Question:

You are either dissembling or you don’t fish nearly as much as you were claiming to last year.  It is inconceivable that you could ask this question and at the same time write the kind of stuff quoted below unless of course you are just a troller.  By the way, what is "Wild Trout" etc.?  Do you by any chance mean Oregon Trout, Cal Trout or Washington Trout?  Care to post your professional qualifications in Genetics/Biochemistry/Biology to assist in evaluating your opinions? Fred wrote on Sat. 19.Feb.2000 "That was a great bit of thinking, and you are correct.  The problem is that people like Mike, TU, Wild Trout, etc. haven’t a clue about genetics.  If the argument could be changed from genetics to behavior, especially of Fish and Game people, changes could be made.  Unfortunately the last part of

science F&G types understand is genetics.  There is just too much math in population biology and too much biochemistry in genetics for most of them to understand." how do you tell a hatchery from a wild fish if no clipping has been done?  Please answer.

– Mike Leitheiser Lake Oswego, Oregon "When the trout are lost, smash the state."    Tom McGuane

Response:

Despite your good intentions, your ducking the question.  If you don’t like farming, fine, but without some science to back up the worry just leads to more and more rumor and not much real knowledge.  

I’m sorry but you seem to be confusing separate and distict areas of concern. I am not ducking any questions, but you seem to be concentrating on just one of these areas to the exclusion of everything else, and it is an area of argument I haven’t even entered into. Hatcheries may or may not hurt fish, but what is undeniable is that commercial fish farms, regardless of whatever hatchery facilities they use, and without any reference to the genetic make up of the fish they produce, do untold harm to wild fish stocks if sited in sensitive areas. The evidence for this from both Ireland and Scotland is overwhelming. The question of whether depleted fish stocks can be restored to former levels by the release of hatchery bred fish is a different matter, and the arguments again do not necessarily depend on genetics. For instance if the reason for falling stocks is lack of food in the home rivers in the pre sea-going stage of the fishes life, then I can’t see a release of hatchery bred smolts having any real benefit until that problem has been addressed. Unfortunately in the UK there is evidence in some rivers that this is the case, surveys having shown severe depletion of invertebrate fauna, which has been ascribed to leakage into the water courses of agricultural chemicals. If the lack of fish is attributed to loss of spawning grounds, then the release of hatchery fish could help counter this. The genetic make-up of these fish is a separate issue, which I haven’t touched on except for the following special case. This last area, is the concern over modifying the genetic structure of artificially reared fish, by the introduction of DNA taken from entirely different species. This DNA need not even be from fish. Grain crops were modified by the introduction of DNA obtained from rats. in order to develop the ‘terminator’ strains for instance. You seem to be implying that we should wait for ’scientific’ evidence that such modifications are harmful, before condemning them. I simply can’t agree. It is the commercial operators who are pushing for these developments, for purely financial motives. They should be the ones to prove beyond any shadow of doubt that their actions are safe, before any fish so modified are allowed anywhere near public waters. Proof that environmental damage is caused unfortunately usually comes from a retrospective study of the failure of experiments like this. It is too late then. Unless you can show some genetic differences between two fish in a stream, and that you know which genotype is REALLY adapted to that water, the idea that hatcheries hurt fish is unsubstantiated.  Best,

I don’t claim that hatcheries hurt fish, in the case of those which simply strip the eggs from trapped wild fish, and fertilise them with milt similarly obtained. Nor would I ever claim that I would be able to determine which genotype is adapted to a particular water. I also doubt that anyone else could, except by statistical analysis over a period of time. But we don’t have to, as nature has proved itself capable of doing a pretty good job of this on its own, at least till we started interfering. Cheers Ian D

Response:

The problem with Freds "thinking" is that it is 99% based on conviction and 1% on science.  He obviously confuses "gene" with "jeans" as in Levis….as far as his assertions about too much math in population biology and too much biochemistry in genetics for "them" to understand, have a look at Freds professional qualifications,,,,One mught even question his ability to read with understanding….see the following: GENETIC DIVERGENCE IN FIRST GENERATION HATCHERY FISH 1)  Reisenbichler, R. R. 1994. Genetic factors contributing to declines of anadromous salmonids    in the Pacific Northwest. D. Stouder, Peter Bisson, and R. Naiman (eds.)  In: Pacific       Salmon And Their Ecosystems. Chapman Hall, Inc.         "Gene flow from hatchery fish also is deleterious because hatchery populations genetically adapt to the unnatural conditions of the hatchery environment at the expense of adaptedness for living in natural streams. This domestication is significant even in the first generation of hatchery rearing." 2)  Jonsson, Bror, and  Ian A. Fleming. 1993. Enhancement of wild salmon populations. G.         Sundnes ed.) Human impact on self-recruiting populations, an international symposium.     Kongsvoll, Norway, Tapit, Trondheim, Norway.         "Thus, the use of supplementation to enhance populations should be carefully considered, even when only a single generation boost to a population seems warranted.         " Differences were evident for hatchery Atlantic salmon relative to wild salmon, with common genetic backgrounds, in breeding success after a single generation in the hatchery.  Hatchery females averaged 80% of the breeding success of wild females and hatchery males averaged 65% of the breeding success of wild males." 3)  Reisenbichler, RR. 1996. The risks of hatchery supplementation.  The Osprey. Issue 27. June  1996.         "Available data suggest progressively declining fitness for natural rearing with increasing generations in the hatchery.  The reduction in survival from egg to adult may be about 25% after one generation in the hatchery and 85% after six generations.  Reductions in survival from yearling to adult may be about 15% after one generation in the hatchery, and 67% after many generations." 4)  Verspoor, Eric. 1988. Reduced genetic variability in first generation hatchery populations of         Atlantic salmon. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. Vol. 45, 1988.         "Mean heterozygosity and number of alleles per locus were positively correlated with effective number of adults (N) used to establish the hatchery groups and averaged 26 % and 12 % lower, respectively, than wild stocks.  The observations are consistent with a loss of genetic variability in the hatchery salmon from random drift caused by using small numbers of salmon for broodstock.         "More hatchery groups appeared to be monomorphic than did wild stocks.         "Hatchery samples were 50% larger than those from the wild introducing a bias in favor of detecting alleles in the hatchery groups compared with the wild stocks.  Thus the differences is probably underestimated.         "There is a loss of alleles in the hatchery groups with lower Ne (effective breeding population numbers) values.         "Theory suggest that most (99%) genetic variability will be preserved if Ne of the broodstock is 50.         "Losses of genetic variability can occur even in the first hatchery generation if numbers of fish used for broodstock are not sufficient.  The average reductions in variability detected here are the same as those found in salmon maintained in hatcheries for a number of generations.  Stahl found levels of heterozygosity to be 20% lower in Swedish hatchery salmon." 5)  Waples, Robin. Dispelling some myths about hatcheries. February 1999. The American    Fisheries Society. Fisheries Vol. 24. No. 2.         "In the Tucannon River in southeastern Washington, a (hatchery) supplementation program for the depressed run of spring chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) was initiated in the mid-1980s.  Founded with local broodstock, this program aims to maintain genetic integrity of the natural population and has a strong research and evaluation component.  In spite of these efforts, data for the early 1990s showed that, compared to the natural adults, returning hatchery fish were younger, were smaller for the same age, and had lower fecundity for the same size (Burgert et al. 1992).  The underlying causes of these somewhat surprising phenotypic changes are not known; however, even if the changes were entirely an environmental response to hatchery conditions, they still would represent a significant single-generation reduction in productivity of the population." – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – That was a great bit of thinking, and you are correct.  The problem is that people like Mike, TU, Wild Trout, etc. haven’t a clue about genetics.  If the argument could be changed from genetics to behavior, especially of Fish and Game people, changes could be made.  Unfortunately the last part of science F&G types understand is genetics.  There is just too much math in population biology and too much biochemistry in genetics for most of them to understand. Why do I feel as though I’ve been hijacked..? I’d vote for a fisherman with a little scientific understanding over a non-fishing scientist *any time*. I have known too many fishery scientists who couldn’t see the wood for the trees and who were prepared to compromise their science for career purposes… — Nogood Boyo

– Mike Leitheiser Lake Oswego, Oregon "When the trout are lost, smash the state."    Tom McGuane

Response:

Specifically on point?  No, but see "Restoring Wild Trout Resources: How Hatchery Fish Fit Into the Equation", Dr. Robert A. Bachman.  Believe this paper was presented in 94 or 95 at an AFS syposium…I have a hard copy, but no internet link.  Bachman has done work in this area and last address I had was Department of Natural Resources, Tawes State Office Bldg.,  580 Taylor Ave., Annapolis, MD 21401.  You might also try searching the AFS(American Fisheries Society) journals on line at   http://www.fisheries.org/pubs.html – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – mike – thanks for the web site…interesting and provocative information. most of the articles/papers i read on the site related to anadromous species.  do you know of any similar studies involving trout in the southeastern streams? jeff Fred, I see that you still haven’t passed Genetics 101.  Read some of the material and maybe you can eventually get a passing grade. http://www.teleport.com/~salmo/library.htm Tim, Since the genetics of hatchery and wild fish are exactly the same (it makes no difference where the egg and sperm get together…Genetics 101)….how about explaining this to me. If you’re interested in the effect that escaped hatchery fish can have on a wild salmon population, take a look at the case involving Atlantic Salmon in the Maritime provinces on Canada’s east coast.  To put it bluntly: WHAT A MESS! Tim Introducing genetic features which enhance growth in Pacific Salmon stocks for commercial use.  I didn’t read the "Genetically Altered" thread, but I would assume it followed these same lines.  In the report, there was a fear from conservationists that escapes would cause damage to naturals. Opie Frightening thought.Salmon growers in Scotland were caught on the hop last year when they got caught up in the G.M debate and killed the entire stock." not one managed to escape" they assured us" and adding a flounder gene was not in the least detrimental to the condition or taste of the fish" . The gene produces fish growing at twice the normal rate . You can only imagine the mess if they got into fragile salmon waters the competition for food would be immense. John Whiteley Before you buy. — Mike Leitheiser Lake Oswego, Oregon "When the trout are lost, smash the state."    Tom McGuane

– Mike Leitheiser Lake Oswego, Oregon "When the trout are lost, smash the state."    Tom McGuane

Response:

You are either dissembling or you don’t fish nearly as much as you were claiming to last year.  It is inconceivable that you could ask this question and at the same time write the kind of stuff quoted below unless of course you are just a troller. Fred wrote on Sat. 19.Feb.2000 "That was a great bit of thinking, and you are correct.  The problem is that people like Mike, TU, Wild Trout, etc. haven’t a clue about genetics.  If the argument could be changed from genetics to behavior, especially of Fish and Game people, changes could be made.  Unfortunately the last part of

science F&G types understand is genetics.  There is just too much math in population biology and too much biochemistry in genetics for most of them to understand." how do you tell a hatchery from a wild fish if no clipping has been done?  Please answer.

– Mike Leitheiser Lake Oswego, Oregon "When the trout are lost, smash the state."    Tom McGuane

Response:

i have yet to read a study that says hatchery planting in the northwest has not had negative impacts on the wild fish.

That’s too many negatives for me, Bellows. I guess what you mean is that no study you’ve ever read said hatchery planting has had positive impacts on the wild fish. I could ask how many "studies" you’ve read, where they came from, and so on, why bother?. It all boils down to a trivial claim. Duh. — visit my web site: http://home.earthlink.net/~royalwulff/ something bogus to avoid spam)

Response:

And that is why you only take fish from the home stream for hatchery use….

Not here (UK) we don’t…  unless a system is thought to be pristine, in which case there are restrictions.  But so many systems have been wrecked in the UK that over the years there has been plenty of mixing of strains.  Even in systems which are thought by the regulatory body (Environment Agency) to be pristine, I know that there has been stocking in years gone by with fish from elsewhere. Are we all talking about the same kind of hatchery here..?  A hatchery specific to one system, used to maintain stocks in that system for fishery purposes, is very different from a commercial fish farm in coastal waters, used to produced tonnage for the market.  They pose very different risks. — Nogood Boyo

Response:

That was a great bit of thinking, and you are correct.  The problem is that people like Mike, TU, Wild Trout, etc. haven’t a clue about genetics.  If the argument could be changed from genetics to behavior, especially of Fish and Game people, changes could be made.  Unfortunately the last part of science F&G types understand is genetics.  There is just too much math in population biology and too much biochemistry in genetics for most of them to understand.

