Little J No More

[salvelinusfontinalis]

so do i wulff. brookies have been around for so long. i like to think that the ones i catch and release will breed and create other brookies. then 100 years from now, if we havent destroyed everything, someone else will catch fish that came from the one i held in my hand. kinda links me past my time. :-D

 

[troutbert]

I just got back from my first good sulphur outing of the season. I caught and released a bunch of wild browns. I'm feeling soooo conflicted.

Whoooo Hoooo!!!! It' sulphur time, and the living is easy. Fish are jumping.....

 

[trubski]

Gosh. I can't believe how long this thread has continued - and without degenerating into a slugfest. I'm new to this board, though, maybe you guys don't do slugfests.

I almost feel guilty for having taken the evening off to fish I saw sulphurs too, but only a couple and the fish weren't rising to them. In fact, they weren't rising to anything (#@#!@#!) and I was doing well on BWO's just yesterday...

Here's how I defend voluntary CR to non fisher people:

1. Practice. I might need to live on this someday.

2. Education - for the trout. I agree with salvelinusfontinalis. I never, ever kill wild native brookies. There aren't enough of them. There will never again be enough of them. But, if I find myself in a place where they are big enough to fish for I will fish for them to try to teach them not to be so damn stupid (I won't mention the times they've made me look stupid).

Here's how I do it: I kiss them on the lips and release them with the instructions to go and sin no more. It's cruel and unusual I know, but if that doesn't educate them I don't know what will.

3. It's fun. I feel no need to justify that. But if I had to I would say it does no real damage, it teaches me about the world I live in and makes me want to take care of it, and it involves me in a community of people who are passionate conservationists. What could be better than that?

But I still like to eat a couple browns now and then, and the wild ones are SO much better

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

you must be new....we dont do slugfests HA! :-D
p.s. kiss the fish doesnt seem cruel, maybe just a little odd

 

[spectorfly]

Just read this post for the first time.

"every now and then, you have to kill one or it all means nothing."

I guess I'll have to use this kind of backward logic when meeting new people. I can only take meeting so many stupid people in 1 year so I guess I'll have to kill 1 every now and again.

I fish, therefore I am. I protect and preserve wild trout. That is all the meaning I need.

 

[OhioOutdoorsman]

I fish, therefore I am. I protect and preserve wild trout.

These two above activities are mutually exclusive. There is nothing DIRECTLY about the fishing act that protects fishs. Releasing fish helps conserve a resource but catching and releasing fish does more harm than not fishing at all.

Can the trout populations handle the stress of C and R fishing?

Absolutely. So the point is practically moot.

My whole point with my posts is that C and R fishing is not neccessarily more ethical than keeping fish you catch.

The C and R fisherman does more good than the meat fisherman when he releases fish in waters that are threatened by overharvest.

I would also argue that the meat fisherman does more good than the C and R fisherman when he keeps fish from a non-threatened waterhed because is providing someone with food from his efforts while a C and R fisherman is not.

A meat fisherman may even be doing more good than a C and R fisherman if he harvests say brown trout that we stocked over a brook trout population....he's providing food AND protecting the brook trout, while the C and R fisherman is doing neither.

The creel is the justification for fishing in the first place. The C and R ethic evolved out of a conservation ethic when creels became excessive and depleted resources. When a watershed becomes completely C and R, the original justification for fishing is lost and a new one has to be found. If society says that entertainment of the fisherman is enough justification for fishing, I can live with that........I'm just saying I feel that the meat fisherman has as much if not more justification for his fishing than the C and R fisherman does on most waters.

 

[OhioOutdoorsman]

Let me also speak to the actually act of killing fish. Trubski and several others have spoken to the fact that they feel killing of fish is necessary some of the time.

Unless you have actually killed another animal while hunting or fishing, this is very difficult to explain, but I will try.....

When you kill a fish in a very intimate way like chopping off its head, you gain a really carnal appreciation of the ultimate sacrifice that the fish is making for you. It dies so you can live. Some cultures and people actually believe that game and fish actually allow themselves to be caught or hunted as a way of fulfilling this destiny. The biblical references are obvious but this is something found in many cultures. You gain a love and respect for that fish or animal that you would not gain by buying meat in a grocery store.

Although it is almost impossible to explain to someone that has not fished or hunting, the above experience almost makes the act of fishing or hunting an act of love for the fish or animal.

This post may seem to contidict my last post in some ways, but I'm speaking purely on a spiritual and emotional level here, while the last post was pure logic.

Enough......I have yardwork and fishing to do.

