Little J No More

Dear Ohio Outdoorsman,

You've fought the good fight but it's time to give up. You'll never convince the religious disciples of catch and release fishing that harvest is ever a good thing. If those folks truly meant to do no harm they wouldn't even fish but then they couldn't promote their feel good agenda.

Having the rules made by people who only fish for amusement makes as much sense as having the traffic laws written by people who don't own, drive, or use automobiles but that is what these people want. They say it's for the benefit of the fish but who do they think they are kidding?

It's for the benefit of themselves.

Regards,
Tim Murphy :)
 
You're right, Tim. I should let it go. I just get a bit touchy when people point out that I'm a blood-stained knuckle-dragging stupid neaderthal. I haven't gotten this fired up since the last wave of Geico commercials. :) (old school smiley)


BTW- my new avatar is me fileting a stocked brown from a wild brookie stream. Just keapin' it real for ya all. Note the PA fishing liscence hanging from my hat. Stylish.
 
Ohio, Chaz didn't say that killing any wild trout whatsoever was stupid logic, he said that trying to say it was somehow an obligation was stupid logic. There is a definite difference. Aside from the fact that it doesn't make sense to those of us who "just don't get it" it also implies that we are doing something wrong by not periodically killing some wild trout.

Now, many of us would prefer that there were more restrictions on harvesting wild trout, but I don't think most of us villify anybody who is keeping some. Well, maybe as long as he's not taking his limit as often as he can. The issue is more with the regulations that allow it. You're right that environmental and habitat issues are big factors, but there are places where over harvest is a bigger and immediate threat.
 
True, but killing a fish does add some justification for fishing, not detract from its justification. I'm comfortable with fishing being entertainment. But I'm even more comfortable with fishing also being able to provide food every now and then, especially when there's a possibility I'm causing fish to have pain. (We will never know what a fish is thinking/feeling)

Having regulations that ban caught fish from being used for food take away this additional justification.

Why not have intitute trophy trout regs statewide? You could even go further like on Flat Creek in WY where you can only keep on fish over 20". That way we can conserve the fish and occaionally have the additional justification of having food from our fishing efforts occasionally.

That is my and trubski's point.
 
OhioOutdoorsman wrote:

...Why not have intitute trophy trout regs statewide? You could even go further like on Flat Creek in WY where you can only keep on fish over 20". That way we can conserve the fish and occaionally have the additional justification of having food from our fishing efforts occasionally.

That is my and trubski's point.
Click to expand...

Actually, that was the original proposal for the changed regs on the little J.

Previous regs: All Tackle Trophy Trout = 2 fish 14" min size

Activist Proposal: Increase the size to 18", add tackle restriction of Artificial lures only to prevent deep hooking of smaller fish by bait fishermen.


Commissioners initial proposal: ALO-TT = Increase size to 24" with ALO regs.

This shocked alot of people how they came up with that proposal. but who were we to argue...I mean it was even better. However, there were rumblings about the affect this would have on the bait crowd and so a compromise was made to allow bait (no tackle restrictions) but make it C&R.

I found the whole thing to be a "feel good" political outcome that really did nothing for the people they were trying to please with the final edit (bait people who harvest).

Anyway, for the record...I stand in the camp that believes occasional harvest of wild trout isn't the end of the world. I don't do it. And I am sure I kill some along the way. But I don't beat myself up for not harvesting them. I believe there are enough people out there harvesting them that don't even know it to make up my quota. Thats why if I am going to have a vocal stand it will be for the protection or conservation of wild trout.

Its not an either/or, each/all propositon. Its a matter of having a counter pressure toward harvest and word of difference toward the PFBC's "Goals" of harvesting 5 wild trout.

FWIW,

Maurice
 
105 responses? That has to be a record.

By the way Jack. The rod shown in my Avatar is actually the rod I use for steelhead. 9 foot 7 weight, split cane. The bluegills seem to be even bigger this year thanks to my pond management. I'll have to update the picture. That one was from 2 years ago. And Ohio, speaking of Neanterthals, check this picture out. Unfortunately, I make the deer look smaller. :-D

P.S. He didn't suffer.
 
Dear Farmer Dave,

Nice buck!

I apologize in advance for this one, but the red flannel shirt and the talk of neanderthals reminds me so much of Earl Sinclair from the TV show 'Dinosaurs" that I think you need a new nickname, from this point hence you shall be known as "Earl". :-D

dinos12-02.jpg


Regards,
Tim Murphy :)
 
That wasn't so bad. For a minute there, I thought you were going to make fun of my hat.

