# opinions



## cane crazed

i may be thrown off your site but i read the report about flies only waters on the P.M.  steve hit the nail on the head in my opinion. you have a wonderful river (and rivers) in your area and i have enjoyed fishing it. being from tenn. you ought to see the fiasco and problems we have to put up with. darn lucky not to get run over by a boat. not to mention the rude people that will walk in front of your drift and fish. we have fly only waters on some of our special rivers and are darn glad for what we have. everyone can co-exist in the angling world if they will exercise a little consideration for whomever is on the river regardless of their beliefs. it is when rules are broken and the angling is not in a sporting tradition that i have a complaint. be thanful for your wonderful rivers and abundant fish. we are now fighting for our right (in Tenn.) to catch and release. the activist say that it is cruel to the very trout we love. trash, i have seen very little on your river systems. come to Tenn. and spend more time picking up after inconsiderate anglers then fishing. tight lines to you all and have a wonderful winter steely adventure.


----------



## Ranger Ray

> to catch and release. the activist say that it is cruel to the very trout we love.


No! Who would have guessed that?


----------



## The Downstream Drift

And this is exactly where Michigan is headed now that the "activist" see a divide in the angling community. Sorry to sound like I am standing on a soap box here guys, but its time to get it together and everyone reach for a common goal. To protect our angling rights period. Not just the right to sling worms or toss a fly. But to fish period.


----------



## Ranger Ray

The Downstream Drift said:


> And this is exactly where Michigan is headed now that the "activist" see a divide in the angling community. Sorry to sound like I am standing on a soap box here guys, but its time to get it together and everyone reach for a common goal. To protect our angling rights period. Not just the right to sling worms or toss a fly. But to fish period.


No, this is where we will go with social regulation and letting those that want to manage fish based on some moral high ground set the rules over our biologists. Some genius right now is saying; "gee, those guys don't understand if they don't want to hurt the little fishies, they should just stop fishing. Oh Yeah!


----------



## plugger

When hunting and fishing are seen to exist as a part of the food chain there is a higher level of support than when it becomes a trophy or thrill seeking adventure.


----------



## Ranger Ray

plugger said:


> When hunting and fishing are seen to exist as a part of the food chain there is a higher level of support than when it becomes a trophy or thrill seeking adventure.


Exactly.


----------



## The Downstream Drift

The problem here is that the "activists" believe that in today's society we no longer need to depend on hunting and fishing for food. Their view is that it is all for needless sport. Once the fight begins to ban C&R the fight will eventually include all fishing. Let them win one battle and they won't stop.


----------



## Flyfisher

cane crazed said:


> i may be thrown off your site but i read the report about flies only waters on the P.M. steve hit the nail on the head in my opinion. you have a wonderful river (and rivers) in your area and i have enjoyed fishing it. being from tenn. you ought to see the fiasco and problems we have to put up with. darn lucky not to get run over by a boat. not to mention the rude people that will walk in front of your drift and fish. we have fly only waters on some of our special rivers and are darn glad for what we have. everyone can co-exist in the angling world if they will exercise a little consideration for whomever is on the river regardless of their beliefs. it is when rules are broken and the angling is not in a sporting tradition that i have a complaint. be thanful for your wonderful rivers and abundant fish. we are now fighting for our right (in Tenn.) to catch and release. the activist say that it is cruel to the very trout we love. trash, i have seen very little on your river systems. come to Tenn. and spend more time picking up after inconsiderate anglers then fishing. tight lines to you all and have a wonderful winter steely adventure.


If anything, the majority of the trout rivers in Tennessee have little justification for special regulations as they are primarily "put/take" fisheries with little natural reproduction as a result of the inconsistent flows of the TVA tailwaters. One minute the gravel beds are dry as a bone and an hour later the water is flowing furiously through the bankside vegetation. There is a reason why the hatchery trucks make regular deliveries all summer long. Granted, there are a few "true" trout streams in the Smoky Mountains with native and wild fish and those should be the only exceptions.


----------



## cane crazed

fly fisher, i do not know where you live but you are very incorrect on the natural reproduction of trout in Tenn. the South Holston is closed for many miles in the fall due to spawning, the watauga has natural reproduction along with all the mtn streams and tribs and the Hiwassee and Clinch rivers have heavt spawning. yes, TVA does stock fish in the tailwaters but i even see redds on a river 50 miles from Nashville.