Why do I feel as though I’ve been hijacked..? I’d vote for a fisherman with a little scientific understanding over a non-fishing scientist *any time*. I have known too many fishery scientists who couldn’t see the wood for the trees and who were prepared to compromise their science for career purposes… — Nogood Boyo

Response:

how do you tell a hatchery from a wild fish if no clipping has been done?  Please answer.

I am not a scientist but I have discussed this with scientists who claim to be able to tell. I remember in particular a discussion with a lady by the name of Heather Hall [1] who had spent a couple of years studying trout on a South Wales river (the Usk) which rises very close to my local river.  She said that it is possible in the lab to detect characteristics peculiar to ancient native strains which are missing from non-native stockies.  She had established that trout spawn so specifically in such very well defined areas that within one system you can have many discrete strains with no inter-breeding.  She said these differences can be detected. The reason I was particularly interested in (and recall) this was that I want to know whether my river (the Tawe) still contains any genuine natives and whether it is worth trying to find them and help them to recover.  The river has suffered greatly from industrialisation and development for the last couple of hundred years and has been repeatedly stocked with non-natives for the last 50 years.  The standard theory AIUI is that the stockies will not be as well-suited to the system as any remaining natives which have evolved here since the last ice age. Against that some argue that the river has changed so much in the last two hundred years that all that evolution is wasted… [1]  She was a cracker and I’d be interested to know if details of her work have been published. — Nogood Boyo

Response:

Chris, I have lived in Oregon for 30 years….please cite me one study which upholds what you say….just one well done scientific study.  I am afraid you are the one with blinders….you just believe what you are told, rather than thinking something through.  Hint: how do you tell a hatchery from a wild fish if no clipping has been done?  Please answer. Fred – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Ian, Despite your good intentions, your ducking the question.  If you don’t like farming, fine, but without some science to back up the worry just leads to more and more rumor and not much real knowledge.  Unless you can show some genetic differences between two fish in a stream, and that you know which genotype is REALLY adapted to that water, the idea that hatcheries hurt fish is unsubstantiated.  Best, well, the northwest is a classic case study on what not to do with hatcheries.  i have yet to read a study that says hatchery planting in the northwest has not had negative impacts on the wild fish.  there have been loads of studies and all have shown the negative impacts, both fiscally and environmentally of our reliance on hatchery fish to sustain our fisheries. you can continue to wear blinders on this issue, but i’d suggest some reading. chris

Response:

JB And that is why you only take fish from the home stream for hatchery use….try that on Wild Trout and ask where the difference is….there really is no answer. Fred – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – .  If the hatchery fish that are being cage-reared are from a river that is remote from the wild stocks near the cage site, and the stocks interbreed as a result of the escape of the caged fish, there is a great danger of gentetically-induced homing imparment in the progeny. JB

Response:

Farmed salmon have no homing instinct, and if escapees interbreed with wild fish, there’s a chance the wild ones could lose their homing instinct as well, and the complete run could be lost to a particular river. That’s unproved though

:I thought the homing instinct became imprinted during the smolt stage (forgive the sloppy terminology).  So, if farmed fish get to spawn in rivers, won’t the resulting smolts become imprinted with those rivers..? I’m not saying that’s OK – I know it’s not good to dilute native genes – but the homing instinct would be there, wouldn’t it..?: It has been found that Atlantic salmon smolts released to rivers remote from their home river have very poor return rates compared with smolts from adjacent drainages released to the same rivers.  What I infer from this is that there is a genetic basis to out-migration.  A smolt has to "know" when to turn left or right when it encounters various ocean currents.  If the hatchery fish that are being cage-reared are from a river that is remote from the wild stocks near the cage site, and the stocks interbreed as a result of the escape of the caged fish, there is a great danger of gentetically-induced homing imparment in the progeny. JB

Response:

Ian, Despite your good intentions, your ducking the question.  If you don’t like farming, fine, but without some science to back up the worry just leads to more and more rumor and not much real knowledge.  Unless you can show some genetic differences between two fish in a stream, and that you know which genotype is REALLY adapted to that water, the idea that hatcheries hurt fish is unsubstantiated.  Best,

well, the northwest is a classic case study on what not to do with hatcheries.  i have yet to read a study that says hatchery planting in the northwest has not had negative impacts on the wild fish.  there have been loads of studies and all have shown the negative impacts, both fiscally and environmentally of our reliance on hatchery fish to sustain our fisheries. you can continue to wear blinders on this issue, but i’d suggest some reading. chris

Response:

Ian, Despite your good intentions, your ducking the question.  If you don’t like farming, fine, but without some science to back up the worry just leads to more and more rumor and not much real knowledge.  Unless you can show some genetic differences between two fish in a stream, and that you know which genotype is REALLY adapted to that water, the idea that hatcheries hurt fish is unsubstantiated.  Best, Fred – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I thought the homing instinct became imprinted during the smolt stage (forgive the sloppy terminology).  So, if farmed fish get to spawn in rivers, won’t the resulting smolts become imprinted with those rivers..? I don’t know. I shouldn’t think any one does with any degree of certainty. We might be pretty certain that imprinting takes place at the smolt stage, and even have an idea that the mechanism involved seems to rely on the fishes acute sense of ’smell’, but does anybody have the faintest idea what triggers the impulse off? The ability to recognize and differentiate chemicals in the water at incredibly small dilutions is shared by many species with no homing instinct, so even if the salmon retains the ability to recognise its birth river, if the homing is triggered by a genetically determined factor,who’s to say it’ll use it? Why take the risk? There could be more problems arising that no one’s even thought of. Nature has done a pretty fair design job on salmonids without needing any help from us. The ability of a species to survive is dependent on so many factors, and the species/species, and species/environment interactions are so complex that I don’t think we’ve come anywhere near understanding them in their totality. It might be possible to modify an organism in such a way that it is perfectly suited to life in a controlled and well understood environment such as a laboratory, but the one thing certain about the natural environment is that whatever controls it, it ain’t us. We don’t even understand it. If it isn’t broken don’t fix it is still a pretty good rule. Cheers Ian D

Response:

I thought the homing instinct became imprinted during the smolt stage (forgive the sloppy terminology).  So, if farmed fish get to spawn in rivers, won’t the resulting smolts become imprinted with those rivers..?

I don’t know. I shouldn’t think any one does with any degree of certainty. We might be pretty certain that imprinting takes place at the smolt stage, and even have an idea that the mechanism involved seems to rely on the fishes acute sense of ’smell’, but does anybody have the faintest idea what triggers the impulse off? The ability to recognize and differentiate chemicals in the water at incredibly small dilutions is shared by many species with no homing instinct, so even if the salmon retains the ability to recognise its birth river, if the homing is triggered by a genetically determined factor,who’s to say it’ll use it? Why take the risk? There could be more problems arising that no one’s even thought of. Nature has done a pretty fair design job on salmonids without needing any help from us. The ability of a species to survive is dependent on so many factors, and the species/species, and species/environment interactions are so complex that I don’t think we’ve come anywhere near understanding them in their totality. It might be possible to modify an organism in such a way that it is perfectly suited to life in a controlled and well understood environment such as a laboratory, but the one thing certain about the natural environment is that whatever controls it, it ain’t us. We don’t even understand it. If it isn’t broken don’t fix it is still a pretty good rule. Cheers Ian D

Response:

thanks again… jeff – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Specifically on point?  No, but see "Restoring Wild Trout Resources: How Hatchery Fish Fit Into the Equation", Dr. Robert A. Bachman.  Believe this paper was presented in 94 or 95 at an AFS syposium…I have a hard copy, but no internet link.  Bachman has done work in this area and last address I had was Department of Natural Resources, Tawes State Office Bldg.,  580 Taylor Ave., Annapolis, MD 21401.  You might also try searching the AFS(American Fisheries Society) journals on line at   http://www.fisheries.org/pubs.html mike – thanks for the web site…interesting and provocative information. most of the articles/papers i read on the site related to anadromous species.  do you know of any similar studies involving trout in the southeastern streams? jeff Fred, I see that you still haven’t passed Genetics 101.  Read some of the material and maybe you can eventually get a passing grade. http://www.teleport.com/~salmo/library.htm Tim, Since the genetics of hatchery and wild fish are exactly the same (it makes no difference where the egg and sperm get together…Genetics 101)….how about explaining this to me. If you’re interested in the effect that escaped hatchery fish can have on a wild salmon population, take a look at the case involving Atlantic Salmon in the Maritime provinces on Canada’s east coast.  To put it bluntly: WHAT A MESS! Tim Introducing genetic features which enhance growth in Pacific Salmon stocks for commercial use.  I didn’t read the "Genetically Altered" thread, but I would assume it followed these same lines.  In the report, there was a fear from conservationists that escapes would cause damage to naturals. Opie Frightening thought.Salmon growers in Scotland were caught on the hop last year when they got caught up in the G.M debate and killed the entire stock." not one managed to escape" they assured us" and adding a flounder gene was not in the least detrimental to the condition or taste of the fish" . The gene produces fish growing at twice the normal rate . You can only imagine the mess if they got into fragile salmon waters the competition for food would be immense. John Whiteley Before you buy. — Mike Leitheiser Lake Oswego, Oregon "When the trout are lost, smash the state."    Tom McGuane — Mike Leitheiser Lake Oswego, Oregon "When the trout are lost, smash the state."    Tom McGuane

Response:

What was the report about? Willi – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Did anyone catch the CBS report tonight?  I hope none of those giants find their way from Canada, into Upper Creek in Burke Co., NC!!! Opie in NC

Response:

Introducing genetic features which enhance growth in Pacific Salmon stocks for commercial use.  I didn’t read the "Genetically Altered" thread, but I would assume it followed these same lines.  In the report, there was a fear from conservationists that escapes would cause damage to naturals. Opie

Frightening thought.Salmon growers in Scotland were caught on the hop last year when they got caught up in the G.M debate and killed the entire stock." not one managed to escape" they assured us" and adding a flounder gene was not in the least detrimental to the condition or taste of the fish" . The gene produces fish growing at twice the normal rate . You can only imagine the mess if they got into fragile salmon waters the competition for food would be immense. John Whiteley

Response:

If you’re interested in the effect that escaped hatchery fish can have on a wild salmon population, take a look at the case involving Atlantic Salmon in the Maritime provinces on Canada’s east coast.  To put it bluntly: WHAT A MESS! Tim – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Introducing genetic features which enhance growth in Pacific Salmon stocks for commercial use.  I didn’t read the "Genetically Altered" thread, but I would assume it followed these same lines.  In the report, there was a fear from conservationists that escapes would cause damage to naturals. Opie Frightening thought.Salmon growers in Scotland were caught on the hop last year when they got caught up in the G.M debate and killed the entire stock." not one managed to escape" they assured us" and adding a flounder gene was not in the least detrimental to the condition or taste of the fish" . The gene produces fish growing at twice the normal rate . You can only imagine the mess if they got into fragile salmon waters the competition for food would be immense. John Whiteley

Before you buy.

Response:

Since the genetics of hatchery and wild fish are exactly the same (it makes no difference where the egg and sperm get together…Genetics 101)….how about explaining this to me.

The genetics are not the same. The fish come from different strains, at least when considering farmed salmon. It’s different for fish bred from eggs removed from salmon trapped in their ‘home’ waters for planned restocking or regeneration of a river, but I don’t think that’s what we’re talking about here. Farmed salmon have no homing instinct, and if escapees interbreed with wild fish, there’s a chance the wild ones could lose their homing instinct as well, and the complete run could be lost to a particular river. That’s unproved though and not the immediate cause of the troubles affecting wild fish. Diseases previously unknown in the wild stocks have appeared and been proved to have emanated from fish farms. Attempts to control these have been set back by unscrupulous fishery staff, who have transferred diseased fish illegally, to avoid the loss involved in culling, or have transferred healthy stock in inadequately decontaminated containers. The sea trout of the west coast of Scotland, at least in those regions where fish farms proliferate, have been virtually wiped out. There’s not much doubt that this is due to the vast numbers of fish lice that are found in the vicinity of the farms. These transfer to sea trout smolts which just aren’t strong enough to cope. A similar thing happened in Ireland, but farming was halted in certain areas to observe the effect, and there are signs of recovery where this has been done. A bit further down the line in the list of problems affecting European wild fish is an apparent lack of food during the period when the fish are at sea, and should be packing on weight ready to make the spawning run. This is widely acknowledged as being due to overfishing for the prey species, such as sand-eels. These have several commercial uses, including manufacture of fertilisers, and believe it or not, as fuel in Danish power stations, but they are also an ingredient of the pellets used in the feed at the fish farms. It all adds up, and even where the exact details of cause and effect aren’t known, the decline in the wild fisheries has been tied into the increase in fish farms too closely to be denied. There are real fears that if something isn’t done, and soon, the Atlantic Salmon could be well on the way to extinction as a wild species, at least as far as Scotland is concerned. Cheers Ian D

Response:

The  Native Fish Society’s "Library" at http://www.teleport.com/~salmo/library.htm has information on research regarding the genetic differences between native and hatchery stocks. Regards, — Jeff www.teleport.com/~salmo/jp.htm

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Tim, Since the genetics of hatchery and wild fish are exactly the same (it makes no difference where the egg and sperm get together…Genetics 101)….how about explaining this to me.

