Yea, this debate reminds me of my college days at CSU as a Wildlife Bio student. Of course I believe the way I believe based on what I have studied and seen 1st hand. I remember the days of "the Mile" in the late 70's when huge fish were the norm and now it is coming back due to good management practices after a hard decde or more. I have always advocated eating what you catch as long as it were within legal and moral guidelines. The problem I have is with the egocentrism that accompanies someone's will when they keep a fish of genetically superior qualities. They are only keeping it (in my humble opinion) for bragging rights or for self-gratification...No thought given to the future angler who may catch the same brute or, more probably, the fish that he (the big fish) will propogate through genetic transfer of critical DNA. It's a shame, really, when a stand-up guy who does so much for conservation backtracks on his beliefs, because ultimately what he is saying is something to the effect that "every fish before this big one really was subpar and didn't deserve enough of my respect to display it proudly on my wall..." That's the hypocracy of it all.
But then again, what the hell do I know...I do know that I would never kill a fish just to mount it and I'm proud to say that to anyone who may ask. But when it comes to eating them, I will do so without remorse and chalk it up to survival of the fittest. Also respectfully, Rob --- DonO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Rob, > > I don't want to turn this into a debate or anything, > because I have feelings > for both sides of the issue, and it is an issue in > some areas- creel limits, > C&R, fishing styles (flies/lures vs live bait) etc. > The sides run from > radical to radical, from PETA to people to make out > with the fish before > they release it. I'm somewhere in the middle, > depending (especially) on the > water I'm fishing and the target species. I have a > friend who fishes the > Michigan salmon runs, and he says people snag brown > trout to throw throw > them up on the shore to die, as they will eat the > salmon eggs. Is anyone > aware of this practice? > > Point in fact: Many discussions abounded here about > the river (N. Platte) > health and fish (trout) numbers, the effect of > over-fishing by C&R types > (80-fish days common floating the river), > bait-fishing for table-fare, etc. > The guides were for zero creel limits, and the > food-fishers were for the old > 6 fish per day. Much debate ensued. I remembered > days 20 years ago when > the river was so clogged with debris, weeds, silt, > and sandbars that fishing > was a joke, and catching was a miracle. > > So the river was shock-tested for fish numbers, > sizes, and preferred > locations (10 years ago). Everyone was shocked by > the numbers and sizes, > which were overwhelming. The local fly club and the > G&F Dept. did a great > job restoring the river (in the last 15 years) with > flushing flows, > cow-fences, construction rules, farming/run-off > regulations, habitat, etc. > I don't recall the numbers, but I do remember > thinking one should be able to > walk across the river on the backs of fish, with > that many numbers. Also, > the above 10lb range was phenonimal- thus changing > the rules for > trophy-taking- supported even by the guides. No > one had ever caught one in > all recorded records, but they shocked up dozens of > fish over 20 pounds. > The biggest fish caught to this point is a 17 > pounder, which was BTW, caught > on a Platte River Special streamer, taken home and > eated by a father and his > grandson (it was his first fish). 'Walter', another > favorite 17 pounder, > has been caught and released by several people, and > has a mouth full of > scars to show for his survival skills. > > As far as wild vs natural, breeding-age fish, the > gene-pool, etc., the river > can support some natural breeding, but not enough to > support the tremendous > pressure it has these days. There is a fish farm > that introduces thousands > of fish into the river each year, with clipped fins > to recognize them. > After a year or two in the river and feeding on > natural foods, they are > strong and taste fairly good, if the water is not > silty. The eggs are taken > from breeders, taken from the river, so the > gene-pool is regulated. > > A side-point that few people realize is wild-life > predation on the trout > populations. We don't have otters or water-born > predators, but we do have > pelicans- specifically very-protected white > black-tipped pelicans. These > are huge birds with huge appetities (daily). They > work as a team and a > flock of them can decimate a river, stream, or creek > in short order, and > they prefer trout. I watched one swallow a 7 lb > sucker like it was a > french-fry. They are, again, very protected and you > are not even allowd to > approach them, much less make them stop eating > trout. All the fishing > pressure for the season won't amount to the pressure > from these pelicans, > then add the cormorants (anhingas to some)- which > work the lakes and rivers > very effectually. > > Also, a lot of harm comes from the professional > poachers, who use any means > to gather up fish. They are organized and armed, > and know how to avoid the > G&F wardens. > > So, to me, whether one releases a fish, eats it, > mounts it, or kills it by > mishandling it before releasing it, at least here in > my area it is a > miniscule portion of the big picture on trout > population and health. C&R is > not the answer to trout populations- especially > alone. River management and > habitat protection is. Following the rules set by > the local G&F is the > first-line of fish protection. I never look down on > a person who eats a > legal fish, as I wouldn't want them to think ill of > me for letting it go. > > Respectfully, > DonO > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "rob poutre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 9:11 AM > Subject: Re: [VFB] Huge Brown Trout > > > > I agree with Mike on this one. If that was a > natural > > fish then his genetics would be better served in > that > > area, especially if he was an exceptional fish for > the > > area. I love my reproductions and I know I didn't > > have to kill something for my own selfish needs. > > > > Rob P. > > > > --- Michael Bliss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > This article bothers me a little. I may not > know > > > all I think I do so here I > > > am exposing that. My understanding from talking > to > > > a taxidermist is that > > > when they "stuff" a fish they really don't use > it. > > > They can use the skin > > > but prefer not to use it. Several good pictures > and > > > measurements and you > > > have your wall hanging and leave the fish alive. > Is > > > that right? > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > > On 6/23/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] < > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Folks: Here is an article and a pic I found > where > > > a guy caught a 30 inch, > > > > 10 pound brown trout on the Madison river in > > > Montana last week. Here is the > > > > link, Chuck > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2006/06/22/features/outdoors/30-fish.txt > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > > -- > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.3/374 - > Release Date: 6/23/2006 > > > > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
