Little J No More

[Wulff-Man]

FarmerDave, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that catfish was "alive". I would say that it was just the nervous system continuing to function on a very basic level. But it is pretty amazing, and it has kind of a horror story feel to it.

It brought back some fond memories of when I was a young kid, and we caught (and ate!) catfish from the Susquehanna. My Granny used to clean them for us, and she would take their heads and work them like puppets while chasing us around.

 

[CaptMatt]

Wulff-Man wrote:
as far as what is a good, bad, or "sustainable" fishery. It's in the eye of the beholder.

I disagree. My point was that we as anglers do not know what a fishery can sustain. We can have a pretty good guess but it is up to the biologists to decide that.

 

[Wulff-Man]

You might be right about that, CaptMatt. Is there a scientific definition of "sustainable" I wonder? In thinking about it, it could mean different things. Anything from just capable of maintaining a reproducing population to maintaining a population at the maximum carrying capacity of the stream.

 

[OhioOutdoorsman]

Take the FFO only section I frequent the most.....Little Sandy Creek.....this is 90% a stocked fishery. There are a few wild fish but definitely not a self-sustaining wild trout sport fishery.

If we are going to have C and R regs, they should be done on threatened wild and preferable brook trout, not stocked populations. I think this is something we could all agree on. Besides, C and R fisherman are much more likely to appreciate a wild fishing experience for, in general, smaller trout. And truth be told, most meat fisherman don't give a hoot about fishing for small brook trout, so practically speaking, they wouldn't be missing anything either.

It make no sense to have Little Sandy under C and R FFO regs and then have mutiple struggling brook trout streams under general regs within a few miles of Little Sandy.

 

[CaptMatt]

Wulff-Man wrote:
You might be right about that, CaptMatt. Is there a scientific definition of "sustainable" I wonder? In thinking about it, it could mean different things. Anything from just capable of maintaining a reproducing population to maintaining a population at the maximum carrying capacity of the stream.

I think the definition varies from place to place. No two streams are a like and they could and should be managed differently. If that means C&R only in places so be it. If it means harvest is allowed, so be it. I was simply suggestion the importance of agencies to recognize that and MANAGE that particular fishery in the appropriate way.

 

[CaptMatt]

Farmer Dave, for the record, our definition of a "sail cat" is def different. You are referring to the northern definition and I am referring to the saltwater definition. So I think I have a solution. Come to FL Ill give you a great rate on a charter and we will do nothing but fish for the slimy junk that are saltwater catfish. It would be a charter captain first. You get to handle all the fish because I'm a sissy and your the tough guy. That venom wont even bother you nor will the ER doctor that has to remove the barb. (all joking aside I have 2 buddies who experienced that). Whata ya say?! ha ha ha

 

[trubski]

OhioOutdoorsman wrote:
If we are going to have C and R regs, they should be done on threatened wild and preferable brook trout, not stocked populations. I think this is something we could all agree on.

Which brings me back to the LittleJ. Not a 'threatened' population at least as long as the upstream discharges are kept under control. It seems to me that a more intelligent management approach to that stream might be slot regulations (since the Trophy Trout regs were of questionable value), single/barbless hooks, perhaps FFO sections and possibly CR sections in parts of the river that are having trouble (although none leap to mind).

Establishing CR regulations while allowing all tackle makes no sense, nor, to me, does allowing no harvest in a thriving population.

 

[tomgamber]

trubski wrote:

Which brings me back to the LittleJ. Not a 'threatened' population at least as long as the upstream discharges are kept under control. It seems to me that a more intelligent management approach to that stream might be slot regulations (since the Trophy Trout regs were of questionable value), single/barbless hooks, perhaps FFO sections and possibly CR sections in parts of the river that are having trouble (although none leap to mind).

Establishing CR regulations while allowing all tackle makes no sense, nor, to me, does allowing no harvest in a thriving population.

I like slot limits and have seen them work well in other places. Most fishermen in Pa neither understand them or are in favor of them. They want things as simple as possible. So it'll never happen. They also just removed the barbless regs on their Heritage sections instead of adding them t the fly fishing only C&R areas, which means if they were to revert back to them, they'd have to admit they were wrong for doing so and that will never happen. I have no trouble with C&R regs. I have a problem with 15 inches being considered a trophy. When the limits goes above 18 or 20 inches, they might actually do what they were designed to do. The trophy regs as they are now are actually slot limits without and upper limit. Thats why they don't work.

 

[JackM]

I might be wrong, but I think that barbless hook requirements were abandoned because data showed that mortality was not much greater with the barb. I know I can get a fish back in the water quicker and am less likely to manhandle it or drop it without the barb, so I still mash barbs before tying and usually also do so with purchased flies.

 

[trubski]

The trophy regs as they are now are actually slot limits without and upper limit. Thats why they don't work.

Yup, good point. I agree, if 'trophy' size was 18" or 20" it would make more sense.

 

[tomgamber]

I do the same...If you must release a fish because the regs say so...why not use barbless. I noticed last week that I forgot to mash the barbs on a bunch of spiders I tied for bluegills. Even when fishing for 'gills it was a pain getting them off the hook.

 

[trubski]

I still mash barbs before tying and usually also do so with purchased flies.

I do the same, not only for getting them off the hook but for getting them on. Maybe I'm deluding myself but I've always thought it was easier to set a barbless hook.