 

[troutbert]

But if I had to I would say it does no real damage, it teaches me about the world I live in and makes me want to take care of it, and it involves me in a community of people who are passionate conservationists.

This is a very important point. I've met a lot of people in the agencies and academia involved in aquatic conservation issues. Only the ones who fish have a deep understanding of streams.

I think traditionally most people who went into aquatic conservation fields were fishermen. There seems to be a trend for a lot of non-fishermen to be entering this field, and I think it's somewhat worrying. They are well intentioned people, but because they have little experience on the streams, there's just so much that they don't know. If you fish a lot and are reasonably observant, you learn a tremendous amount over the years. Including stuff that doesn't appear in the textbooks.

 

[trubski]

A short piece written by John Gierach on the subject of releasing and/or killing fish:

"Maybe it's just the people I fish with, but I think I've seen that attitude soften a little in recent years. My friends and I still spend a lot of time on catch-and-release areas because the fishing is usually at least better than average, and we often release trout even in places where the law doesn't require it.

But we also like to keep some now and then on waters where that's legal and when it otherwise seems right. "

The whole article is here:

http://www.ruralvermont.com/vermontweathervane/issues/spring/98004/releasing_trout.shtml

 

[spectorfly]

Quote:
Quote:
I fish, therefore I am. I protect and preserve wild trout.


These two above activities are mutually exclusive. There is nothing DIRECTLY about the fishing act that protects fishs. Releasing fish helps conserve a resource but catching and releasing fish does more harm than not fishing at all.

The first part is self explanitory. I didn't feel like writing a long post about how I do the second part and the activites I do and are active in to do this because I hate long posts. I thought that that would have been self explanitory also based upon what people have read in previous posts of mine. But basically I DO NOT Kill wild trout.

I feel that urge to kill stupid people again.

 

[Maurice]

Spectorfly wrote;
I fish, therefore I am. I protect and preserve wild trout.

Ohiooutdoorsman wrote:

These two above activities are mutually exclusive. There is nothing DIRECTLY about the fishing act that protects fishs. Releasing fish helps conserve a resource but catching and releasing fish does more harm than not fishing at all.

OO,

That is so literal it is silly. He didn't say he "DIRECTLY" Fishes, protects and preserves wild trout, did he?

How abou this...C&R is a conservation practice that PROTECTS trout from;

A.) stringer wear on the gills
B.) gutting
C.) Freezer burn
D.) Skillet seer

Should I go on?

Evven if a percentage of fish die in the process, the percentage that have survived are conserved or protected from death.

Protection in a biology field may have direct meaning toward a form of protection from extirpation, extinction or endangering but as far as I am concerned, (as a fisherman) they mean the same thing. Even as a TU member, I see the words in the Motto "Conserve, Protect, Restore" as being unspecific and able to carry meaning non-specific to species, or natural resources. That is to say...I do not believe the CONSERVE means only water, PROTECT means only endangered fish and RESTORE only means Stream banks.

Maurice

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

well said maurice.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

all i can say anymore is:

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t76/salvelinusfontinalis/DCFC0025.jpg


:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D

 

[OhioOutdoorsman]

The releasing of fish is the conservation practice, the catching is not.

For a large percentage of people, creeling fish forms the foundation of their legitatmate sportly ethic.

I said DIRECTLY because there is an IMPLICIT and sometimes explicit statements by many on this board that creeling fish is unethical.

I do not mean to offend or be stupid.

I don't start these endless PFBC/conservation/ethic discussions that dominate this board, and I'm done with this one.

 

[MattBoyer]

When you kill a fish in a very intimate way like chopping off its head, you gain a really carnal appreciation of the ultimate sacrifice that the fish is making for you. It dies so you can live. Some cultures and people actually believe that game and fish actually allow themselves to be caught or hunted as a way of fulfilling this destiny. The biblical references are obvious but this is something found in many cultures. You gain a love and respect for that fish or animal that you would not gain by buying meat in a grocery store.

Although it is almost impossible to explain to someone that has not fished or hunting, the above experience almost makes the act of fishing or hunting an act of love for the fish or animal.