Response:

Fred, I see that you still haven’t passed Genetics 101.  Read some of the material and maybe you can eventually get a passing grade. http://www.teleport.com/~salmo/library.htm – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Tim, Since the genetics of hatchery and wild fish are exactly the same (it makes no difference where the egg and sperm get together…Genetics 101)….how about explaining this to me. If you’re interested in the effect that escaped hatchery fish can have on a wild salmon population, take a look at the case involving Atlantic Salmon in the Maritime provinces on Canada’s east coast.  To put it bluntly: WHAT A MESS! Tim Introducing genetic features which enhance growth in Pacific Salmon stocks for commercial use.  I didn’t read the "Genetically Altered" thread, but I would assume it followed these same lines.  In the report, there was a fear from conservationists that escapes would cause damage to naturals. Opie Frightening thought.Salmon growers in Scotland were caught on the hop last year when they got caught up in the G.M debate and killed the entire stock." not one managed to escape" they assured us" and adding a flounder gene was not in the least detrimental to the condition or taste of the fish" . The gene produces fish growing at twice the normal rate . You can only imagine the mess if they got into fragile salmon waters the competition for food would be immense. John Whiteley Before you buy.

– Mike Leitheiser Lake Oswego, Oregon "When the trout are lost, smash the state."    Tom McGuane

Response:

Mike, I have read most of that stuff…..now pay attention…..how does the physical location of where you combine sperm and eggs (plastic pan or gravel) change a genotype?  Just answer that one question. Fred Rick son – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Fred, I see that you still haven’t passed Genetics 101.  Read some of the material and maybe you can eventually get a passing grade. http://www.teleport.com/~salmo/library.htm Tim, Since the genetics of hatchery and wild fish are exactly the same (it makes no difference where the egg and sperm get together…Genetics 101)….how about explaining this to me. If you’re interested in the effect that escaped hatchery fish can have on a wild salmon population, take a look at the case involving Atlantic Salmon in the Maritime provinces on Canada’s east coast.  To put it bluntly: WHAT A MESS! Tim Introducing genetic features which enhance growth in Pacific Salmon stocks for commercial use.  I didn’t read the "Genetically Altered" thread, but I would assume it followed these same lines.  In the report, there was a fear from conservationists that escapes would cause damage to naturals. Opie Frightening thought.Salmon growers in Scotland were caught on the hop last year when they got caught up in the G.M debate and killed the entire stock." not one managed to escape" they assured us" and adding a flounder gene was not in the least detrimental to the condition or taste of the fish" . The gene produces fish growing at twice the normal rate . You can only imagine the mess if they got into fragile salmon waters the competition for food would be immense. John Whiteley Before you buy. — Mike Leitheiser Lake Oswego, Oregon "When the trout are lost, smash the state."    Tom McGuane

Response:

Fred, Perhaps you should pay attention to what you write and quit obfuscating.  You wrote "Since the genetics of hatchery and wild fish are exactly the same…"You have been pursuing your same tiresome and innaccurate arguments for far too long.  The same nonsensical positions you espouse were positions offered by fishery managers of the 60s and 70s…….look around you and see where they got us. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Mike, I have read most of that stuff…..now pay attention…..how does the physical location of where you combine sperm and eggs (plastic pan or gravel) change a genotype?  Just answer that one question. Fred Rick son Fred, I see that you still haven’t passed Genetics 101.  Read some of the material and maybe you can eventually get a passing grade. http://www.teleport.com/~salmo/library.htm Tim, Since the genetics of hatchery and wild fish are exactly the same (it makes no difference where the egg and sperm get together…Genetics 101)….how about explaining this to me. If you’re interested in the effect that escaped hatchery fish can have on a wild salmon population, take a look at the case involving Atlantic Salmon in the Maritime provinces on Canada’s east coast.  To put it bluntly: WHAT A MESS! Tim Introducing genetic features which enhance growth in Pacific Salmon stocks for commercial use.  I didn’t read the "Genetically Altered" thread, but I would assume it followed these same lines.  In the report, there was a fear from conservationists that escapes would cause damage to naturals. Opie Frightening thought.Salmon growers in Scotland were caught on the hop last year when they got caught up in the G.M debate and killed the entire stock." not one managed to escape" they assured us" and adding a flounder gene was not in the least detrimental to the condition or taste of the fish" . The gene produces fish growing at twice the normal rate . You can only imagine the mess if they got into fragile salmon waters the competition for food would be immense. John Whiteley Before you buy. — Mike Leitheiser Lake Oswego, Oregon "When the trout are lost, smash the state."    Tom McGuane

– Mike Leitheiser Lake Oswego, Oregon "When the trout are lost, smash the state."    Tom McGuane

Response:

mike – thanks for the web site…interesting and provocative information. most of the articles/papers i read on the site related to anadromous species.  do you know of any similar studies involving trout in the southeastern streams? jeff – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Fred, I see that you still haven’t passed Genetics 101.  Read some of the material and maybe you can eventually get a passing grade. http://www.teleport.com/~salmo/library.htm Tim, Since the genetics of hatchery and wild fish are exactly the same (it makes no difference where the egg and sperm get together…Genetics 101)….how about explaining this to me. If you’re interested in the effect that escaped hatchery fish can have on a wild salmon population, take a look at the case involving Atlantic Salmon in the Maritime provinces on Canada’s east coast.  To put it bluntly: WHAT A MESS! Tim Introducing genetic features which enhance growth in Pacific Salmon stocks for commercial use.  I didn’t read the "Genetically Altered" thread, but I would assume it followed these same lines.  In the report, there was a fear from conservationists that escapes would cause damage to naturals. Opie Frightening thought.Salmon growers in Scotland were caught on the hop last year when they got caught up in the G.M debate and killed the entire stock." not one managed to escape" they assured us" and adding a flounder gene was not in the least detrimental to the condition or taste of the fish" . The gene produces fish growing at twice the normal rate . You can only imagine the mess if they got into fragile salmon waters the competition for food would be immense. John Whiteley Before you buy. — Mike Leitheiser Lake Oswego, Oregon "When the trout are lost, smash the state."    Tom McGuane

Response:

Question:

Greetings, I would greatly appreciate all advice offered which will assist me in delivering weighted nymphs, Clousers, saturated Wooly buggers ect. on a 8′-6" 5wt rod.  I’m sure part of my problem is incorrect timing and loop size, I’ve been told I need to exercise a wider loop. Is this correct? Also, please let me know what length tapered leader should be required. Am I safe to assume that a shorter but stockier tapered leader would be the preferred or is this incorrect. Please help… Thanks in advance, Tony Norton

Response:

Greetings, I would greatly appreciate all advice offered which will assist me in delivering weighted nymphs, Clousers, saturated Wooly buggers ect. on a 8′-6" 5wt rod.  I’m sure part of my problem is incorrect timing and loop size, I’ve been told I need to exercise a wider loop. Is this correct? Also, please let me know what length tapered leader should be required. Am I safe to assume that a shorter but stockier tapered leader would be the preferred or is this incorrect.

I think that the key to casting heavy flies and even jigs is good timing.  It is a skill I have not yet developed.  When I accidentally have a taut line before delivering a power stroke via the rod, I get a good cast.  Otherwise, I just move the flyline without applying force to the fly.  For heavy weighted flies, the energy in the fly can be greater than that in the flyline. Bill

Response:

Actually, one way to cast heavier flys is go to a 6 wt. That’s why there are different weighted lines/rods. When I fish buggers and the lead needed to getm down a 5wt begins to be a chore to cast. Your lobing not casting when the stuff your casting gets heavy. Are you fishing lakes or rivers? On rivers you can lob right off the water after you let the fly go completely down stream at the end of the swing. This lets you use the water to load the rod and you never have problems with knots and tangles. Keep the false casts close to zero. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Greetings, I would greatly appreciate all advice offered which will assist me in delivering weighted nymphs, Clousers, saturated Wooly buggers ect. on a 8′-6" 5wt rod.  I’m sure part of my problem is incorrect timing and loop size, I’ve been told I need to exercise a wider loop. Is this correct? Also, please let me know what length tapered leader should be required. Am I safe to assume that a shorter but stockier tapered leader would be the preferred or is this incorrect. Please help… Thanks in advance, Tony Norton

Response:

This is a favorite subject of mine….lead slingers anonymous…. Although a six or seven weight rod is better suited to lead slinging than a five weight, rod size is, all things considered, one of the least important factors. What’s most important is the leader. You can’t buy a good heavy-fly leader. So you have to make your own. Aim for a 7′ – 9′ leader overall. Make the butt section about 2-3′ long, from 30lb Maxima. Use 40lb if can make the nail knot. Then taper down to 0x or 1x in even increments. A stiff butt leader combined with slow, rhythmic double haul allows accurate casting with very heavy flies. NOTE: For fall fishing in Montana, when  big brown trout are getting aggressive, territorial and horny, some guys like to fish deep runs and the tail ends of large pools with a fast sinking shooting head and *short* leader. When fishing this way, you’re relying on the shooting head to get you down, so you don’t need an extremely heavy fly. But that’s another story. — /* Sandy Pittendrigh                  –oO0  * http://www.nervana.montana.edu/~sandy  */

Response:

Tony, You need to talk to Kiwis about this, as in the North Island, extremely heavy nymphs on long leaders are in common use. A long smooth casting stroke is part of the trick and letting the fly/flies turn right over on the back cast before beginning the forward cast – like a pendulum. Like BillyFish said, try to be smooth, eliminate wobbles, open the loop up a bit and let the flies turn over. In NZ with the above sort of casting style, leaders over 10′ of 8-10lb maxima straight to the flies are used. Cheers John Knight Sydney Fly Rodders’ – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Greetings, I would greatly appreciate all advice offered which will assist me in delivering weighted nymphs, Clousers, saturated Wooly buggers ect. on a 8′-6" 5wt rod.  I’m sure part of my problem is incorrect timing and loop size, I’ve been told I need to exercise a wider loop. Is this correct? Also, please let me know what length tapered leader should be required. Am I safe to assume that a shorter but stockier tapered leader would be the preferred or is this incorrect. Please help… Thanks in advance, Tony Norton

Response:

A word from a kiwi – despite what has been said about tapered leaders we find down here a single weight leader is best. With a heavy nymph or fly it does not usually matter if the leader is tapered or not. The essential thing is to make sure that the final backcast is sent high, this means making a definite stop with the rod arm at 11.30, and no wrist action at all. It is OK to let the rod and casting arm drift upwards after the stop, but any such drift must follow the upward path of the line. Allow the line and leader to straighten fully before the forward cast, it is better to err on too late than too soon. If it will not spook the fish, it is helpful to let the nymph or fly hit the water on the forward false cast before moving into the final backcast. It is not pretty but it does help to load the rod up fully so that the maximum line acceleration is achieved. Note line acceleration (the rate of change of speed) is the important thing in casting heavy flies at any line weight, not line speed per se. Better than all that stuff above, if you are serious about getting distance from heavy flies get a heavier rod. Here is the trade off, light rod -heavy nymphs too many false casts. Heavier rod – heavy nymphs less false casts. Down here we believe in maximising the time a fly spends in productive water. False casting is a waste of that time:-)

Response:

and the tail ends of large pools with a fast sinking shooting head and *short* leader.