----------



## Flyfisher

cane crazed said:


> fly fisher, i do not know where you live but you are very incorrect on the natural reproduction of trout in Tenn. the South Holston is closed for many miles in the fall due to spawning, the watauga has natural reproduction along with all the mtn streams and tribs and the Hiwassee and Clinch rivers have heavt spawning. yes, TVA does stock fish in the tailwaters but i even see redds on a river 50 miles from Nashville.


I was mainly referring to the TVA tailwaters, not the mountain streams and headwaters. I would be a fool to say that natural reproduction of trout does not occur in TN. 

My mother moved about 40 miles west of Knoxville 5 or so years ago and I fished in the "park" for the abundant, and small, wild rainbows. I have also fished the Clinch, and with the crazy flows cannot see how natural reproduction would be possible. Certainly, fish will try and dig redds but the same gravel that they spawn on can be dry four hours later. I see steelhead redds on a lot Michigan rivers every year where the offspring will never make it to Lake Michigan. Basically, evidence of spawning activity does not necessarily equate to natural reproduction adequate enough for a self-sustaining population.

My comments was primarily aimed at the tailwaters with flows related to power generation. I assume the river 50 miles from Nashville you are referring to would be the Caney Fork? Also another river dependent on stocking. My point is that the TVA tailwaters under current flow regimes and even with strict flies only/no kill regs, would not be self-sustaining wild trout waters. If there are studies to the contrary on either the Caney Fork or Clinch Rivers, I would be interested in reading them and being proved wrong.


----------



## Flyfisher

Here's an interesting study that backs up my statements on the Clinch and Caney Fork Rivers. http://www2.tntech.edu/fish/PDF/Chad%202.pdf



> (5) In the Caney Fork and Clinch rivers, factors that would have prevented
> reproduction included high flows during winter when brown trout spawn and their eggs
> incubate, lack of suitable water temperatures (< 90 C) during the spawning season, and
> *dewatering of potential spawning habitat *(i.e., gravel bars).
> (6) It is unlikely that winter flows or water temperatures will change in the
> Caney Fork and Clinch rivers; therefore, the stocking of brown trout must continue in
> those two rivers.


Here's a more extensive study on the Clinch that further backs up my statements about little or no natural reproduction. http://http://www.state.tn.us/twra/fish/StreamRiver/tailtrout/Norris%20TW%20mgt%20plan%2008%20final.pdf

Both these rivers are "put, grow, take" trout fisheries, period. Size and creel limits can be used in the hope to manipulate the size of the fish but it would appear that efforts to create a "quality fishery" (significant numbers of 14"-20") have not been met. Restricting the use of bait on these rivers likely would make little or no difference long term.


----------



## toto

CC, I can say I'm trully sorry that you feel that discrimination is okay. Who pays for those fish that are planted?? Even with a small piece of property in Tenn, part of the taxes go for that, so why shouldn't I be able to fish it with worms or whatever, why must I have to use a fly??? Is there biological science to back up those regs??? I doubt it.


----------



## Marcus

The Downstream Drift said:


> The problem here is that the "activists" believe that in today's society we no longer need to depend on hunting and fishing for food. Their view is that it is all for needless sport. Once the fight begins to ban C&R the fight will eventually include all fishing. Let them win one battle and they won't stop.


Well, no, the problem is much bigger than some group of "activists." By way of introduction, I'm 70 years old, born in Detroit, both our kids born in Traverse City, have lived a number of years in the UP, have worked briefly as a hunting and fishing guide in Alaska, fished trout in Michigan (with a 6-weight Orvis bamboo no less), bass and crappie in Texas where we lived for 15 years, and salmon in Alaska where we've lived for the last 15 years and for several years previously. I have never done catch-and-release; it disgusts me.

The problem, plain and simple, is c&r itself, and many anglers find it reprehensible, more and more so. Here is a sampling:

"*An Outdoor View: In the name of sport*
By Les Palmer | Peninsula Clarion

Every so often, we might want to think about some of the things we do for "sport."