I guess that was probably a better way to say what I was saying in my earlier posts. I think a lot of people got up in arms about something that was not as big as they made it. Stephen King once said, and I'm paraphrasing here: There are a few differrent steps to crazy. Most people don't think it's too wierd to think that walking under a ladder is bad luck. It's slightly more crazy if you start writing letters to the editor saying that all ladders should be removed because they are a public detriment. The stark raving lunatic will be running around town knocking over ladders for the public good. I think in practice my little superstition would be akin to the wondering whether ladders were bad luck or not. I haven't even avoided going under one, so to speak, it's just a theory. I have killed exactly 5 trout knowingly in the last 5 years. They were stocked brookies and it was 3 weeks ago on a 30 fish day. Get off yer dern high horses and stop "killing stupid people". :-D Stupid is a relative term. You might be somebody elses stupid for all you know, so be careful levying judgement. My whole response started by trying to stick up for a guy who seems pretty all right in my book, then I drank too much espresso and rambled a bit. I can't say I retract my post, because I still believe in natural selection, and although Darwin wasn't the best scientist ever, he was right about some things. Even more importantly, I would love for anybody to point me to the stream where the trout have gone extinct from over harvest. Habitat degradation is a real threat to the well being of wild trout. The meat fishing boogie man is not out there destroying the world, our cars and factories are. It saddens me that one of my old brookie streams is on the EPA's endangered stream list because of acid rain. It was frequented by meat hunters back when it was ATW, my younger self included. It is still full of natives, but they are nothing like when It was stocked and there were hundreds of people there every first day. I'm not in any way advocating meat hunting, I'm just saying I know creeks with heavy harvest that still have large quantities of natives. At any rate, I worked all weekend, then read this post, and was surprised at how quick some people are to judge, sometimes harshly. The thread on a whole went quite civilly, with some good points made, but this is a touchy subject to say the least. This has been edited because my original post sounded much assier than I meant it to be, so sorry for anybody who read this the first time. I'm not that much of a jerk, but it sure looked like it when I first reread it. :-( Sorry.

Boyer

 

[troutbert]

I feel that urge to kill stupid people again.

Moderators you have the choice whether to leave this type of thing on the website, or to remove it. Is there any good reason to keep it? Does it contribute to the goals of the website or detract from it?

I can only offer the viewpoint of one reader/contributor, but when I go to a flyfishing website, this isn't what I'm looking for.

 

[jayL]

After reading all of this, it kind of seems like there's alot of turning 0 into -100 + 100.... I'm not even sure exactly what I mean by that, but it's a concept I've discussed with long winded friends before. You fish because you just do. That's the result. You have positive and negative reasons, but the result is that you fish. You don't have to explain that to anyone IMO.

From what I know about the "butterfly effect" [not the movie], it's not really possible to pinpoint our reasoning for some things.... the wind just blew us there, and we like it so we stay. As an engineer, it's hard to accept that.... I just do, I guess.

One point to a fish's feeling pain. I maintain that if you put a hook in my cheek that I'm going wherever you pull me... I'm most certainly not going the other direction.

 

[JackM]

troutbert wrote:

I feel that urge to kill stupid people again.

Moderators you have the choice whether to leave this type of thing on the website, or to remove it. Is there any good reason to keep it? Does it contribute to the goals of the website or detract from it?

I can only offer the viewpoint of one reader/contributor, but when I go to a flyfishing website, this isn't what I'm looking for.

Not everything posted here contributes to the goals of the website. A moderator cannot delete things just because it seems that there was "no good reason" for it to be posted. It is much easier to ask you and others to ignore things that offend you personally, but are really just the sort of off-color, ignorant, or over-the-top speech that one should be able to tolerate in a society made up of a wide variety of personality types. No offense intended to the author of that statement; frankly, I didn't understand it in the first place, but it has as much chance as insulting the author himself as any other person.

 

[Chaz]

Our first obligation as anglers is to protect the fishery for the next generation, period. There is no obligation to kill wild trout. It's just stupid logic. PFBC won't protect most wild trout fisheries, it is our duty to make sure we do our best to protect them, and if we should be fishing where we may harvest stocked trout we should do that, that is what the stocked trout are there for.

 

[OhioOutdoorsman]

If not practicing 100% catch and release on wild fisheries is so stupid and illogical, why did TU promote eating wild salmon in its recent magazine? They get it, John Geirlach gets it, Trubski, matt, and I get it.....why don't you?

Sportfishing rarely (I didn't say never) is a major threat to a fishery. If you look at the Eastern Brook Trout Collaborative report, you'll see only a small percentage of fisheries are threatened due to overharvest. We should all leave them alone.

Furthermore, conservation is only one of many values involved in the act of fishing. Getting food from fishing is the founding value that started fishing, and its riduculous that anyone should have to defend a sustainable harvest, even of wild trout.

Lets stop villifying the easy target - the guy with a few fish in his bucket - and focus on the real issues - deforestation, development, agricutural runoff, riparian habitat, invasive species, acid runoff from mines, and thermal pollution - things the C and R fisherman and the meat fisherman should be working TOGETHER on.