on here.

I absolutely agree with your last part. In fact, I think we agree more than you realize. There are lots of things I would like to see changed in the regulations that would make for a better fishing experience for me. but the Commission is not in business to just please me.

no that is true. they are employed to manage the fisheries. and wild trout have NO management. at least for the streams on the natural repro list and class a water. they are occasionally studied. then the natural repro list streams get trout dumped into them ..... :-(

 

[FarmerDave]

CaptMatt wrote:
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.

Exactly!!!!

The Commission is in business to manage a fishery. If it were about "protecting" trout, we wouldn't even be allowed to fish. Awhile back, there was a thread about the difference between protection and conservation. Here it is biting us again.

 

[CaptMatt]

FarmerDave wrote:

CaptMatt wrote:

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.

With all due respect Matt, you asked a very vague question, and I tried to answer it. Your question absolutely did depend on your definition of sustainability. since you admittedly do not have a definition of sustainability, then that point is not a valid one. Furthermore, I never said it was up to me to decide. Clearly I only gave my opinion (which is all any of us have been doing throughout this thread). I even used the words I guess when I said they are maintaining sustainability of wild trout.

However, there is more to this. I was refering to the sustainability of the trout, while you were asking about the sustainability of the fishery. There is a difference as Jack implied. This muddies the water even more. Each of us has our own idea of what is an ideal fishery, and they often differ. Yours might be one where you and your clients are the only ones who fish there and you always practice C&R. Mine might be where i can experience solitude and maybe catch a few trout. and maybe even eat the occasional trout if I chose to. Others might be looking for sheer numbers of trout so they can fill their freezers. , My point was that the Commission is trying to balance what everyone wants, not just what a select few want.

I absolutely agree with your last part. In fact, I think we agree more than you realize. There are lots of things I would like to see changed in the regulations that would make for a better fishing experience for me. but the Commission is not in business to just please me.

I think we agree as well. My point was that the best interest of the environment would be to manage the fishery by how much pressure or harvest it can handle and not what any particular group wants. There is nothing vague about that when i word it that way. (I dont study that so I dont know but Im sure someone does). Thats a fact but not a reality in PA where hunting and fishing is a way of life. Don’t confuse what Im trying to say. As you said I think we agree more than we think.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

maybe someday they will manage to protect brook trout :-D
im curious to see what happens when the EBTJV goes into full swing. they bring up the point of non-native species in the program. heaven forbid if any streams that are stocked get on this plan. what will they do then?

 

[FarmerDave]

JackM wrote:
CaptMatt, it may surprise you and others to know that I often talk gently to the fish as I land and release them. Asking their patience of me while I remove the barbless hook. I have not gone so far as to kiss them-- that would be too Bassmaster-ish-- but I have been known to politely thank them for the pleasure of their acquaintance.

Now that's funny. Last hunting season I started talking gently to a deer that was standing right in front of me. I talked to her for a minute or so then sent hher on her way. My neighbor heard me talking, and hasn't let me forget it to this day. The deer wisperer.

 

[CaptMatt]

For the record I’m not that insane. I do sneak a kiss here and there though. Also, Sail Cats are nasty critters, poisonous barbs and all. I keep a stick on board and beat them over the head before removing the hook. There I feel better. For a while I think you guys thought I was a tree hugger. Hope that helps

 

[JackM]

FarmerDave wrote:
Last hunting season I started talking gently to a deer that was standing right in front of me. I talked to her for a minute or so then sent hher on her way. My neighbor heard me talking, and hasn't let me forget it to this day. The deer wisperer.

I have had a few words with a Great Blue Heron, but there was nothing gentle about it. He didn't seem to give two $#!ts. :-x

 

[OhioOutdoorsman]

Yeah, I have a hard time convincing herons to practice C and R, let alone adhere to the creel limits. They seem to value trout only for their meat. Stupid herons. :lol:

I think we all agree on 90% of things but yet continue to focus on the other 10%.

I practice C and R 95% of the time. My last trout I killed is pictured in my Avatar and that was a stocker 18 months ago.
Many of my hunting and gear/baitfishing friends would argue that C and R is inflicting possibly pain without a good enough purpose....only your entertainement. If you value fish only for their meat, that is a valid arguement.

Here's what I object to:

1) Having a small but vocal minority of the C and R crowd insinuate that many baitfisherman are poachers/literbugs/slobs/incompetent fisherman, etc, etc, etc, etc. Its only a small minority of bait and meat fisherman. I respect the passion of the C and R zealots but am afriad his approach will render him ineffective.

2) Insinuating that bait fisherman and meat fisherman do not care about or value trout. They just value it in another way. C and R fisherman don't not have a monopoly on ethical angling.

3) Insinuating that bait fisherman and meat fisherman do not have a conservation ethic. They probably have a bigger vested interest in limiting their creel to ensure their harvest is sustainable. They will probably stop fishing threatened fisheries long before C and R fisherman do.....simply because the fishing will suck from a meat fishing perspective.

4) Here's the kicker......and this may be a big misperception on my part and my friends part but pisses my gear/bait/meat fishing friends off to no end.....is when regs appear to be used to limit the number and types of fisherman on a section of prime trout stream. Take the regs on the little J, for example. Meat fisherman won't go there because there is no meat to be had because of the regs. Almost all bait fisherman and a high percentage of gear fisherman do no practice C and R, so you basically are making the little J a playground for C and R flyfisherman. I mean do you really think going from a 24" limit with artifical lures only to baitfishing with C and R only really protects more fish? If you really needed more "protection" for the little J why not go single hook or barbless? How does allowing bait in a C and R environment make any sense at all? Are their really that many fish on the Liittle J over 24" that would be available to harvest? I mean I realize it was a political and not logical solution, but come on, it all looks very fishy, especially the last step.....