P.S. I thought I told you to stop calling me dear.
 
"Having the rules made by people who only fish for amusement makes as much sense as having the traffic laws written by people who don't own, drive, or use automobiles but that is what these people want. They say it's for the benefit of the fish but who do they think they are kidding?

It's for the benefit of themselves."

A few points.

1. We all “fish for amusement,” regardless of whether we choose to kill wild fish. No one here depends on the fish they kill for sustenance or income. Some of us just don’t feel that killing the fish we catch is an inextricable aspect of our amusement.

2. Your analogy suggests that if you choose not to kill wild fish, you are not a fisherman, and have no stake in fishing regulations, just as non-drivers have no stake in driving regulations. A better driving analogy would be restrictions text messaging while driving. Many drivers who use text messaging favor banning texting while driving, to improve driving conditions for everyone. They don’t want these restrictions on for their own benefit. Similarly, increasing catch and release, DHALO, etc. raises the number of large, wild fish, which improves fishing for everyone.

3. Taken to its logical conclusion, your argument would eliminate all restrictions on fishing. Suppose I want to feed my family by taking as many trout as possible using drift nets and explosives. You fish for amusement, rather than to feed your family, so it makes no more sense for you to regulate my type of fishing than for non-drivers to regulate drivers.
 
I am going to throw fuel on this fire. Not long ago I posted a topic about stockies in PA. I argued that many anglers in PA rely on stock trucks and thought that the streams could sustain a better wild trout population. I got drilled by some of you insisting that there are numerous wild trout populations for an angler willing to seek them out. So then why is it necessary to protect wild trout to such a severe degree? Why is harvest wrong then? Could it be that some of us argue just for the sake of argument or are wild trout truly very hard to come by?
 
So then why is it necessary to protect wild trout to such a severe degree? Why is harvest wrong then? Could it be that some of us argue just for the sake of argument or are wild trout truly very hard to come by?
Click to expand...

they really arent hard to come by. in almost every county i could throw on a flashy bugger and catch a wild brook trout. the point is they are only 1-6 inches long. i would be willing to bet if the regulations were differnt then the catch would be 1-10inches long.
people will harvest what the are allowed to. a 7 inch min is ridiculous! can you even make a sandwich with a 7 inch trout?!
look some may argue for the sake of arguement, but i do not. i Do belive that the regulations need to be changed. i also said that the "occassional harvest of a wild trout is not a bad thing. (and you guys know im hardcore about wild trout). I DO however feel that a 5 a day limit on 7 inch trout is too much and if we really want pa to have a good wild trout sport fishery, then it needs to be changed!

ohio, i dont think any of those things about you. i do agree with you that the harvesters and sport fishers need to work together to fix the problems with our sport fisheries. THEY could start by not harvesting everything they catch. also how many do you know that work on streams? i bet the ratio between flyfisherman and baitfisherman that work on streams is WAY differnt.
also, i do think it is backwards logic that we have to kill one now and again to justify fishing. do i have to take a penny to justify leaving one in that little cup at the convience store? what did i gain by taking one just to leave one?
 
ian_brown wrote:
"Having the rules made by people who only fish for amusement makes as much sense as having the traffic laws written by people who don't own, drive, or use automobiles but that is what these people want. They say it's for the benefit of the fish but who do they think they are kidding?

It's for the benefit of themselves."

A few points.

1. We all “fish for amusement,” regardless of whether we choose to kill wild fish. No one here depends on the fish they kill for sustenance or income. Some of us just don’t feel that killing the fish we catch is an inextricable aspect of our amusement.

2. Your analogy suggests that if you choose not to kill wild fish, you are not a fisherman, and have no stake in fishing regulations, just as non-drivers have no stake in driving regulations. A better driving analogy would be restrictions text messaging while driving. Many drivers who use text messaging favor banning texting while driving, to improve driving conditions for everyone. They don’t want these restrictions on for their own benefit. Similarly, increasing catch and release, DHALO, etc. raises the number of large, wild fish, which improves fishing for everyone.

3. Taken to its logical conclusion, your argument would eliminate all restrictions on fishing. Suppose I want to feed my family by taking as many trout as possible using drift nets and explosives. You fish for amusement, rather than to feed your family, so it makes no more sense for you to regulate my type of fishing than for non-drivers to regulate drivers.
Click to expand...

Ian, just a couple comments. this is kinda getting rediculous. My comments correspond to your numbers above.