Take catch-and-release fishing. How sporting is it to purposely go out and catch and release trout all day, maiming and killing some of them in the process? If you fish the Kenai River much, you'll see trout with only one eye and with misshapen jaws, the result of being hooked and "played." Great fun, watching and feeling a trout frantically struggling for its life on the end of your line. Will we one day look back at catch-and-release fishing with the revulsion we now have for staged dog fights? We don't catch these fish for food, but just for fun. For sport.

I often walk down to the Kenai River from my home in Sterling. On such a walk in July, I saw a king salmon lying on its side, dead. By king standards, it wasn't large, maybe a 20-pounder. It was fat, bright-silver, and it hadn't spawned. In its mouth was a size 7/0 Gamakatsu hook. This fish was likely a casualty of catch and release, fishing for sport.

Salmon get but one chance to reproduce, so it's criminal to jeopardize that single opportunity by molesting them. According to Alaska's statewide sport fishing regulations, "molesting means the harassing, disturbing, or interfering with fish by any means, including the use of any missile or object not established as legal gear; molesting includes dragging, kicking, throwing, striking, or otherwise abusing a fish which is intended to be released." Yet, it's legal to molest salmon with legal gear, even to pull them off their spawning redds on purpose, in the name of sport."
from our local newspaper last week

***************

I dont guide anymore. . . . I hadnt foreseen that it would demand the humility of a chauffeur and the complaisance of a pimp.

And I don&#146;t seem to fish nearly as much as I used to. I have a dilemma these days: I dislike killing trout but I believe that, in order to fish responsibly, to fish conscionably, the fisherman should at least occasionally kill. Otherwise he can too easily delude himself that fly fishing is merely a game, a dance of love, played in mutual volition and mutual empathy by the fisherman and the trout. Small flies with the barbs flattened are an excellent means for allowing the fishermans own sensibilities to be released unharmedbut the fish themselves arent always so lucky. They get eye-hooked, they bleed, they suffer trauma and dislocated maxillae and infection. Unavoidably, some die. For them, it is not a game, and certainly not a dance. On some days I feel that its hypocritical to profess love for these creatures while endangering and abusing them so wantonly; better to enjoy the thrill of the sport honestly, kill what I catch, and stop fishing when I have had a surfeit of killing. On other days I do dearly enjoy holding them in the water, gentling them as they regain breath and balance and command of their muscles, then watching them swim away. The dilemma remains unresolved.

Yet each man kills the thing he loves, wrote Oscar Wilde, and I keep wondering how a person of Wildes urban and cerebral predilections knew so goddamn much about trout fishing.

Why do you live in Montana? people ask. For the trout, I answer. Oh, youre one of those fanatical fisherman types? Not so much anymore, I say. Its just a matter of knowing that theyre here. 
David Quammen, in _Seasons of the Angler_

*******************

...because were nice to the fish, releasing them unharmed, we can receive both psychic dispensation and blessing. Needless to say, if you think about this relationship carefully, its not a comforting one, for it is a game of dominance followed by a cathartic pardons, which, as a nonfishing friendremarked, is one of the hallmarks of an abusive relationship.
 author and fisherman Ted Kerasote

*******************

Never say playing. You are at best torturing and at worst killing a creature you may or may not eat. Playing at one end, dying at the other -- if playing is what it is, it is sadism.
author of _The Founding Fish_ and fisherman John McPhee


----------



## Flyfisher

Marcus said:


> "I often walk down to the Kenai River from my home in Sterling. On such a walk in July, I saw a king salmon lying on its side, dead. By king standards, it wasn't large, maybe a 20-pounder. It was fat, bright-silver, and it hadn't spawned. In its mouth was a size 7/0 Gamakatsu hook. This fish was likely a casualty of catch and release, fishing for sport."


Or perhaps it simply broke off while being brought to the boat?

I realize you were quoting another author but one has to be careful with their wishes. Catch/release versus catch/kill as absolutes are problematic. To some, catch/release can be perceived as "torture" and you made this somewhat clear in your post. And if you stick to that argument as a defense against catch/release, then you are also opening yourself up to the scenario playing out in parts of Europe where you must keep everything you catch and then stop fishing once you reached your limit. 

Personally, I practice catch and release more out of convenience than principle. I don't like to eat trout, salmon, or steelhead that much but I enjoy fishing for them. And I am not going to kill fish simply because I can. I also don't like to haul them around on a stringer while hiking along a river. But I have, and do, kill fish when its legal and I know the fish will be consumed. 