Thanks Sandy once again you give excellent advice. I will try this. Big Dale

Response:

As always, thanks for the good advice guys.  I’ll be out in the back yard this evening aerating the yard with split shot. Tony N.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Greetings, I would greatly appreciate all advice offered which will assist me in delivering weighted nymphs, Clousers, saturated Wooly buggers ect. on a 8′-6" 5wt rod.  I’m sure part of my problem is incorrect timing and loop size, I’ve been told I need to exercise a wider loop. Is this correct? Also, please let me know what length tapered leader should be required. Am I safe to assume that a shorter but stockier tapered leader would be the preferred or is this incorrect. Please help… Thanks in advance, Tony Norton

   Tony,    When casting heavy flies you want to make as slow a backcast as possible.     Don’t stop on the backcast. Come forward with the rod and make your    normal forecast- the line will sweep around a smooth curve and  you will    be in good position to make a forecast. –tony

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Greetings, I would greatly appreciate all advice offered which will assist me in delivering weighted nymphs, Clousers, saturated Wooly buggers ect. on a 8′-6" 5wt rod.  I’m sure part of my problem is incorrect timing and loop size, I’ve been told I need to exercise a wider loop. Is this correct? Also, please let me know what length tapered leader should be required. Am I safe to assume that a shorter but stockier tapered leader would be the preferred or is this incorrect. Please help… Thanks in advance, Tony Norton

_______  Well now Tony, rather then tell you what you should do, let me explain what I do. 1)  To turn over heavier items with lead in them, requires a heavier tippet.  Let us say, 12# test – 15# test. 2)  Get away from tapered leaders.  I tie my own tapered leaders.  I use nothing but Maxima.  I use HARD Maxima for the Butt section and the mid section and then I use soft Maxima for the last of the taper section and the TIPPET. 3)  For wet flies and streamers, try this.  I assume an average WT Fly line for you being a 6WT.  It makes no difference, this one will work on the majority of the Streamers you wish to toss.  Two feet of 20 – 25 # HARD Maxima BUTT Section, Two Feet of 15# Test Middle Section, and Two Feet of 10 – 12# SOFT Tippet. This leader will turn over.  It has little to do with size of loop.  The leader should always turn over on its own.  In fact Tony, you can hand cast your hand tied leaders to see if they will work before you attach them to your fly line. Using Knot-Perfect leader lube will make you the prettiest blood knots you’ve ever tied in your life.  (End of Commercial) The next thing you can try is fish more often with a sink tip or full length sinking line.  The shorter your leader, the better while streaking under water.  You can even shorten your hand tied leaders to a length of 18 inches per section.  This is an advantage.  Now you will be able to remove the lead out of your wets and use Gehrke’s XINK in place of lead weighted flies, which are not very good for water, and/or the ducks that will eat it once hooks rust away, a year or two later. I would try the short, dramatic torpedo taper that rolling your own leaders makes possible for you.  Making your own leaders should be as much fun as making your own flies. Hope these thoughts inspire you to try it Tony. — Mr. G.   http://www.gink.com/html  Fly Fisherman’s Chat Site   "Flyfisherman’s Camp Fires Burning" http://www.gink.com http://www.rodbuilding.com http://www.xink.com

Question:

Hit the same stream today, Monday, with my son on his 11th birthday. Arrived around noon, air temp pushing 70 degrees and a cloudless day. We run into one other fisherman getting dressed by the parking.  We agree he’ll head downstream and we’ll go up.  Into the woods, and we run into two other fishermen (another man and his son, NJ schools are on spring break), and we walk upstream a quarter mile and we’re alone again. My son swelters during the walk in, wearing his non-breathable chest waders and arrives on stream in a bit of a grump.  He hates overheating.  Realize I should have carried the waders in and let him change streamside.  I’m comfortable in my waist-high Gore-Tex. A few practice casts with a #16 pheasant tail and he’s convinced there are no fish here.  No luck in the first three pockets.  Then we arrive at the first decent pool, and two fish are rising steadily to dark stone flies. Off comes the PT and on goes the black caddis.  My son and I take turns casting.  He starts, has trouble getting the line out, and hands me the rod. I catch a 6" rainbow on the second offering.  He takes the rod back, gets off a decent cast, and lands a twin.  I land the third fish on the same pool a few moments later.  That concludes the action on the pool.  We move on. My son decides he’s enjoying sitting in the river in his waders, and throwing rocks, more than fishing and releases me (more or less) to fish.  A couple of large pools, and no action.  The surface is very quiet, and I can only assume I lined the fish. Then, 100 yards along, a compact, deep pool (at least 4 feet).  Having trouble seeing the black caddis fly, but after my second cast I see the flash of a fish’s belly taking something, and set the hook.  After a caroming fight across the entire pool, it turns out to be a fat 12" male rainbow in rich spawning colors. Another pocket, and another 7" fish.  Then my son announces he wants to leave.  It IS his birthday after all.  I’m thinking that if I’m alone, this is a 20 fish afternoon, easy.  Nevertheless, with one rod between us, we’ve caught 5 fish in less than 40 minutes, all on the caddis-stonefly. We go home, spotting a garter snake along the way.  My son grabs it, and later tells his grandmother he caught "one fish and one snake." Michael

Response:

Just to say that the Garden State has a surprising amount to offer the wild trout fisherman who’s not obsessed with size of catch. On a stream to remain anonymous… This is a heavily wooded, small freestone stream.  Less than 90 minutes from Times Square, within two hours of 30 million people.  But on the stream all is peaceful.  No houses are visible in this stretch, just a mature hardwood forest.   NO ONE else is about, and the steep valley walls block out any possible traffic noise.  The water averages about a foot deep, cutting through some steep hills.  A series of small flats and little cascading plunge pools.  An occasional deeper pool or run.  Average width is no more than 15 feet. Arrived mid-day on Friday after moderate rain Thursday.  Surprised to find the water still running muddy with run-off.  Fishing for the first hour or so was pretty much a bust.  Water continued to run cloudy, but gradually changed from muddy to blue-green and fish started to hit. Was fishing a #14 bead-head pheasant tail for most of the afternoon, concentrating on the deeper pockets and deep pools/runs.  This was hit and run fishing, hitting a pocket with a few casts, then walking 20-30 yards to the next one. The deeper the pocket, the larger the fish, ranging from 6" to 12".  After 2 PM, most pockets rewarded me with a take.  Some with two or three, a big fish (9"+) at the deepest point, then smaller fish.  Wild rainbows in spawning splendor.  One brown.   By 4 o’clock I’d caught and released at least 20 fish. As I approached what I’d decided would be the last hole, I noticed a fish rise a couple of times.  Pulled off the pheasant tail, and put on a black elk hair caddis.  It took the first offering.  Turned out to be a fat 9"+ rainbow!  Lept twice before diving into a deep pocket, where I had to drag him out before releasing him.  First fish of the season on a dry! Michael

Response:

Question:

says… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I live in Butte, Montana, born and raised here.  Also lived and fished the Sierra Nevada’s near Truckee, CA for about 10 years.  I have degrees in Respiratory Therapy and a graduate degree in Biology.   Been a FF’er since the 70’s.  I very much enjoy still water fishing.  All those lakes near Truckee had a lasting effect.  Milton Reservoir remains one of my favorite places to fish.   I have read this group for the last couple of years and had kind of dropped it due to all the flames and off subject stuff.  I returned a few weeks ago and was surprised to see the lack of venom.  Personally, I enjoy  a fishing group that talks about fishing.   I am curious, what happened? Joe  

Howdy Joe, What happened? Well hell, as someone else put it, we all set down on the front porch and started drinkin’ and bs’n and it turns out we ain’t all so bad, different (‘ceptin wayno and i are johnny rebs) or f&*!ed-up as we originally thought. However, I wouldn’t hold my breath too long if I was you. I see storm clouds a buildin’ out west in the Rockies and up north Canady way. Tight lines, Wataugan Walt

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – says… I live in Butte, Montana, born and raised here.  Also lived and fished the Sierra Nevada’s near Truckee, CA for about 10 years.  I have degrees in Respiratory Therapy and a graduate degree in Biology.   Been a FF’er since the 70’s.  I very much enjoy still water fishing.  All those lakes near Truckee had a lasting effect.  Milton Reservoir remains one of my favorite places to fish. I have read this group for the last couple of years and had kind of dropped it due to all the flames and off subject stuff.  I returned a few weeks ago and was surprised to see the lack of venom.  Personally, I enjoy  a fishing group that talks about fishing. I am curious, what happened? Joe Howdy Joe, What happened? Well hell, as someone else put it, we all set down on the front porch and started drinkin’ and bs’n and it turns out we ain’t all so bad, different (‘ceptin wayno and i are johnny rebs) or f&*!ed-up as we originally thought. However, I wouldn’t hold my breath too long if I was you. I see storm clouds a buildin’ out west in the Rockies and up north Canady way. Tight lines, Wataugan Walt

    Rebels? In NORTH Carolina ? I was under the impression that everybody north of Jacksonville was a yankee. (that auta kick up some dust). Guess next time I see ya I’ll havta check if yer smoken backwoods en gulpin burbon en branch water ( I prefer southern comfort).                                                      John Popp                                                 pertnear south as ya get                                                   in Sanford Fl.

Response:

Freud would have had a field day with this one.  I’ve heard about having an Oedipus complex, but I’ve never heard of suffering from the Rex. Peter – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Ok…here’s mine.  Sorry to bore you, in advance. I am Fifi, the standard internet test poodle. I am a 6 year old miniature french poodle (white, female) owned by some very nice people in Canada.   I am very pampered and a very, very lucky little dog.  I have a beautiful studded collar that my owner, an elderly couple, got me for Christmas last year (human year).  I am well fed and groomed. Like I said, I am very lucky. Except for sometimes. That sometimes is when Uncle Jim comes by and is left alone with me or takes me to the poodle boutique.  He is a very mean man.  In the interest of good taste and politeness (I am french, after all) I will not elaborate on the details of his acts.   Once, though, he left me in the car on the hottest day of the year while he went in to some place that looked like a big doghouse and had sillohouettes of nude human females painted black on the outside.   Of course, I can’t speak and my owner never knows what he does. The best I can do is bark and try to bite him. — Fifi

Response:

Which just goes to show you…never underestimate an ass. Jon "Fishing’s the last thing on my mind" Cook.

– Shoot far’ Jon, I’ve seen asses that couldn’t be *overestimated*! (-: Frank Church Elkhart, IN Over the hill?    What hill?    I didn’t see no hill….(!)

Response:

Ok…here’s mine.  Sorry to bore you, in advance. I am Fifi, the standard internet test poodle. I am a 6 year old miniature french poodle (white, female) owned by some very nice people in Canada.   I am very pampered and a very, very lucky little dog.  I have a beautiful studded collar that my owner, an elderly couple, got me for Christmas last year (human year).  I am well fed and groomed. Like I said, I am very lucky. Except for sometimes. That sometimes is when Uncle Jim comes by and is left alone with me or takes me to the poodle boutique.  He is a very mean man.  In the interest of good taste and politeness (I am french, after all) I will not elaborate on the details of his acts.   Once, though, he left me in the car on the hottest day of the year while he went in to some place that looked like a big doghouse and had sillohouettes of nude human females painted black on the outside.   Of course, I can’t speak and my owner never knows what he does. The best I can do is bark and try to bite him. — Fifi

Response:

Ok…here’s mine.  Sorry to bore you, in advance. I am Fifi, the standard internet test poodle.

Bloody hell ! Reincarnation yet, thought you got burned to death in a pain threshold experiment.  Welcome back to ROFF. You will doubtless be pleased to here that one of the current discussions is Catfishing, and whether to release the beasts or not. This may at least give you some vicarious pleasure, and compensate you somewhat for the dastardly acts imposed on your good self by Uncle Jim. Seems there are a couple of people on here, very similar to Uncle Jim,  who have problems with cats actually, or maybe just the houses the cats live in ?  Whatever, glad to see you alive and barking. Fifi long thought to be dead, has again raised her elegant head, like a phoenix she rose, ( an unnatural pose ! ), and she still looks well groomed and  well fed. Pampered and polished she is, and goes once a week for a frizz, to the poodle boutique, with her uncle the freak, but no reason to get in a tizz ! The tests have now been postponed, cause Fifi was obviously stoned, you dont feel pain, when youre full of cocaine, and the lexus would have to be loaned. In the future we

Question:

Some of us C&R types advocate it not to be pompus or to hold the higher ethical ground. I release fish because I like to catch’m more than I like to eat them. Also I want to help manage a finite resourse. I figure if a fish can be caught more then once then its good for the fishery and the fisherman….not the fish. I don’t apologize for killing for sport, but C&R allows me to kill less. Hell golfers kill grass when they golf. I kill insects every day walking down the street. I guess your point is that if you don’t like trout (to eat that is) you have no business fishing. Do you return sub-eatables to the stream? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – – Views on Ethics Astream – (snipped) Ethics.. the ethics of taking your pleasure out of playing with the lives of another being?  If C&R flyfishers actually really, honestly cared all that much about ethics, they would take up hiking or some other activity where their actions are not akin to russian roulette on the life of another being. I know this is a little extreme, but I grow so tired of C&R people attempting to take the moral high road.. but to me, all I see is a bunch of empty justification for getting your enjoyment out of ‘playing’ with the lives of another species. IMHO, there’s far more honor in catching only what you will keep, and keeping a very small, responsible amount. I enjoy reading your writing.. so please don’t take this personally, but C&R is a knee-jerk response to a real problem.. unfortunately, it isn’t a solution. -Mark/Particle Salad Particle Salad/Noom Room Studio http://home.earthlink.net/~psalad

Response:

Jon Cook: <<…..Well, here we agree. If you are an athiest, if you believe there is no good/evil/morality/ethics in the universe, then you do not owe anybody anything, whether they are a fish, your kid, whatever. Perhaps *that* is why Clinton doesn’t fly fish! Just a thought.

