Thanks everyone for the perspective. Good to know I'm not nuts reading
articles like that.
Good links, Ed. Thanks for that. Seems to me that even with the stocking
and conservation efforts in the Great Lakes, the clean-up they've gone
through in the last 30-40 years would contribute to the increased
biodiversity (i.e. coaster rehab) as much as stocking and C&R. Your mining
regulation work is important in bringing back the coasters, as well as the
bass, lakers, forage fish, etc.
Growing up in Chicago, in the 70's and 80's there was some salmon, trout and
perch fishing around the lakefront there. A lot of those were stocked. Now
there are bass (LM & SM), pike, walleye, crappies and other fish in the
harbors. I have to think this is from the cleanup. But I digress.
Good fishin, everyone.
Kev
F&R Club
From: Ed Roden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [VFB] Environmentalist/Conservation - FR&R
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 13:39:04 -0500
Here is the article in question....
http://www.flyrodreel.com/index.php/page/issues/sku/FRR2006_03/id/19064
Here is some additional info:
Michigan Coaster Brook Program:
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153--130603--,00.html
Detailed Michigan Regulations:
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10364-113417--,00.html
I would agree that "a mass slaughter" is an overstatement in this article.
If you look at the number of streams and tributaries in the upper peninsula
(pages 17-28 in the regulations above), you will realize that it would be
almost impossible to even attempt enforcement for all of the areas. If you
are familiar with the UP, there isn't much up there but land and trees and
animals. No major highways (realistically). MCTU is very active in slowing
down the stocking, and we are one of the organizations at the table in
putting together the sulfide mining regulations (with the same concerns as
Mr. Williams expresses - ENFORCEMENT).
His "fillet-and-release" comment is weird - but in the context, he is
talking about a group that was complaining about "excessive" regulations,
which most of the anglers supported and had enacted. For most of you on
this list, if you had 1 18"' trout, you would have dinner, and you would be
perfectly satisfied, and probably would not have complained about the new
limit.
At the very end of the article, he comments "I remain unconvinced that you
can kill any brook trout - even one a day - and expect a truly healthy
population over the long term." I would disagree with this statement - with
the growth of the C-and-R people, more and more are releasing almost
everything they catch. Keeping one now and again will not destroy it.
I think the greater need is continued education. My TU chapter (Clinton
Valley), is getting more involved with the local watershed organization to
team up, as well as doing educational days at nature centers - this brings
in new people who you can teach about the environment, and get kids to
realize what it means to respect the water and the nature surrounding it.
On 2/9/06, Ed Roden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> That issue is still on the night-stand - I'll try and read Ted's rant
> later today and comment.....if you aren't familiar with Ted Williams, he
is
> an EXTREMELY thought-provoking writer who will usually rub you the wrong
way
> for something. Almost every issue has a letter of somebody complaining
> they're canceling their subscription because of him, but I have found him
to
> be very thorough in most of his research, even if I don't agree with all
of
> his conclusions.
>
> I would encourage you to do a google search on "michigan coaster brook
> trout" to find out more. They are endangered, though in the UP more from
> sulfide mining than from "fillet-and-release" crowds.
>
> I'll add more later....
>
> On 2/8/06, Kevin W. Machon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On the environmentalist topic, has anyone found Ted Williams article in
> > the
> > newest FR&R, "Bringing Back The Giants", about great lakes "coaster"
> > brookies mildly disturbing?
> >
> > I'm fine with fishing magazines calling for removing dams and new
> > legislation and even picinkg out any political party for doing whatever
> > they're doing. But this article seems to cross some line. A couple
> > passages (and I'll try to not otally remove them from context):
> >
> > "Although Wisconsin and Michigan still allow the mass slaughter of
> > potential
> > coasters in most of their tributaries," and "In 1989, despite an ugly
> > confrontation with the fillet-and-release crowd-". C'mon! Slaughter?
> > Fillet-and-release? What does that even mean? Keep some and release
> > some?
> >
> > I know folks on the list here keep sone fish they catch for the freezer
> > (gasp!) - bass, trout, panfish, whatever - and I have some in my
freezer
> > -
> > bass, trout, panfish and whatever - although I release 95% of what I
> > catch
> > as I'm sure most of you all do, too. I don't need to feel guilty about
> > eating what I catch, and I don't think anyoe who legally catches and
> > keeps
> > fish. This article seems like over the top browbeating.
> >
> > Has anyone else senn this and have any reaction? Or am I totally
> > overreacting?
> >
> > Sorry - had to vent.
> >
> > Kev
> > Proud Member, Fillet-and-Release Club (whatever that means)
> >
> >
> >