Perhaps both sides of the argument should just leave the topic up for personal choice and not preach their gospel on the stream, to the DNRE, or at townhall style meetings. Let the biologists do their work and allow them to determine size/slot limits and seasonal closures.


----------



## Marcus

Flyfisher said:


> . . To some, catch/release can be perceived as "torture" and you made this somewhat clear in your post. And if you stick to that argument as a defense against catch/release, . .
> 
> Perhaps both sides of the argument should just leave the topic up for personal choice and not preach their gospel on the stream, . .


First, that C&R may or may not be torture has nothing whatsoever to do with my objections.

Second, this thread asked for opinions, and I gave mine.

&#8220;In the early sixties, one of the Eastern States (Michigan) conducted an experiment, declaring "Fish-For-Fun" sections on one heavily fished trout stream&#8212;all fish caught must be released. This attracted the attention of commercial interests; guides and fishing camp owners who saw monetary gain in recycling the same fish past numerous fishermen. The foremost of these was a former Madison Avenue commercial artist, turned Newfoundland fishing camp owner, named Lee Wulff. Knowing the ad trade, he marketed the phrase, and its variants, "A fish is too valuable to be caught only once". The sport fishing industry rallied to his banner, for they recognized two important side effects of this campaign: 1) If a fish could be "Caught and released without harm", then persons who might not wish to kill fish could now become, without shame, genteel fisherpersons, swelling the ranks of potential customers. 2) The avaricious and competitive nature of man could be sated by
unlimited fishing. No more would a person have to stop at some state-mandated limit, but could go on to "100 fish days". (One fishing writer, Arnold Gingrich, encouraged the use of golf score-counters, to record the days catch.) Commercial interests, principally guiding services, fly shops, and Chambers-of-Commerce, began pressuring their State governments to set aside some of the best streams as "Catch and Release"; and then, since the fish were "being released unharmed", to keep the streams open year-round. Thus we have the "management policy" of Catch and Release. This leaves us with the question: What, or rather who, has been managed?&#8221; 

&#8212;The Origins of Catch-and-Release, Reed F. Curry


----------



## Whit1

Marcus said:


> First, that C&R may or may not be torture has nothing whatsoever to do with my objections.
> 
> Second, this thread asked for opinions, and I gave mine.
> 
> In the early sixties, one of the Eastern States (Michigan) conducted an experiment, declaring "Fish-For-Fun" sections on one heavily fished trout streamall fish caught must be released. This attracted the attention of commercial interests; guides and fishing camp owners who saw monetary gain in recycling the same fish past numerous fishermen. The foremost of these was a former Madison Avenue commercial artist, turned Newfoundland fishing camp owner, named Lee Wulff. Knowing the ad trade, he marketed the phrase, and its variants, "A fish is too valuable to be caught only once". The sport fishing industry rallied to his banner, for they recognized two important side effects of this campaign: 1) If a fish could be "Caught and released without harm", then persons who might not wish to kill fish could now become, without shame, genteel fisherpersons, swelling the ranks of potential customers. 2) The avaricious and competitive nature of man could be sated by
> unlimited fishing. No more would a person have to stop at some state-mandated limit, but could go on to "100 fish days". (One fishing writer, Arnold Gingrich, encouraged the use of golf score-counters, to record the days catch.) Commercial interests, principally guiding services, fly shops, and Chambers-of-Commerce, began pressuring their State governments to set aside some of the best streams as "Catch and Release"; and then, since the fish were "being released unharmed", to keep the streams open year-round. Thus we have the "management policy" of Catch and Release. This leaves us with the question: What, or rather who, has been managed?
> 
> The Origins of Catch-and-Release, Reed F. Curry


There is a very adroit and simple bit of history. In this current attempt to apply more gear regs and yes, eventually more C&R, we are seeing this "....pressuring their State governments to set aside some of the best streams as 'Catch and Release". These issues are about pressure and either self-interest of guides and their associations or a deluded concept of the biology of trout and a trout stream.


----------



## Flyfisher

Marcus said:


> First, that C&R may or may not be torture has nothing whatsoever to do with my objections.