Response:

I’ve followed this debate for a couple of years and I keep seeing the same things rehashed.  Has any of the contributors ever learned anything from it and modified their position to suit, or has this become as ritualized as watching Seinfeld reruns to TV eternity? Moe, you and your cronies argue C&R is immoral, shows lack of respect to animals, ruins the rivers etc.  The Ralphians argue that C&R is merely a tool to be employed or not, depending on circumstance.  Morality is irrelevant.  Someone with a Classical education can help me out here, but weren’t there two characters who were condemned for eternity to battle each other.  Well these guys should step aside for we have two new candidates for the job. There is no endgame to this, and maybe that’s the point.  It’s become a Seinfeld substitute.  In chess, repetitive moves can be ruled a stalemate. What else do we have here, but that.  Isn’t it about time somebody recognized that the other side may have made a valid point or two?  If there is no growth, no development in this debate, it just becomes a Usenet WWF tag team match, Moe and the Fish Breaths vs.. Ralphie and the Barbless.  No time limit, no falls, no referee, and eventually no audience. There’s no point me adding my two cents worth on the subject.  Somebody would just misrepresent it and go off on another tangential rant.  We already need half the farms in Iowa just to provide the hay for all the straw men that get built around here.  Can’t anyone see any merit in what the other side is saying, or have you dug your bunkers so deep, you can’t see out of them? KRR — remove nospam from Email address

Response:

: :       well, now, jon, let’s think about that position for a moment. : i have known scores of folk who are either atheists or agnostics or : non-christians who both talk the talk and walk the walk in the theatre : of decent relationships with their fellow man just as well as "god : fearing christians, etc." Absolutely, me too. (btw, I only said atheist, so what the other groups have to do with anything, I don’t know). I only assert that it is impossible to tell an atheist they have a moral obligation to something.

You mean all I have to do is become an atheist and I can keep or release as many fish as I want to.  (In the words of Homer Simpson… WHOO HOO!)  I’m switchin’  :-) Later,      - Ken — Not speaking for anyone but myself

Response:

: : ok so what is the problem that c&r is not the answer to? More anglers selfishly catching more than they should..

_______ THIS!  Is exactly the point Johnathan.  That I CAN Catch & Release 8 or more fish a day when I could have killed a limit of 6 instead and quit and gone home, IS just the point. If I can, as a sportsman, catch and release twenty, thirty, or more fish a day and not kill a one, THAT IS THE POINT. Selfish?  You bet.  What’s wrong with the word selfish?  There is nothing wrong with the word selfish, self interest and entertainment as long as that activity does  not demean the resource. Here, look at that stream.  It has six fishermen in it and 72 fish in it.  You’re the Seventh fisherman and all six of THEM catch their limit of six fish each, and then go away. You, on the other hand, that day, caught 36 fish and released them all, not hurting a one for another day. The next day, all six fishermen return and repeat the process because ‘the law’ says they may. You come back the third day and there is nothing left for you. Why do you then not see how beautiful  you are? Mr. G. Fishing only becomes by business when I am one and they are two. ? It means, I am only the minority.

Response:

Try these (again !). The South Platte Below Cheesman The Frying Pan below Reudi The Green below Flaming Gorge The San Juan below Navajo . so are you saying that there are fewer fish and the fish are smaller and generally in poorer condition than BEFORE c&r regulations?

gross mismanagement by the States responsible.  First off, the number one enemy to wild fisheries are when the State starts introducing hatchery fish. Next, there are too many fishermen. etc. The answer is to manage a wild fishery as a wild fishery with no catch and kill allowed.  Any fish that is not handled properly, will die and the carcass will be picked up by an eagle, otter, etc.  BUT what won’t happen is the hand of man will not be allowed to fill an ego.  EGO destroys the size of the breeding stock than anything else. Where a section of stream could handle one catch and kill fisherman a month,  the same stretch can handle many more fly fishermen a week that catch and release. I can promise everyone that barbless hooks are one of the most exciting aspects to catch and release fishing in a century of inventions. Here, we fly fishermen will lose more then what comes to hand, but that we can hook up and get a wiggle or a leap or two before the majority of the fish get free – is reward enough.  This is why I always tell my guests,  "That you at least hooked up and got a turn or one leap, we regard as a fooled fish and caught if it had a barb." How would you like to fish.  With or without a barb?  If you catch and release? Mr. G.

Response:

____ snipped some good stuff: the only solution that satisfies my hopes for my kids is a middle ground, boring as that stand might be:  be moderate in your days on the water. be moderate in the numbers of fish you catch.  kill only what you want to eat.  and then post a literate description of your experience on roff so us poor rednecks in the appalachians can vicariously enjoy the feeling of a 20 inch rainbow on the business end of a 7.5 thomas & thomas.         wayno

for bigger trout and/or fish like Steelhead Wayne? arrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggggh!   But I’ll do it. You can fish with anything out west you want to as long as its nine feet or more. 8′ 11” ’s won’t do. ; ) Mr. G.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <snip the only solution that satisfies my hopes for my kids is a middle ground, boring as that stand might be:  be moderate in your days on the water. be moderate in the numbers of fish you catch.  kill only what you want to eat.  and then post a literate description of your experience on roff so us poor rednecks in the appalachians can vicariously enjoy the feeling of a 20 inch rainbow on the business end of a 7.5 thomas & thomas.        wayno well said wayno….. btw…. i never thought I’d be happy to see a return to roff of this timeless debate, it sure beats the g-wars. –Wataugan Walt p

Mr. G.

Response:

: : ok so what is the problem that c&r is not the answer to? More anglers selfishly catching more than they should.. : Who or what says I owe a fish these kind of ethical/moral considerations?   Well, here we agree. If you are an athiest, if you believe there is no good/evil/morality/ethics in the universe, then you do not owe anybody anything, whether they are a fish, your kid, whatever.

        well, now, jon, let’s think about that position for a moment. i have known scores of folk who are either atheists or agnostics or non-christians who both talk the talk and walk the walk in the theatre of decent relationships with their fellow man just as well as "god fearing christians, etc."  a human being’s treatment of fish, as an animal or a golf ball, may have nothing whatsoever to do with that individual’s philosophy or religion.         this response is not meant to imply that i am directly opposed to your position on what a man does to fish when he tries to catch them.  i just want to make sure that if you posit that only "good people" c&k, then you and i have a difference of opinion. (snip)         wayno

Response:

Is it just me or has anyone else noticed how Jon and Timbo follow my posts as certainly as Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum? [deleted] He’s using "The Chubakka Defense" again ! — TimW, Halfordian Golfer "Guilt replaced the creel…"

I resent that! I do not chubakka! I think it’s a disgusting and unhealthy habit. Besides my wife wouldn’t tolerate the spitunes! Ralph H

Response:

Is it just me or has anyone else noticed how Jon and Timbo follow my posts as certainly as Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum? 8^) : : ok so what is the problem that c&r is not the answer to? More anglers selfishly catching more than they should..

oh so that’s the problem Mr Salad was talking about? : Who or what says I owe a fish these kind of ethical/moral considerations?   Well, here we agree. If you are an athiest, if you believe there is no good/evil/morality/ethics in the universe, then you do not owe anybody anything, whether they are a fish, your kid, whatever.

atheism does not equal amoralism. (BTW I officialy consider myself agnostic – I suspect there is a god but I have no idea what shape it takes – I suspect as people this shape is beyond our comprehension – but I have real trouble with the idea – since by definition it is beyond…) So you can put your prejudices away. I’d also say God’s expression and resolution of ethical and moral issues is perplexing to say the least. If you believe that man *does have* some sort of prescribed relationship to animals, that the term "animal abuse" can be meaningful in a moral or ethical way, then you have to decide what the ramifications are to that. It might involve how you fish.

 How might it unless you are a Hindu or animist – even then I don’t believe the ascribe the sort of ethical considerations you might give to fish on some obscure religious basis. I’d ask you to be more specific but I don’t think you can. Anyone else? Mr Salad? Ralph H

Response:

Is it just me or has anyone else noticed how Jon and Timbo follow my posts as certainly as Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum?

[deleted] He’s using "The Chubakka Defense" again ! — TimW, Halfordian Golfer "Guilt replaced the creel…"

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [deleted] I’ve asked before but never got an answer – show me one water where the population of fish were quantitatively and qualitatively (for anglers) worse off after the introduction of c&r. Fuck Ralph… (why don’t ya try to double up on the ridilan [you alzheimeric bot !] Nothing like a good immature ad hominym attack to get this off on the right foot ! <g) Try these (again !). The South Platte Below Cheesman The Frying Pan below Reudi The Green below Flaming Gorge The San Juan below Navajo

And now I come in and ask if the conditions at these places are due to C&R being implemented or due to a population increase in population centers around those area.  Is C&R the cause or the affect? …Continue ad infiniteum… What were we supposed to do?  Blue 22 or something like that? Later,      - Ken — Not speaking for anyone but myself

Response:

[deleted] I’ve asked before but never got an answer – show me one water where the population of fish were quantitatively and qualitatively (for anglers) worse off after the introduction of c&r.

Fuck Ralph… (why don’t ya try to double up on the ridilan [you alzheimeric bot !] Nothing like a good immature ad hominym attack to get this off on the right foot ! <g) Try these (again !). The South Platte Below Cheesman The Frying Pan below Reudi The Green below Flaming Gorge The San Juan below Navajo . . . Places I wouldn’t fish on a bet.  And I doubt you would either once you realized the score…. — TimW, Halfordian Golfer "Guilt replaced the creel…"

Response:

Try these (again !). The South Platte Below Cheesman The Frying Pan below Reudi The Green below Flaming Gorge The San Juan below Navajo .

so are you saying that there are fewer fish and the fish are smaller and generally in poorer condition than BEFORE c&r regulations? BTW I am accepting all these rivers are strictly c&r – no slots no trophy bags. – excepting of course the San Juan – as has been pointed out you have repeatedly misrepresented the regs on that river. Ralph H

Response:

[deleted] I guess your point is that if you don’t like trout (to eat that is) you have no business fishing.

[deleted] That is correct. Do you return sub-eatables to the stream?