Would I enjoy fishing there as a C and R fisherman? Absolutely, it'll proabably be a lot less crowded. But its just not fair to all those people buy trout stamps and who fish for food first and for entertainment second.

It is obvious to me that Maurice, Chaz, and others work very hard to conserve and protect trout, but I think a lot of potential allies to our cause are lost when C and R regs are a focal point of a conservation platform. You lost a lot of defenders of the little J went C and R when you didn't have to.

C and R is just a means to an end and shouldn't be valued just to be valued. You need to prove its the only reasonable effective option available, and we are definitely far from that in most watersheds IMHO.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

well i give up. your right im the villian here. :-(

 

[OhioOutdoorsman]

You are not the villian. Your intentions are pristine. I'm just saying if you consider changing your tactics, you might actually acheive your goals, most of which we share in common, a lot quicker.

 

[OhioOutdoorsman]

Just another example....those fish I filleted fed my in-laws that night. None of them fish. They said it was the best fish they had ever eaten and we spent 15-20 minutes talking about trout and where the stream was where I caught them in. That evening, a half dozen more people valued trout and East Hickory Creek in particular. My mother in law now sews rod socks for free for the rods I auction off for conservation charities.

This is the whole point behind TU's "Eat Wild Salmon" campaign....to get money and awareness from a non-fishing but fish eating public to support the wild fisheries. Sustanable harvest is can bring awareness and economic value to a wild fishery.

 

[FarmerDave]

CaptMatt wrote:
For the record I’m not that insane. I do sneak a kiss here and there though. Also, Sail Cats are nasty critters, poisonous barbs and all. I keep a stick on board and beat them over the head before removing the hook. There I feel better. For a while I think you guys thought I was a tree hugger. Hope that helps

Dude, a sail cat is not even a fish. It's a regular cat that has been run over several times and dried in the sun to a flat sheet. You peel them off the road, and they fly like a frisbee.

By the way, I never thought you were a tree hugger, but now after I see how you deal with catfish, I think you are a sissy. I hope you are eating those catfish after clubbing them. As a fan of catfish, I am appalled at your treatment of this majestic animal. I never tried to eat the barbs, so I don't know if they are poisonous. They aren't venomous either. They just hurt a little and can easily get infected.

However, even when using the club over the head technique for releasing catfish, the survival rate is still pretty good. You can’t say that about those soft wimpy trout.

One day last hear I decided to have fresh catfish for dinner, so I went down to the pond and caught a channel catfish (about a 2 footer). I clubbed it over the head and then filleted it and left what was left in the back of my utility vehicle. There was just the skeleton with the intrails head and two flaps of skin still attached. I thought it was dead. The head was not moving. About an hour or so later I went back out to dispose of the remains and decided to just throw them in my pond in the woods. Lots of things in there that would eat it. I came back after dinner to see if anything was feeding on it (it was floating when I left). I could see the gill flaps moving. At first I thought it was something feeding on it, but after looking closed, I could see it was still alive!!! I came back a couple hours later, and it was still alive, and the gill flaps were moving even more, and the flaps of skin had been pulled off. The next morning I went down, and it was gone. I’ll assume a turtle, or a raccoon got it. True story.

P.S. The sissy thing was a joke. I don’t think you are any more of a sissy than the rest these guys here.

 

[CaptMatt]

No your right Im a complete sissy. ha ha. I actually use them as cut tarpon bait sometimes. Im no sissy, One hit and their history. :lol:

Ohio, I think what your saying sums up the elitist attitude that is plaguing our sport. Your description of "what pisses you off" the elite of the elite fly fishing attitude. Im tired of it and its hurting our sport. Great point Ohio.

 

[Wulff-Man]

OhioOutdoorsman wrote:
...... Take the regs on the little J, for example. Meat fisherman won't go there because there is no meat to be had because of the regs. Almost all bait fisherman and a high percentage of gear fisherman do no practice C and R, so you basically are making the little J a playground for C and R flyfisherman. I mean do you really think going from a 24" limit with artifical lures only to baitfishing with C and R only really protects more fish? If you really needed more "protection" for the little J why not go single hook or barbless? How does allowing bait in a C and R environment make any sense at all? Are their really that many fish on the Liittle J over 24" that would be available to harvest? I mean I realize it was a political and not logical solution, but come on, it all looks very fishy, especially the last step.....

I think you are absolutely right about this. Maurice covered the history to this decision by the PFBC, and it is very hard to understand the logic, if any, behind it. I mean, even the C&R anglers were behind the trophy trout ALO regs. I'm really curious as to why the PFBC ended up with C&R and allowed bait fishing. Just trying to please everybody, with a bad result?

Concerning your 90% agreement statement, Jack's post at the top of this page really supports that. Here I am debating him, and I don't think he said one thing in that "policy statement" that I disagree with. But the details are where you can run into problems. Like the numbers and sizes of fish in a stream that makes it a good fishery to anglers of different interests. I think these are also the details that pertain to the discussion that Capt Matt and FarmerDave were having, as far as what is a good, bad, or "sustainable" fishery. It's in the eye of the beholder.

And as far as talking to animals, doesn't everybody do it? I wouldn't trust someone who doesn't. :-D