What is the basis for your objection, then? The people you quoted as defense for your opinion use the "harming the fish" while releasing them argument. The counter to that argument is to kill until you have your limit. There is a middle ground, however your citations do not seem to find one.



Marcus said:


> Second, this thread asked for opinions, and I gave mine.


As did I, but do you have a personal basis or reasoning for your opinions? Or do you simply quote other people on their opinions?


----------



## Marcus

Flyfisher said:


> What is the basis for your objection, then? The people you quoted as defense for your opinion use the "harming the fish" while releasing them argument. The counter to that argument is to kill until you have your limit. There is a middle ground, however your citations do not seem to find one.
> 
> As did I, but do you have a personal basis or reasoning for your opinions? Or do you simply quote other people on their opinions?


I quote others as I find them useful in support of my opinion that C&Rthe use of the life of another sentient being for fun while unavoidably killing some and stressing allis a debasement of our humanity insofar as it violates our responsibility, under God, as stewards of His creation.

It isn't that animals have rights; it's that humans have responsibilities.

"Don't play with your food." Alaska Native saying concerning C&R


----------



## Flyfisher

Marcus said:


> I quote others as I find them useful in support of my opinion that C&Rthe use of the life of another sentient being for fun while unavoidably killing some and stressing allis a debasement of our humanity insofar as it violates our responsibility, under God, as stewards of His creation.
> 
> It isn't that animals have rights; it's that humans have responsibilities.
> 
> "Don't play with your food." Alaska Native saying concerning C&R


So, you go fishing, kill everything legal and stop at your limit?


----------



## Marcus

Flyfisher said:


> So, you go fishing, kill everything legal and stop at your limit?


No, I go fishing and kill, within the limit, what I want or need at that moment in time.

For instance, when we're camping, I often get up before my wife does and go down to the lake to try for a small trout for a breakfast of trout and eggs.

But if it's time to put up our annual 50-pound supply of sockeye, I'd stop killing at around 12-15 fish, depending on size. Our household limit for personal use salmon is 35 fish.


----------



## Flyfisher

Marcus said:


> No, I go fishing and kill, within the limit, what I want or need at that moment in time.
> 
> For instance, when we're camping, I often get up before my wife does and go down to the lake to try for a small trout for a breakfast of trout and eggs.
> 
> But if it's time to put up our annual 50-pound supply of sockeye, I'd stop killing at around 12-15 fish, depending on size. Our household limit for personal use salmon is 35 fish.


So you do practice some catch and release? In other words, you keep fishing after you have killed what you intend to keep? Let's call that "selective harvest". And its not like I don't kill a steelhead here and there, just when I have a reason to do so, such as guest coming over for dinner. Personally, I selectively harvest every legal walleye up to my limit. 

The article you cited from Les Palmer might have one believe that fishing for "fun/enjoyment", and not "harvest" is a great travesty of nature and I am a lesser man for releasing steelhead. As I mentioned, that approach is a slippery slope as it could lead to a "catch your limit and done fishing" regulation. Its all about finding the balance.

I tend to agree that "catch and release" sections of rivers in the name of "sport" are wrong. If the fishery is supplemented by hatchery plants it makes no sense at all. If it is a wild, and self-sustaining, population then closed seasons, bag limits, and slot/size limits should be used to keep the population in check.


----------



## Marcus

Flyfisher said:


> So you do practice some catch and release? In other words, you keep fishing after you have killed what you intend to keep?


No, I do not. Nor do I continue to fish after I get what I want. I don't do C&R. Period.

That said, your "selective harvest" distinction is valid. If I'm fishing for silvers and catch a pink, I'll release the pink.

But I don't do C&R . . . :yikes:


----------



## Rasputin

Good stuff, Marcus. Thanks for taking the time. I wouldn't mind a bibliography if you can, sounds like some reading material I would enjoy.

I have been concerned about the C&R for a couple of decades. If not for practical concerns, or moral concerns, but for cultural reasons. The hunting and fishing heritage we have inherited is rooted in the idea that we do this for food. As we get to be a more affluent culture, we are losing our grasp on what wild things are primarily for - food, not entertainment. Bottom line, I think we lose some of the proper respect for the things we chase when we look at them as just entertainment. Sort of like the difference in respect we might have for a dancing girl versus the girl next door. 