Culling (Selective Harvest) is an ancient form of managing a natural resource. C&R is a 30 year old Knee-Jerk non-solution that allows rod manufacturers to multiply. — TimW, Halfordian Golfer "Guilt replaced the creel…"

Response:

Some of us C&R types advocate it not to be pompus or to hold the higher ethical ground. I release fish because I like to catch’m more than I like to eat them. Also I want to help manage a finite resourse… ? Ethics.. the ethics of taking your pleasure out of playing with the lives of another being?  If C&R flyfishers actually really, honestly cared all that much about ethics, they would take up hiking or some other activity where

. but to me, all I see is a bunch of empty justification for getting your enjoyment out of ‘playing’ with the lives of another species. IMHO, there’s far more honor in catching only what you will keep, and keeping a very small, responsible amount. I enjoy reading your writing.. so please don’t take this personally, but C&R is a knee-jerk response to a real problem.. unfortunately, it isn’t a solution.

ok so what is the problem that c&r is not the answer to? C&R is hardly a knee jerk response but has evolved over a period of generations. For generations it’s been accepted to let some fish – they are too small, they’re spawning, they are the wrong species. Some fishers then realized they could let many more go and provide more fish for themselves and for others tomorrow and the next year and in the next generation. Look at the results –  in many cases it worked – waters empty of mature fish repopulated with fish of all age classes. It’s hard as an angler to accept arguments that those populations of fish are worse off because of c&r. I’ve asked before but never got an answer – show me one water where the population of fish were quantitatively and qualitatively (for anglers) worse off after the introduction of c&r. C&R is a technique or tool – neither particular ethical or unethical in and of itself. As in most aspects of life ethical issues in fishing are not black and white as you seem to portray. Some examples; a recent email from a fisherman in England said tho’ the minimum size limit on his local waters is 7 inches he doesn’t kill anything under 9. Haig-Brown wrote he had a personal limit of 14 inches for much of his angling life on Vancouver Island when during that time the legal limit varied from 8 inches to nil. Are these anglers ‘playing’ with the life of other beings? How different are their rules from c&r? If there is a defined point where conservation says to release or kill how can anyone do otherwise without ‘breaking’ your ethical boundaries into sadism? What of other anglers who impose such limits on themselves? Who sets the limits and decides what’s the ethical and what is not? Do we want legislated morality that says we can only fish to kill and must kill what we catch? And of course this gets back to the question I posed some time ago and recently you Mr Salad – Who or what says I owe a fish these kind of ethical/moral considerations?   Ralph H

Response:

- Views on Ethics Astream – Ernie Schwiebert said it as well as anyone in Matching the Hatch. "The angling sportsman does not need dead trout or fish in his basket to feel satisfaction. He has long since proved to himself that he can catch trout and needs no proof for his companions. He does not fear the ridicule of others, for he knows that he could fill his limit if he wished. He counts as his highest reward the number of fish put back into the river for another day. He may bring in fish now and then if someone has expressed a desire for them, but he loves his fishing far to much to spoil it with wanton killing of the trout." Locating a large steelhead or salmon is the greatest thrill for the angler, for here is an adversary worthy of his skill. He may try for the fish for hours or even days without success, and still return home satisfied. Its not the dozens of fish taken that one remembers, but those few heavy, trophy steelhead taken or lost under difficult conditions we remember best. Just the knowledge that a big fish is present adds flavor to a pool or a secret place. Beginners may ask why one fishes if he is to release his catch. They fail to see that the `live steelhead’ or trout sucking in the fly and fighting the rod is the entire point of our sport. Dead fish are just so much lifeless meat. If food is the reason for fishing, then the fish market is a cheaper place to obtain it. We cannot begrudge the local angler his fish and the limits of the law for these are honorable reasons to fish, but the man who travels hundreds of miles and even thousands of miles to fish the stream is paying $50 for each pound of fish. When one stops to consider his motivation in the light of economics, it becomes obvious that he fishes for the sport and not the meat and more importantly . . . not to display his ego. Consider that the Clearwater and Snake Rivers are some of the finest Steelhead waters in the United States.  It’s a shame that I have yet to see anyone release one steelhead yet and it’s curious in the manner that the fish are kept by almost everyone in the area.  Consider the fact a suffocating demise is a torturous and hideous inconsideration. Here, a fish kept should be killed humanely with a sharp rap behind the head. He should be dressed immediately and his remains thrown away from the river for wildlife, not into the river. Again, as Ernie Schwiebert has so well put it, in his book Matching the Hatch, "The subject of etiquette along a river is difficult, for I hesitate to preach about sins that have been mine in the past. The regard for the rights of others is of primary concern and the inconsiderate fellow who shoulders in when you have taken a fish, wades through the water you are fishing, or the rafter who does the same, or proceeds to cast over the fish that you are working, is a thoughtless boor. There is no caste system on trout waters. The fish will rise to the crude fly dappled by the backwoods native as well as to the daintily imported one cast by the wealthy financier." Specific rules in angling etiquette are few, and common courtesy is the basis. It is poor form to enter a stream not far above another if he is fishing in that direction. The skillful angler doesn’t disturb the water much, but the beginner is likely to frighten the fish and put them down for some time. The large power-boat-owner that does not keep an gentleman’s eye upon the banks for wading fisherman or tube fisherman and who recklessly and wantonly allows his massive boat’s wake to attack the innocent people is quite simply, an ass and is a lawless, loose-cannon that cares little for the lives or safety of others fishing or using the joys a river provides. One should realize his own capabilities and enter the stream at a discreet distance above or below another man. The first man in the river has the right of way and we should not disturb his fun for he would most likely not disturb yours. Noticing your kindness is more apt to bring an invite and win you a lifelong friend, for along the river you are bound to find the best of mankind. As a matter of tradition the man wading upstream has the right of way, since the gentleman coming down is more likely to spoil the former’s chances. The one wading down should retire from the water and move unobtrusively around him. Often the inconsiderate will acknowledge the right of way and then wade noisily past or walk along in plain view of the fish. Don’t do this. Rafters, kayakers, drift boats and power boats should go behind the wading fisherman at a good distance, as they will pass in only a few seconds but the fisherman is left with nearly a half hour before his spooked fish return. I consider this thoughtlessness intolerable for some men will wade into position in the presence of a fish of a lifetime in almost impossible water and to a rafter the same water is a breeze. On the other hand, just because there is a rafter-kayaker-boater on the river doesn’t mean that the fishing is ruined just in his passing. But that the passing should be a pleasant experience for all parties concerned and not just one-sided, is the point.  Power boaters should always keep in mind that a fisherman wading is a "No Wake Zone." In being a writer, I want to capture the interest of as many as I possibly can. But to say that I’m here to win a popularity contest is a misconception, regarding fishing.  However, the Snake and Clearwater Rivers are fantastic, original and unique resources in this area around Clarkston Washington and today, they are but a whisper of what they once were in the past. Yet, their recreational powers are awesome and in this expanding population of America the use of their recreational attributes are on the increase as the quality of life of the rivers decrease.  We lack disaplines all across this nation with all our rivers and streams. We . . . you . . . and I, have long realized how precious our rivers are. The income that the Snake and Clearwater Drainage’s pulls into our area amounts in the millions of dollars each year. Behavioral examples we set will be the same examples others will follow in the future when it comes to river etiquette’s and their care.  Each fly fisherman must always ‘regard’ the quality of his waters and vanguard them. Many waters we fish are bordered by private property and we should respect that.  However;  cattle and livestock have little sanitary excuses, to be down by these rivers because it’s well known their filthy, polluting ways are not tolerated well by many forms of wildlife.  Cattle however, can be easily frightened and stampeded by the thoughtless angler with a resultant loss in weight or chance of injury. One ill-tempered bull can wrong many rights here . . . so shy away from cattle,  if you can, until they can be moved away from the river by authorized personnel when they are in areas they do not belong in.  Like it or not, there are too many ranchers that push the tolerance envelopes of common sense and who literally steal  habitat not belonging to them or the cattle they let roam, many times, irresponsibly. The hardest article to write is this kind because it can sound so quickly as if one is preaching. Some landowners who allow fishing build gates or stiles for fishermen to cross their fences, but then there is always some anarchist who carries wire-cutters or pliers to pull the staples. We can hardly blame the owners of posted land in some instances – but there is no law against landowners who never cared about sportsmen in the first place either.  When kindness is shown, we need to safeguard and protect those accesses to rivers passing through private properties.  Yet, the laws of propriety state that if we allow grazing on public lands at great monetary advantage to the Rancers, the habitat destruction and over-grazing they incure upon US as a society does not give them the right to be inconsiderate of gentle anglers wishing simply to savor trout waters shut off to them by fences and in many cases, illegally. The cardinal sin so often committed is the disfiguring of water or the land along it and we know today that the majority of it is done by people who are twenty five years of age and younger. A large majority still being in school . . . like it or not.  The younger generation today cannot keep clean even their bedrooms let alone being able to wear their pants above the crack of their ass. They seem to continue the contents and conditions of their bedrooms into the out-of-doors and it’s a national disgrace their parents allow such bedrooms which are their own report cards of undisciplined children to exist but it is our fault we let them disgrace the outdoors. The refuse that litters the rivers and adjacent beaches and campsites if often quite astonishing. But recent field trips prove the road-sides to contain much more trash than our local beaches do. In Hell’s Canyon, where the beaches are provided trash containers, the public uses them. But along the road on the Snake River where they are NOT provided, the roadside is a pig-sty. I cannot think of anything that makes the general public (who are by the majority,  clean) more irritated than to see a beer hog throw his can down. I guess, I can say it makes me annoyed too. I’ll admit that. Yet, if I let the hot flash pass, I have that big pocket in the back of my vest and I always try and bring two cans out every time I go to the river. It isn’t much, but we won’t have to look at it the next time we go back. Our Clearwater and Snake Rivers and ALL Rivers and Streams will continue to please many of us if we remember  a thought Isaac Walton wrote in 1653. "He that hopes to be a good angler must not only bring an inquiring, searching, observing wit; but he must also bring a large measure of hope and patience." In these days of hard-fished waters, ethics and philosophy play an ever increasing role in our enjoyment, and to Father Walton’s measure of hope and patience, let me add the spice … read more »

Response:

was posted fragmented, but I will leave it alone because everyone should beable to get the gist of it.  My apologies. gg – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – todemean the subject matter at hand.  Ernie is a friend of mine as are everyone of you here are.  I’ve seen and done maybe something that wasn’t classy, but so have I seen the best of men screw up.  These events are not the litmus paper high marks that define a man’s life Ernie, and you know it. Ernie Schwiebert has had a terrific impact on the behavior of fly fishermen astream just because of his book "Matching the Hatch."  I don’t need confirmation of this fact from anyone because I have seen how dynamic his writings and works have been on our sport and the majority of his work has all been positive.  To my mind, after Lee Wulff died, the next icon that has the stature and body of work that is of a positive force is Ernest Schwiebert.  There is no questioning the sincerity this man brings to our streams.  We are fortunate to have such a genius that fly fishes, among us. I don’t expect  you are a great body of the men here to agree with me.  There was a period of a feeding frenzy regarding Ernie several years back and it had nothing to do with holding up a preserved fish.  Mr. Schwiebert has already mentioned that he is slow to talk about indiscretions that he may have committed himself in the past. Now what do we do?  Hit  him with this sort of inventory taking again, and again, and again?  I think not. I know this about Ernie Schwiebert.  Of late and I know he is still working on it, he has put his name and monetary fortune on the line fighting the corruption that had infested the guiding and booking agents there.  Mr. Schwiebert and company, some of which might be reading this group now, had guns pointed at them and the story is a complicated one.  Mr. Schwiebert will be the first to tell me I shouldn’t be talking about this here . . . but this is the kind of man he is.  He is fighting legal issues in Russia so we Americans can enjoy that which is basically corrupt. The Russian Government has been patient and are listening with interest to the case. This is a financial costly process and who is doing it for us?  Ernie Schwiebert. Frankly, he can kill a fish now and then all he wants.  BUT!  I understand your point Ernie Harrison and it is a good one.  Let’s not use it however to demean the man nor the good intent Ethics Astream is supposed to bring into our lives. Keep the fly in the ring of the rise. Sincerely, George Gehrke

Response:

– Views on Ethics Astream –

(snipped) Ethics.. the ethics of taking your pleasure out of playing with the lives of another being?  If C&R flyfishers actually really, honestly cared all that much about ethics, they would take up hiking or some other activity where their actions are not akin to russian roulette on the life of another being. I know this is a little extreme, but I grow so tired of C&R people attempting to take the moral high road.. but to me, all I see is a bunch of empty justification for getting your enjoyment out of ‘playing’ with the lives of another species. IMHO, there’s far more honor in catching only what you will keep, and keeping a very small, responsible amount.   I enjoy reading your writing.. so please don’t take this personally, but C&R is a knee-jerk response to a real problem.. unfortunately, it isn’t a solution. -Mark/Particle Salad Particle Salad/Noom Room Studio http://home.earthlink.net/~psalad

Response:

I hate to burst your bubble but Schweibert was holding a large dead trout for a picture which appeared with his article in a fly fishing magazine. The caption said the trout was released back to the river, but the eyes said "Dead Fish" and I later heard that it had been frozen for a week so he could have his picture taken with it.   I wrote a letter to the magazine saying and said Mr. Schweibert should not pollute our rivers with dead fish, but never received a reply. — Ernie Harrison Remove NOSPAM to send E-Mail Selling my Fly Fishing Books Go to: http://users.ccnet.com/~emh – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – - Views on Ethics Astream – Ernie Schwiebert said it as well as anyone in Matching the Hatch. "The angling sportsman does not need dead trout or fish in his basket to feel satisfaction. <snip I am haunted by memories. Ethics in our lives makes them more perfect. gg

Response:

– Views on Ethics Astream – [deleted] Ernie Schwiebert said it as well as anyone in Matching the Hatch. "The angling sportsman does not need dead trout or fish in his basket to feel satisfaction.