 

[FarmerDave]

Wulff-Man wrote:
FarmerDave, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that catfish was "alive". I would say that it was just the nervous system continuing to function on a very basic level. But it is pretty amazing, and it has kind of a horror story feel to it.

One would initially think that, but we are talking hours here. and it was getting more active. If memory serves me, the exposed heart was still beating, too. I can't remember for sure

 

[FarmerDave]

CaptMatt wrote:
Farmer Dave, for the record, our definition of a "sail cat" is def different. You are referring to the northern definition and I am referring to the saltwater definition. So I think I have a solution. Come to FL Ill give you a great rate on a charter and we will do nothing but fish for the slimy junk that are saltwater catfish. It would be a charter captain first. You get to handle all the fish because I'm a sissy and your the tough guy. That venom wont even bother you nor will the ER doctor that has to remove the barb. (all joking aside I have 2 buddies who experienced that). Whata ya say?! ha ha ha

You got me there. You never know what you will get into in salt water, and the warmer the water, the more strange and dangerous the fish can be. I might be in Florida next winter for about a week and will probably be looking for a charter. Not for saltwater catfish of course. :-D

Check this picture out. Caught him on that 6 foot 4 weight rod. Fought him for over a week to land him. Good thing i was using a steal leader. How's that for a tough guy!!! :-D

 

[OhioOutdoorsman]

If a fishery is so threatened that it can only withstand C and R fishing, I personally, will not fish it it at all, no matter what the regs are on it. Why stress a population that is that stressed already for what will in all likelyhood be a marginal fishing experience at best?

I guess I just don't understand people who do this type of fishing like some don't underrstand that I feel the need to keep a fish every now and again. And thats fine....there's room on the water for all of us.

I'm due. Plan to fish for some stockers to keep this weekend. Thanks, trubski, for calling it to my attention.

 

[FarmerDave]

trubski wrote:

I do the same, not only for getting them off the hook but for getting them on. Maybe I'm deluding myself but I've always thought it was easier to set a barbless hook.

you know, I've noticed that too with trout. However, I've tried that with largemouth bass, and I seemed to lose a lot more than usual. It could be the structure of their mouth, and it could be the much larger mass of the plug that allows them to work it free easier.

 

[OhioOutdoorsman]

I mash barbs because its easier to unhook myself that way.

 

[FarmerDave]

OhioOutdoorsman wrote:
Take the FFO only section I frequent the most.....Little Sandy Creek.....this is 90% a stocked fishery. There are a few wild fish but definitely not a self-sustaining wild trout sport fishery.

If we are going to have C and R regs, they should be done on threatened wild and preferable brook trout, not stocked populations. I think this is something we could all agree on. Besides, C and R fisherman are much more likely to appreciate a wild fishing experience for, in general, smaller trout. And truth be told, most meat fisherman don't give a hoot about fishing for small brook trout, so practically speaking, they wouldn't be missing anything either.

It make no sense to have Little Sandy under C and R FFO regs and then have mutiple struggling brook trout streams under general regs within a few miles of Little Sandy.

You are quite right. The C&R regs on Little Sandy are out of place. I think there is a long history of why it is C&R, but i don't know that much of it. I know they actually poisoned it to remove the browns and stopped stocking it so the brook trout in the headwaters would have a fighting chance to repopulate the stream. I think it was in the 1970s. that lasted for about a year until the locals screamed enough that they started stocking it again (with browns). I think this may have been a "scientific study" and they concluded it didn't work.

 

[CaptMatt]

FarmerDave wrote:

CaptMatt wrote:
Farmer Dave, for the record, our definition of a "sail cat" is def different. You are referring to the northern definition and I am referring to the saltwater definition. So I think I have a solution. Come to FL Ill give you a great rate on a charter and we will do nothing but fish for the slimy junk that are saltwater catfish. It would be a charter captain first. You get to handle all the fish because I'm a sissy and your the tough guy. That venom wont even bother you nor will the ER doctor that has to remove the barb. (all joking aside I have 2 buddies who experienced that). Whata ya say?! ha ha ha

You got me there. You never know what you will get into in salt water, and the warmer the water, the more strange and dangerous the fish can be. I might be in Florida next winter for about a week and will probably be looking for a charter. Not for saltwater catfish of course. :-D

Check this picture out. Caught him on that 6 foot 4 weight rod. Fought him for over a week to land him. Good thing i was using a steal leader. How's that for a tough guy!!! :-D

YOU DA MAN! Ha ha ha. Thats ridiculous! You have a new IGFA record for sure! Now Im going for a hammerhead this weekend with my bamboo 3wt just so I feel better. I'll use a kayak to take the cake. Look me up when your down it will be a good time.

 

[tomgamber]

FarmerDave wrote:

trubski wrote:

I do the same, not only for getting them off the hook but for getting them on. Maybe I'm deluding myself but I've always thought it was easier to set a barbless hook.

you know, I've noticed that too with trout. However, I've tried that with largemouth bass, and I seemed to lose a lot more than usual. It could be the structure of their mouth, and it could be the much larger mass of the plug that allows them to work it free easier.

Thats th old hard mouth vs soft mouth thing. When you hook a bass you usually just make a hole in the membrane covering the boney fram of the mouth and the hook will slip thru that hole easier. With trout the mouth is fleshy and soft. I use many of my flies for different kinds of fish so I mash all barbs. But if you have flies you use only for bass, if you don't flatten those barbs, you'll keep more of those fish hooked. Whats nice is that Bass have that "handle" to hold on to while you remove that hook from the hole.