I'm not concerned that people, like Rick, release fish. I am concerned when those that always release their fish beleive they are superior and it is a moral failure if you kill a fish.

When will we have catch and release deer hunting?


----------



## Flyfisher

Marcus said:


> No, I do not. Nor do I continue to fish after I get what I want. I don't do C&R. Period.


So, in your mind, its wrong for me to go steelhead fishing if I don't intend to kill the steelhead I catch? And lets say I do decide to take my limit of three fish after I have driven two hours to get to the river. On this hypothetical day, the fish are plentiful and I land three in my first 5 casts (it has happened before) so I will have driven four hours that day to fish maybe 15 or 20 minutes. As you said earlier, we are all entitled to our opinions.



Rasputin said:


> I'm not concerned that people, like Rick, release fish. I am concerned when those that always release their fish believe they are superior and it is a moral failure if you kill a fish.


Well put, Mr. D.


----------



## driftfisher

Being able to do something for the enjoyment is what separates us from the fish we are catching, and if we choose releasing.


----------



## Rasputin

driftfisher said:


> Being able to do something for the enjoyment is what separates us from the fish we are catching, and if we choose releasing.


 
I like that. 

The two extremes seem to be the elitist that feels superior for not getting any blood on his hands, to the other extreme of those that think they have to fill the freezer by killing everything they can. 

Someplace in the middle, where we understand fishing is a blood sport, yet care as much or more about the experience as we do for the fish flesh, that we can be happy without killing, and show enough respect for the resource to show some restraint.

Flyfisher, in my opinion, you point out an extreme that I hope Marcus does not suggest is the only appropriate course of action in that scenario. Kill the last three fish you catch, not the first three (just kidding)


----------



## Marcus

Flyfisher said:


> So, in your mind, its wrong for me to go steelhead fishing if I don't intend to kill the steelhead I catch? . .


No, didn't say that, nor do I think that. I think it's wrong for me, and I detest the practice. What's right for you is a matter for your conscience, not mine.

******************



Rasputin said:


> Good stuff, Marcus. Thanks for taking the time. I wouldn't mind a bibliography if you can, sounds like some reading material I would enjoy. . .
> When will we have catch and release deer hunting?


Rasputin,

Don't know about C&R deer hunting, but last I heard you can buy a C&R rhino hunt. You shoot the animal with a 
tranquilizer dart, run in for photos and measurements before the animal wakes up, and are afforded the same number of points with Safari Club International as you would have with a rifle shot. Try typing "catch and release rhino hunt" into Google.

Here are some titles that come quickly to mind:

_Bloodties: Nature, Culture, And The Hunt_ by Ted Kerasote
_The Founding Fish_ by John McPhee (McPhee devotes a whole chapter to C&R)
_Heart of Home_ by Kerasote
_Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy_ by Matthew Scully
_Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals_ by Michael Pollan
_The Hungry Soul: Eating and the Perfecting of Our Nature_ by Leon R. Kass, M.D.
Anything by Wendell Berry&#8212;some quotes below to perhaps whet your appetite 

I'm sure all are available from Amazon, used or new, and where you can read reviews of the titles listed.

******************

"Eating with the fullest pleasure - pleasure, that is, that does not depend on ignorance - is perhaps the profoundest enactment of our connection with the world. In this pleasure we experience our dependence and our gratitude, for we are living in a mystery, from creatures we did not make and powers we cannot comprehend."

&#8212; Wendell Berry

"We can not live harmlessly or strictly at our own expense; we depend upon other creatures and survive by their deaths. To live, we must daily break the body and shed the blood of creation. The point is, when we do this knowingly, lovingly, skillfully, reverently, it is a sacrament; when we do it ignorantly, greedily, clumsily, destructively, it is a desecration...in such desecration, we condemn ourselves to spiritual and moral loneliness, . . ."
&#8212;Wendell Berry

"I think the conservation movement unwittingly helped to drive a wedge between us and our land by implying that we could live most of our lives in circumstances that don&#8217;t quite suit us&#8212;doing work that doesn't suit us, work that makes us say, Thank God it&#8217;s Friday&#8212;and then somehow, on vacation, go to a national park and reconnect with the natural world. But of course, that&#8217;s not a connection." (Nor, to my mind, is C&R&#8212;Marcus) 

&#8212;Wendell Berry (Interview, "On the Natural Order of Things, World Ark magzine, Jan./Feb. 2008 p. 19)


----------



## Ranger Ray

A true fisherman you are Marcus.