[deleted] Ernie Schwiebert never envisioned a hundred fly fishermen whoring his beloved frying pan. (My friend who is a licensed outfitter on the frying pan had [last week] a woman client pose topless with an 8 inch rainbow she had caught (then released) for a photograph.   This is what contempt for wildlife catch and release brings to the sport Ernie, George. I can no longer set forth with a clean conscience in those hallowed waters fouled by greed). Ernest Schwiebert had no idea to what level man in his greed would prostitute this notion (Bassmasters, One Fly…perhaps the worst of all "The Walleye Trail"). I doubt that (seeing these things) anyone could today preach this ill-founded ("Matching The Hatch", 1953) notion as some kind of manifest ethical destiny of the sport. C&R is not the bastion of sporting ethics you mistakingly believe it to be George. You are not the kingpin of ethicity you claim to be and I can prove it. The beautiful rainbow that you hold proudly on the photo at www.gink.com, …. Is the scale so slight that we can not see a creature that had just fought his lifes battle is now gasping to breathe in a suffocating foreign environment whose internal organs are crushing themselves as you hoist it one handed to be photographed ? Releasing it (whether it lives or not) wipes clean the slate for you ? What then of Ernest’s words "He has long since proved to himself that he can catch trout and needs no proof for his companions", can you (given your product, your website, this photograph) honestly claim to stand up to your own (Ernest’s) ethical standards ? Is the lens of our bias so out-of-focus that we can no longer see nor feel the error in this philosphy? Is the man that promotes the ’sport’ of fishing, perhaps, is the most unethical sportsman of all?. A fisherman launches his dory on an abandoned Maine beach seeking to catch fish to eat, to feed his family, or too sell.  No desire to simply catch a fish, photograph it for publicity.  He has no website with his picture on it. Aware of his role in nature, his requirement to respect nature and wildlife.  The unwritten contract of mankind.  Where we need to evolve to. This man, he is less ethical than you because he is just a ‘fisherman’ and not a ’sports-fisherman’? On his way home, "The Enlightened Ones" [standing in the surf with equipment worth more than some peoples cars] they can feel justified in shouting "why did you kill those fish ?" in some kind of Schwiebertesque chorous because they read your post on the internet or they thump "Matching The Hatch" as some kind of ‘bible’ ? Try Ernest’s half-logic on some rube, George. — TimW, Halfordian Golfer "Guilt replaced the creel…"

Response:

Question:

Hi, I live in Manitoba, and am planning a trip to Alaska next summer.  Would like to fly to Vancouver, and rent a motorhome to drive along the coast to Alaska. There are no roads along the coast. It would be nice, but the cost of constructing a coastal route from Vancouver to Alaska would rival or surpass the cost of the Apollo moon program. There are ferries, though. You need to book well in advance. Consider booking NOW.

That’s completely correct – Val, consider booking now.   Only have two weeks holidays.  If anyone has done this or has any info such as where to rent the motorhome, and the best approach to the trip, length of time needed, etc, please post, or email direct to Two weeks is pushing it very, very hard. I went this summer from Vancouver. This is where I live. Keep the distances in mind. Vancouver to Whitehorse in the Yukon is about 2700km (1677miles) using the Alaska Highway route. You take it from there. Essentially, you would spend the majority of your vacation driving.

This is true — it is possible to do the trip in two weeks…but you would be spending an uncomfortable amount of time actually behind the wheel driving. It is possible to do like 400 miles a day though. Its possible that Peter is giving you a more realistic impression than I. after all, it is a vacation! Hans

Response:

Hi, I live in Manitoba, and am planning a trip to Alaska next summer.  Would like to fly to Vancouver, and rent a motorhome to drive along the coast to Alaska.  Only have two weeks holidays.  If anyone has done this or has any info such as where to rent the motorhome, and the best approach to the trip, length of time needed, etc, please post, or email direct to Thanks for the help!

Since you have only two weeks, you might enjoy your vacation more if you flew directly to Alaska and rented the motorhome in Anchorage.  There are tons of rentals available but you should book way early, like 3 to 6 months in advance to assure you of the size and type of unit you would like to rent. If you have never been to Alaska, I would spend 1 week north of Anchorage (i.e. Fairbanks, Denali, etc.) and 1 week south of Anchorage on the Kenai Penninsula (Seward, Kenai, Homer).  Also it is possible that by next summer you may be able to drive to Whittier, which will give you easy road access to Prince William sound.(This project was well on its way this summer when I was there).  Previously Whittier was only accesable by train, however some of the money from the Valdez oil spill is being used to finance this project.  I have made this trip to Alaska every late August/September (I like to fish for Silver’s on the Kenai river and most of those pesky tourists have gone home)for the last 12 years. E-mail me if I can help. Darwin

Response:

Hi, I live in Manitoba, and am planning a trip to Alaska next summer.  Would like to fly to Vancouver, and rent a motorhome to drive along the coast to Alaska.

There are no roads along the coast. It would be nice, but the cost of constructing a coastal route from Vancouver to Alaska would rival or surpass the cost of the Apollo moon program. There are ferries, though. You need to book well in advance. Consider booking NOW.   Only have two weeks holidays.  If anyone has done this or has any info such as where to rent the motorhome, and the best approach to the trip, length of time needed, etc, please post, or email direct to

Two weeks is pushing it very, very hard. I went this summer from Vancouver. This is where I live. Keep the distances in mind. Vancouver to Whitehorse in the Yukon is about 2700km (1677miles) using the Alaska Highway route. You take it from there. Essentially, you would spend the majority of your vacation driving. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

Hi, I live in Manitoba, and am planning a trip to Alaska next summer.  Would like to fly to Vancouver, and rent a motorhome to drive along the coast to Alaska.  Only have two weeks holidays.  If anyone has done this or has any info such as where to rent the motorhome, and the best approach to the trip, length of time needed, etc, please post, or email direct to Thanks for the help!

Well, Val, the only problem with your plan is that there isn’t a road up the coast to Alaska for you to drive your motorhome on. I’m not being a smart-alex here, its really true- look at a road atlas. Your options are the Alaska Marine Highway system – alittle expensive to put a RV on. You should plan everything early and make your reservation as early as possible – you can board the ferries in Bellingham WA, with limited service to Prince Rupert, B.C. as well. AMHS:  http://www.dot.state.ak.us/external/amhs/home.html The AMHS will passes through all but the really tiny hamlets and fishing villages in the islands of SE Alaska. Beautiful places, but you’ll have to really juggle your reservations in order to get off one ferry and onto another to get around on in an RV – the ferry system schedule isn’t really setup for that kind of thing. To drive to Alaska, the ALCAN highway runs far inland, from Dawson Creek, BC, through Ft Nelson, Ft St John, Watson Lake and Whitehorse, Yukon -the ALCAN Highway ends in Fairbanks, Alaska and from there Denali Park is just a 1/2 days drive. The Alaska Highway is a very nice long drive, and has its times when it passes through some really remarkable scenery. There is a very nice "manual" for the ALCAN: http://www.themilepost.com/ The Mile Post is full of useful information for travellers along the Alaska (ALCAN) Highway. Its nice that your starting your planning process now. Hope you have a great trip! Two weeks should be plenty of time. Hans, Juneau AK

Response:

Hi, I live in Manitoba, and am planning a trip to Alaska next summer.  Would like to fly to Vancouver, and rent a motorhome to drive along the coast to Alaska.  Only have two weeks holidays.  If anyone has done this or has any info such as where to rent the motorhome, and the best approach to the trip, length of time needed, etc, please post, or email direct to Thanks for the help!

Response:

Question:

    my best buddy has managed an invitation to fish the headwaters of the north platte, just over the wyoming line from colorado, on a working ranch near saratoga.  he knows nothing about the water, although he is highly accomplished at fishing here in the appalachians.     thus, these requests for information…does anyone know any details about this section of the n.platte?  flies of choice (early to mid august); how big is the water; is it too cold to wade without neoprene; are there any tributaries in the area that hold brookies; any other good (or better) water within an hour or so?     remember, this is a one time trip, so it isn’t like you would be disclosing secrets to the great unwashed masses.  please send replies email, or call me collect at 336-275-1231.     thanks for the help.     wayne harrison

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –     my best buddy has managed an invitation to fish the headwaters of the north platte, just over the wyoming line from colorado, on a working ranch near saratoga.  he knows nothing about the water, although he is highly accomplished at fishing here in the appalachians.     thus, these requests for information…does anyone know any details about this section of the n.platte?  flies of choice (early to mid august); how big is the water; is it too cold to wade without neoprene; are there any tributaries in the area that hold brookies; any other good (or better) water within an hour or so?     remember, this is a one time trip, so it isn’t like you would be disclosing secrets to the great unwashed masses.  please send replies email, or call me collect at 336-275-1231.     thanks for the help.     wayne harrison

Wayne; Two information sources I can think of, and both are excellent IMO: <<www.rockymtnflyfisher.com and Fly Fishing The North Platte by Rod Walinchus, Pruett Publishing, Boulder, CO, 800-247-8224. Rocky Mountain Fly Fisher produces a Windows CD-ROM with info and maps on sevreal dozen Rocky Mountain streams. Al Marlowe

Response:

Question:

I think it’s about time that somewhere some fisheries managers bite the big one and introduce regulations that restrict all anglers in trout fisheries (or bass etc) to a minimum number of fish killed per year ( as Jon suggests) and a minimum number of fish landed per day.

I’m all for this.  I was on a streak last spring– caught one fish on every outing for three weeks.  But, usually I don’t catch anything. It’d be great to have a regulation that guarantees me a minimum number of fish landed per day! — Tight Threads,         Charley Renn         Corvallis, OR

Response:

Its Catch and Cook. I practice it regularly. What is the point if spending hundreds of dollars in tackle and not eating a fish that you catch? I am not saying only fly fishing. I eat reds and specks that I catch on an Abu Garcia 6500 as much as I do a 16 inch trout caught on a 18 Adams. It is a simple thing and would be common if it wern’t for the Bunny Huggers. Am I the only one that eats fish here? If you get a fish that is as good as a trout as table fair, you should make it table fair. i know I’ll get hell from everyone about this but I accept that. BryceC

– Brice, Wake up! Where is the next fish you cook comming from? This is not a bunny hug, a tree hug, a rock hug or any other "Environmental issue." Say you own a pond with 100 fish in it, if you want to fish the pond every day, you will soon realize that catch and release is the only way you can sustain your sport. Or, of course, you could open a hatchery . . . . / o          /                                    |   __ /        /         Douglas Easton             |                                /                                      |                                                     *

Response:

Well I will not judge you for your way of life, but don’t come up to Montana and try to catch and cook in any of the prime trout areas, because you will be arrested if I see it…. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Its Catch and Cook. I practice it regularly. What is the point if spending hundreds of dollars in tackle and not eating a fish that you catch? I am not saying only fly fishing. I eat reds and specks that I catch on an Abu Garcia 6500 as much as I do a 16 inch trout caught on a 18 Adams. It is a simple thing and would be common if it wern’t for the Bunny Huggers. Am I the only one that eats fish here? If you get a fish that is as good as a trout as table fair, you should make it table fair. i know I’ll get hell from everyone about this but I accept that. BryceC Ain’t nothing wrong with keeping.  Depends on why you fish.  Frankly, I like the total experience and an satisfied with the challenge, the "art" of flyfishing, the environment, etc.  I don’t need to harvest the fish to be satisfied and therefore I fish entirely catch and release. however, I certainly do not blame anyone for harvesting what can be used appropriately.

Response:

fish, then it is theoretically possible for a larger % of the population to be decimated by C&R methods than by C&K

It’s a nice theory but empirical evidence just doesn’t bear it out. In fact empirical evidence disproves it.  Go fish both the C&R and C&K section of the San Juan River for instance.  The two areas are adjacent. In a day of fishing the former you’ll typically catch about 30 fat healthy fish running 12-24 inches; in the latter you’ll catch a handful of scrawny 10-inch stockers.  Which is decimated? Even what I’ve said above is overly simplistic.

No actually, it’s too complicated.  The facts are clear, simple, and undeniable.   — -Wayne Trzyna

Response:

: Hopefully, we’re not : carrying fin tags or punch cards anytime soon. Why? Just curious… JonCook.