1. True. Or at least probably true. But then, I know some people who eat a whole lot of what they catch. Fortunately, they prefer other species.
2. Tim has been around awhile, and i seriously doubt that is what he was suggesting.
3. Here is where you made your mistake: "Taking it to that logical conclusion." HUH??? First of all, it isn't a logical conclusion. That is a rhetorical conclusion. Second of all, this was Tim speaking. :lol:

A logical conclusion would be to allow the experts to manage the regulations, as they do now. There is no need for blanket C&R regulations. Look at it this way. Putting strict C&R guys in charge of making the rules would be as bad as putting PETA in charge of it.

If you want to release all that you catch, that is your choice. It is almost always my choice too when it comes to the natives. However, I don't begrudge anyone who enjoys eating their catch, and I don't care if they do it for philosophical reasons, or because they simply like the taste.
 
Some people surely argue just for the sake of argument, but I'm not gonna admit who does that. However, it seems to me after years of this same argument wearing ever different clothing, that anglers who do not enjoy keeping any part of their catch seem to have trouble grasping how C&R regulations might impact the recreational value of fishing to others who do like to harvest, whether always or occasionally. It does not benefit this other type of angler in the least to have more and bigger fish that he or she is required to return to the stream unharmed, not by choice, but by force of law. Amen.
 
I missed one.

ian_brown wrote:
"Similarly, increasing catch and release, DHALO, etc. raises the number of large, wild fish, which improves fishing for everyone.
Click to expand...

Not true, or at least that is not the intention. DH designation is a regulation for stocked trout. It is supposed to be placed on marginal streams where the fish usually don't survive the summer heat. It is not a regulation htat helps wild trout. In fact, it does more harm than good to wild trout for several reasons. Also, see what Jack said about it not being better for everyone.

Another thing to consider.

Many anglers view special regulations as something ... well ... special. I don't. Changing a stream to any special regulation only increases fishing pressure on that stream. I do feel that they are needed in areas that are already heavily fished. I do not think we need more special regulations as a general statement.
 
Sal, Brook trout aside, If PA had a hard core wild trout population this conversation would not have to take place. The wild trout in PA are mostly the size of my pinky finger (of course im exaggerating a little) and we have great streams. I also am a die hard catch and release fisherman but I’m not a communist. I personally don’t believe that wild trout in PA are plentiful enough to kill. There’s not much wrong with keeping fish if the "herd" can handle it. And who’s to say what it can handle? The PFBC. Unless some of you put together a study with supporting scientific evidence on your own. I'm just holding a grudge from a while back a lot of folks disagreed with me, one even said that I didn’t know any thing about trout fishing. I'ts just the talking out of both sides of the mouth thing. I think ya'll understand.
 
CaptMatt, I'm not sure what experience you have fishing for wild trout in PA, but it is definitely NOT true that large wild trout are lacking. This is the case, by-and-large in the Western third of the Commonwealth, but in the rest of the state, there are plenty wild streams with decent populations of 8-15 inch trout and a few bigger. We can argue whether there are "a lot" of such streams or "enough" of such streams, but I don't think it is possible to refer to them as "rare."
 
well it is true that most of pas wild trout a pinky finger sized trout, which is why i said the regs need changed. now i myself have caught alot of brook trout legal size and above. it requires alot of hiking and searching. i dont think many harvesters feel like carrying a stringer over high gradient streams 1 hour back to the car. now with that said pa could have a great wild trout population.

jack i do agree that it affects the recreational value of some fisherman(harvesters). but then why do we have stocked trout? to harvest. i dont want to hear the arguement of wild fish taste better, because i like snapper stew. and guess what you cant trap snapping turtles anymore. this forced my dinner table by law to change to other foods. but guess what.....i dealt with it. and so should they. they push for stockings and bigger fish.......they got it. dont need to eat wild fish all the time!
 
ya i forgot about the browns jack. we have a bunch of wild brown trout fisheries with plenty of 8-15 inch fish.
 
If you produced comparable science about the "endangered" situation of brook trout as must have been done with snappers, then you would have a decent argument; otherwise, I think you do not. And just to save time, I believe you would not be able to produce such science, time money or interest notwithstanding.
 
arent brook trout endangered in thier native range? or is tu lying.
ok maybe your right. but then look at it this way. if wild trout taste better....stop stocking and fix the streams. get a decent population and then they could harvest without hurting the fisheries so bad. you cant have it both ways jack.
if C&R hurts thier recreational enjoyment.....and them havevesting every trout they catch hurts mine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top