----------



## plugger

.

"Don't play with your food." Alaska Native saying concerning C&R[/QUOTE]

There is justification in my mind for being part of the food chain, c&r and trophy hunting, where you dont personaly use the meat, is getting close to a line I dont want to cross. I harvest for consumtion without a twinge of guilt.


----------



## Flyfisher

Marcus said:


> What's right for you is a matter for your *conscience*, not mine.


Mine is clear. I just find the whole experience of fishing cathartic and would hate to cut short that time outdoors because I killed my limit. While I understand and can respect your beliefs, I can't practice them either.


----------



## Marcus

Flyfisher said:


> . . While I understand and can respect your beliefs, I can't practice them either.


Relax . this is just an opinion thread, not an altar-call . . you're safe .


----------



## Robert Holmes

Interesting post lots of ideas on catch & release. As far as I am concerned the "activist" who does not have a state fishing license should shut up or put up. There would be alot less fish and animals out there if it was not for the generosity of hunters and fishermen. For most sportsmen their care for fish and wildlife goes far beyond buying a license. The sierra club and peta people just want to run their mouth. Most fish if caught properly and unhooked in the proper way should live. It is unfortunate that a few will die but nature will dispose of them.


----------



## The Downstream Drift

Robert Holmes said:


> Interesting post lots of ideas on catch & release. As far as I am concerned the "activist" who does not have a state fishing license should shut up or put up. There would be alot less fish and animals out there if it was not for the generosity of hunters and fishermen. For most sportsmen their care for fish and wildlife goes far beyond buying a license. The sierra club and peta people just want to run their mouth. Most fish if caught properly and unhooked in the proper way should live. It is unfortunate that a few will die but nature will dispose of them.


I agree with almost everything that was said here. My question is how can Sierra Club be linked into the same group as PETA? I thought I knew quite alot about the mission behind Sierra Club, about the founder John Muir, and about their goals to protect sportsmen pursuits. And none of the Sierra Club members I know come close to supporting PETA. Actually one of them is up at deer camp right now.

Has anyone here had issues with Sierra Club members and I am just running into the exceptions of the group? Has the overall view of the organization changed in regards to sportsman that much since John Muir and Teddy Roosevelt first thought about protecting some of the wilderness in this country? 

Just curious what you guys have seen or read on this organization.


----------



## Splitshot

If we were talking about a 4 year old kid catching little bluegills off the end of the dock with his dad and releasing them everyone would understand it was a good thing especially if they saw the joy and excitement on the little ones face. Why is a trout different from a bluegill. It isnt logical but that is the perception. I would also be very surprised if the idea would ever enter any 4 year olds mind that catching a fish is somehow torture or even harming to the little fishy.

My personal opinion is that people that think this way are the ones who are flawed and have no concept of the sport or nature for that matter but that is a whole different thread.

As I read this thread it is clear to me that people are much more emotional about trout than say chubs or suckers or stunted bluegills. I am also a victim of this selective bias. In the end however, after some thought trout, sucker, chub or bluegill are just fish. 

As for me, I am a lot like the little kid on the dock in that I still get pleasure from the tug at the other end of my line. I get much enjoyment when I out fox a trophy and I also enjoy the recognition from my peers who understand the skill involved in consistently catching nice fish. Mostly I like the appreciation I get when I provide some elderly person, a non fishing friend or neighbor a trout dinner. And in the end, I get no greater satisfaction than watching my grandson or neighbor kids land a nice fish. One day at Tippy a couple of weeks ago I hooked only one steelhead and gave my rod to a ten year old who did a great job and landed his first steelhead. Of course he took it home and couldnt wait to show mom. He was thrilled, but It made my day.

I enjoy being on and around water and when I involve others and it helps them connect with the outdoors, I am gratified. I have no problem eating what I catch nor do I have any problem tossing them back. On a good day I will catch a limit, but it is a better day when I catch triple my limit.

I dont ever identify with the fish or humanize them or try to dramatize what they are feeling because they are fish and not human. That doesnt mean that I dont have feeling about them, just that I think my feelings are appropriate. 

