> You need to go to Montana, Idaho, or Colorado, and fish the Madison, >Henry's
>Fork, or the Blue or Frying Pan!(but don't use bait there...) No >stocking of fish in
>any of those places, and the fishing is excellent! They also have >restrictive
>regulations. Perhaps the best example would be the Blue in >Colorado, which is
>designated as part of their "Gold Medal" program, waters singled out as >capable of
>sustaining naturally reproducing wild populations of trout. They >used to stock
>the Blue, I helped the CF&G guys do it one time. The fishing is better today >with
>the restrictive regulations, NO KILL! As I mentioned in a previous >post, I think
>there are places where harvesting of fish is warranted, and in fact, >absolutely
>necessary. Ecosystems capable of supporting trout, unfortunately, >are also quite
>fragile, and often times there's a fine line between what it takes to make a
>>flurishing fishery, and a mediocr! e one.
. There is some contradiction in terms here.... no kill is not a
prerequisite for heritage fisheries... and catch and release doesn't
mean "no Kill", in reality. A large number of released fish die. The
resource is wasted. The only way to insure "no kill" is not to fish
at all. Folks need to come to grips with the fact that fishing is a
blood sport..
Not only that, but releasing fish back into a lot of systems not only
waste a resource, but can sometimes be detrimental to the overall
health of the system.... Catch and release can be a helpful tool, but
it is far from a cure-all, and its application should not be considered
universal beneficial.
PROPERLY MANAGED systems are well capable of allowing careful
sustained use of the resource.... all different sorts of kill limits
can be used to allow use and maintain healthy populations and their
continuence.
The biggest problem is that people put no faith is put in the ability
of the fisheries biologist and their work... Often time politics
interfer ...
But on the whole , you need to understand that kill limits are set
to allow use of the resource without endangering the population. When
the limits are followed, one is able to enjoy the resource on many
levels... This, of course, is designed after the determination as to
what the enevitable outcome should be. Outlaws, poaching, illegal
releases, lack of control in commercial fisheries, habitat destruction
and environmental degradation are the enemies, not the use of the
resource by the sportsman.
on the other topic:
There are many reasons why the large majority of trash you encounter
on the streams is related to other forms of fishing..... Start with
shear logistics.... use by the "other" fishermen far far outnumbers
the flyfishermen. Flyfisherman are a tiny minority. If ten percent of
both groups were slob sportmsman, and there were 20 times as many
"other" fishermen, how much more waste on the streams would be from the
"other'? 20 times as much. Flyfishing also involves a lot of home made
products and doesn't have as much packaging involved... not nearly as
much. If a flyfishing slob throws away all his packaging, as does the
slob from the "other" group, but the "other" slob has more packaging,
who throws away more? You will find that the same percentage of slobs
exist in all groups, it is a function of human nature, not equipment
choice.
Don't decieve yourself by thinking that there isn't an appropriate
amount of tapered leader packages mixed in that trash.
Unilaterally claiming that all bait fisherman litter, or that all
litter is caused by bait fisherman is the purest form of prejudical
stereotype you can have.... Its the same as claiming all blacks are
criminals, all Italians are fat, all southerners are inbred, all poor
folk are ignorant.....
Be careful what you say. And before anyone of you throws anymore
stones at the glass house, let me ask you this one question:
Have you EVER, in your whole life, engaged in any other type of
fishing beside flyfishing?
In this new year strive to remember where you come from, enjoy your
sport, and allow others to do so as well.
Splinta