I think a problem a lot of us have has to do with the hypocrites. This would include people who deliberately snag fish, post the pictures for recognition and respect they dont deserve. Similar to a person who shines a deer at midnight and enters the deer in a contest. We have disgust for pseudo sports people and we know it when we see it.

Rasputins example below describes the most spurious example of what I am talking about. 


Rasputin said:


> I'm not concerned that people, like Rick, release fish. I am concerned when those that always release their fish believe they are superior and it is a moral failure if you kill a fish.


Ranger Ray repeated what a biologist from Wisconsin told him recently and that was that you cannot stockpile trout and the more I think about that statement, the more I think we have carried the idea of catch and release way to far. If half of the trout die every year in our rivers why are we not utilizing more of them.


----------



## Flyfisher

Splitshot said:


> I think a problem a lot of us have has to do with the hypocrites. This would include people who deliberately snag fish, post the pictures for recognition and respect they don&#8217;t deserve.


Ray, I have an entertaining story for you. Its wasn't snagging, but one of those "you have to be kidding me" sort of tales. I'll share it with you off the forum at one point


----------



## Marcus

Splitshot said:


> . . As I read this thread it is clear to me that people are much more emotional about trout than say chubs or suckers or stunted bluegills. I am also a victim of this selective bias. In the end however, after some thought trout, sucker, chub or bluegill are just fish. . .


Ummmmm . . count me out on that . . 

C&R is C&R whether it's a bluegill, trout, sucker, whatever. Check out John McPhee's book, _The Founding Fish_, which contains a whole chapter on C&R. McPhee is talking about shad, not trout . . :tsk:


----------



## Abel

Marcus you stated earlier that if targeting Coho's and you catch a pink you release it? How is that not catch and release? It doesn't matter what species you catch or what species you are targeting, if you catch it, and release it, it is catch and release. I'm just trying to fully understand you logic here. From what I've gotten, you only consider it catch and release if you release the "target species"?


----------



## Flyfisher

Abel said:


> Marcus you stated earlier that if targeting Coho's and you catch a pink you release it? How is that not catch and release? It doesn't matter what species you catch or what species you are targeting, if you catch it, and release it, it is catch and release. I'm just trying to fully understand you logic here. From what I've gotten, you only consider it catch and release if you release the "target species"?


I almost posted the same thing, not to mention fish that may not fit into the footprint for something that is legal to keep? It's still catch and release. I suppose if you didn't enjoy the tussle and fight of the fish, its OK?  

I, too, am having a difficult time grasping the logic as it is pretty extreme to one direction, not unlike our "Catch and Release" friends on the other end of the spectrum.

Unfortunately, Marcus' argument feeds right into the mouths of the "anti's", like PETA, that would like nothing more than to ban hunting and fishing, even for substinence.


----------



## Marcus

Abel said:


> Marcus you stated earlier that if targeting Coho's and you catch a pink you release it? How is that not catch and release? It doesn't matter what species you catch or what species you are targeting, if you catch it, and release it, it is catch and release. I'm just trying to fully understand you logic here. From what I've gotten, you only consider it catch and release if you release the "target species"?


Thanks for asking, Abel. Releasing a non-target fish or a fish denied by regulation is "selective harvest."

C&R is releasing a fish one did not intend to keep under any circumstances.

The difference between selective harvest and C&R is "intent." What does the angler intend? To try to catch something to eat or simply to play with the fish for the fun of it.

Hope that helps.


----------



## Flyfisher

Marcus said:


> Thanks for asking, Abel. Releasing a non-target fish or a fish denied by regulation is "selective harvest."
> 
> C&R is releasing a fish one did not intend to keep under any circumstances.
> 
> The difference between selective harvest and C&R is "intent." What does the angler intend? To try to catch something to eat or simply to play with the fish for the fun of it.
> 
> Hope that helps.


Thanks for clarifying. I fall under the category as a "selective sadist" :evilsmile I would be hard pressed to say that I don't enjoy the battle of a fresh steelhead. But I also don't pay respect to each and every steelhead I catch by introducing them to a "priest". Sometimes, I have reason(s) to harvest fish, other times I want to get out and simply catch fish without the hassle of transporting and cleaning fish.


----------