Since what was proposed was essentially an honor system, what’s the point of punch cards? I either follow the rules or I don’t. The paperwork is a potential bureaucratic nightmare. It just makes fishing more expensive for everyone. For the record, I have killed one fish on the Platte in 16 years of fishing it. The fin tags would be of no use to me unless someone could convince me that killing fish there improved the fishery. (Colorado has a great bag limit foroverpopulated pond brookies under 8" that more than satisfies my appetite for fresh trout and HELPS the population.) However the 40 caught per season is interesting. As tough as the Platte can be some days, therehave been numerous days where the seasonal limit would have been filled. I only get to fish there 1 to 10 or 12 days a year while I’m visiting family in the Springs. What about the guys who fish there much more than that? How would they feel? Or is the real issue here limiting the number of fishing days to improve the fisherman’s aesthetic experience as opposed to protecting a fishery? Could it be this is just a stalking horse for another round of yuppie bashing?  Not saying I know the answer, but it’s an interesting question. I fish the Platte during the week at off times of the year, often with snow on the ground, because I want to see fewer people. I guess with punch cards and fin tags I could go whenever I wanted and see fewer people, but I’ve come to love the Canyon more the times that I go than any other. Probably wouldn’t change a thing. BP

Response:

wayne trzyna  wrote in article I think it’s about time that somewhere some fisheries managers bite the big one and introduce regulations that restrict all anglers in trout fisheries (or bass etc) to a minimum number of fish killed per year ( as Jon suggests) and a minimum number of fish landed per day. Ideally it would require a punch card or tag system and the max catch per day (regardless if they are all released) would have to operate fairly much on an honour system – but I think most fishers would do so. This is unnecessary.  If a person is catching dozens of fish that fact implies there are plenty of fish to catch.  It seems silly to regulate "number of fish landed" in this scenario.

This may be a naive assumption.  (Before you react.  Note that I said ‘may’.)  I have no facts on this issue (and certainly would appreciate it if anyone could contribute some), but it stands to reason that C&R could have it’s own pitfalls.  If it is true that a certain percentage of returned fish die as a result of having been caught and handled, and it is true that there are many fishermen who are successful at catching many fish, then it is theoretically possible for a larger % of the population to be decimated by C&R methods than by C&K (where fishers keep all they catch, must stop fishing when the limit is reached,  and compliance to these regs is high….i.e. an ‘ideal’ C&K fishery). Even what I’ve said above is overly simplistic.  We all know that there are a variety of factors that uniquely effect each fishery, and to some degree, I think the jury is still out as to what works best where.  There is no magic bullet that is going to cure the underlying problem…overpopulation of fishers.  (I sure aint gonna stop fishing, are you?).  Unfortunately, we have found all too often that well meant resource management techniques, even though they look good on paper, fail to measure up to our expectations.  I suspect that this may be true of C&R, at least on some fisheries, but again I have no specific facts. Does anyone know of any scholarly investigations of the long term impacts of C&R fishing?

Response:

A friend of mine (bait fisher) had an excellent idea.  On the South Platte around Deckers there is a 2 fish over 16" slot limit.   as a result you won’t find a lot of fish over 16".  This is a wrong approach. switch to 2, or4 fish under 12", and let the big ones go. How’s that? </c

Response:

Sounds nice but what happens when all the bigs ones die of old age and here ain’t any little ones around to grow big because they’ve all been C & C’s (or whatever the latest inane acroynm or synthetic politically correct terminology is) Ralph H – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -A friend of mine (bait fisher) had an excellent idea.  On the South Platte around Deckers there is a 2 fish over 16" slot limit.   as a result you won’t find a lot of fish over 16".  This is a wrong approach. switch to 2, or4 fish under 12", and let the big ones go. How’s that? </c

Response:

Chaz, given the pressure on the SP, Ralph’s probably right. So, how about: Define some section of the SP, say Cheesman to Oxyoke (that right?), then, each angler can keep 4 fish per year, any size, and (this is the key) can only catch a total of 40 fish per year. With that, the SP would be a truely great fishery, and those 2-10 days you fished it per year would be much more memorable than the 50 you do now (you being anyone who fishes it that much now, not neccessarily Chaz). JonCook.

: : Sounds nice but what happens when all the bigs ones die of : old age and here ain’t any little ones around to grow big : because they’ve all been C & C’s (or whatever the latest inane : acroynm or synthetic politically correct terminology is) : Ralph H : A friend of mine (bait fisher) had an excellent idea.  On the South : Platte around Deckers there is a 2 fish over 16" slot limit.   as a : result you won’t find a lot of fish over 16".  This is a wrong approach. : switch to 2, or4 fish under 12", and let the big ones go. : : How’s that? : : </c

Response:

Its Catch and Cook. I practice it regularly. What is the point if spending hundreds of dollars in tackle and not eating a fish that you catch? I am not saying only fly fishing. I eat reds and specks that I catch on an Abu Garcia 6500 as much as I do a 16 inch trout caught on a 18 Adams. It is a simple thing and would be common if it wern’t for the Bunny Huggers. Am I the only one that eats fish here? If you get a fish that is as good as a trout as table fair, you should make it table fair. i know I’ll get hell from everyone about this but I accept that. BryceC

Ain’t nothing wrong with keeping.  Depends on why you fish.  Frankly, I like the total experience and an satisfied with the challenge, the "art" of flyfishing, the environment, etc.  I don’t need to harvest the fish to be satisfied and therefore I fish entirely catch and release. however, I certainly do not blame anyone for harvesting what can be used appropriately.

Response:

Sounds nice but what happens when all the bigs ones die of old age and here ain’t any little ones around to grow big because they’ve all been C & C’s (or whatever the latest inane acroynm or synthetic politically correct terminology is)

Yes, that is the fly in the ointment.  You could expect more stocks because larger fish produce more eggs, etc. – but remember only a few small ones would be kept. But you’re right.  The number of small fish would decline, especially on the SP – I doubt there is a great deal of natural reproduction and they won’t stock it, so……. </c – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Ralph H

Response:

Chaz, given the pressure on the SP, Ralph’s probably right. So, how about: Define some section of the SP, say Cheesman to Oxyoke (that right?), then, each angler can keep 4 fish per year, any size, and (this is the key) can only catch a total of 40 fish per year.

For anglers who keep some/most/all of thier legal catch, a 40 fish/year limit would be totally unenforceable.  Unless, of course, you gave them "tear-away tags"  as part of their liscense and made them tag the fins of thier fish.   Hey, what a great way to limit exclusive Catch and Kill fishing.  Make killing a bunch of fish more trouble than it’s worth! Jason B

Response:

Chaz, given the pressure on the SP, Ralph’s probably right. So, how about: Define some section of the SP, say Cheesman to Oxyoke (that right?), then, each angler can keep 4 fish per year, any size, and (this is the key) can only catch a total of 40 fish per year. With that, the SP would be a truely great fishery, and those 2-10 days you fished it per year would be much more memorable than the 50 you do now (you being anyone who fishes it that much now, not neccessarily Chaz). JonCook.

I think it’s about time that somewhere some fisheries managers bite the big one and introduce regulations that restrict all anglers in trout fisheries (or bass etc) to a minimum number of fish killed per year ( as Jon suggests) and a minimum number of fish landed per day. Ideally it would require a punch card or tag system and the max catch per day (regardless if they are all released) would have to operate fairly much on an honour system – but I think most fishers would do so. I don’t know much about the South Platte other than I recognize the name but it seems to me if you have a reg that allows killing only fish of 16" or over and fish that size are rare then something isn’t working (providing the river is able to grow good numbers of fish to that size). you’ve got to wonder if a limit of 4 smaller fish will help either if the kill so seriously affects the larger fish. I think that most of us want our waters managed so there is a more or less normal distribution of all age classes. Wiping out one class to protect the other doesn’t make sense and will likely lead to an imbalance in the long run! Ralph H – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : : Sounds nice but what happens when all the bigs ones die of : old age and here ain’t any little ones around to grow big : A friend of mine (bait fisher) had an excellent idea.  On the South : Platte around Deckers there is a 2 fish over 16" slot limit.   as a : result you won’t find a lot of fish over 16".  This is a wrong approach. : switch to 2, or4 fish under 12", and let the big ones go. : : How’s that? : : </c

Response:

Sounds nice but what happens when all the bigs ones die of old age and here ain’t any little ones around to grow big because they’ve all been C & C’s (or whatever the latest inane acroynm or synthetic politically correct terminology is) Ralph H

I let the hatcheries replenish the stock. I also don’t get very many chances to trout fish so I make the best of the ones that I catch. BryceC

Response:

        <<Killing a fish and eating it is not a dishonorable thing to do. The angler should use a little discretion, though. Where they are scarce, it’s foolish to kill them. On the other hand, if the trout are plentiful I may keep one or two per trip.         You are right, Bryce, when you admit that you are likely to catch some flak over this issue. But, where legal, it is your RIGHT to do that if you wish. People can holler all they want, but it’s their problem not yours. Just use good judgment, and don’t overcook those beauties. Enjoy! (Try poaching them in wine and garlic.) I fish the Tellico so there are plenty of fish around there. The Tellico Hatchery Stocks weekly. I also fish the West Prong Pigeon, the Little and the Elk. All have lots of fish. If I were fishing Abrahms creek or Rabbit Creek that would be a different story. I’m glad someone agrees with me. BryceC

Response:

Jason, the reason game laws work is because most people observe them voluntarily. There is simply not enough DFG (or DNR, depending on where you’re from) money to enforce these laws.   Laws that are "more trouble than they are worth"  are the ones least likely to be honored by the requisite number of fishermen.                                                            -dnc- Jason Beary wrote – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [snip]  Unless, of course, you gave them "tear-away tags"  as part of their liscense and made them tag the fins of thier fish.   Hey, what a great way to limit exclusive Catch and Kill fishing.  Make killing a bunch of fish more trouble than it’s worth! Jason B

Response:

So if I get skunked, your going to fine me?  (No need to reply.  I know what you meant.  Just couldn’t resist) —                                                            -dnc- I think it’s about time that somewhere some fisheries managers bite the big one and introduce regulations that restrict all anglers in trout fisheries (or bass etc) to a …[snip]…. a minimum number of fish

landed per day.

Response:

I think it’s about time that somewhere some fisheries managers bite the big one and introduce regulations that restrict all anglers in trout fisheries (or bass etc) to a minimum number of fish killed per year ( as Jon suggests) and a minimum number of fish landed per day. Ideally it would require a punch card or tag system and the max catch per day (regardless if they are all released) would have to operate fairly much on an honour system – but I think most fishers would do so.

This is unnecessary.  If a person is catching dozens of fish that fact implies there are plenty of fish to catch.  It seems silly to regulate "number of fish landed" in this scenario. I don’t know much about the South Platte other than I recognize the name but it seems to me if you have a reg that allows killing only fish of 16" or over and fish that size are rare then something isn’t working (providing the river is able to grow good numbers of fish to that size).

There are a bunch of dubious assumptions underlying this thread.  The fact that one is not catching bigger fish does not mean that there are no big fish to be caught.  We all understand this more than we’d care to admit. But I agree that slot limits that allow killing only big fish are counterproductive. — -Wayne Trzyna

Response:

-Wayne Trzyna

<snip I don’t know much about the South Platte other than I recognize the name but it seems to me if you have a reg that allows killing only fish of 16" or over and fish that size are rare then something isn’t working (providing the river is able to grow good numbers of fish to that size). There are a bunch of dubious assumptions underlying this thread.  The fact that one is not catching bigger fish does not mean that there are no big fish to be caught.  We all understand this more than we’d care to admit.

If the 16" fish is rare then you will fish somewhere else right? If the 16" fish is rare, you will change the regs to protect them right? Seems there are an awful lot of people on this group going out of their way to poor mouth the Platte. I suspect Wayne knows that Cheeseman Canyon(Pure C&R) has plenty of 16"+ fish and has for years. Maybe its not like the eighties when there were many days when almost all the fish I caught were above 16", but… I must admit however that I have never caught as many larger fish below the canyon (kill one over 16" stretch), even in the better days. Numbers of total fish caught were somewhat similar though. Only 3 real differences between the areas: Better Habitat (Canyon), C&R vs. C&R&K(1 over 16"), Much easier access (below the canyon). Differences are probably attributable to a complex blend of  all three. The solution for the whole fishery should be derived deliberately. Hopefully, we’re not carrying fin tags or punch cards anytime soon. BP

Response:

Its Catch and Cook. I practice it regularly. What is the point if spending hundreds of dollars in tackle and not eating a fish that you catch? I am not saying only fly fishing. I eat reds and specks that I catch on an Abu Garcia 6500 as much as I do a 16 inch trout caught on a 18 Adams. It is a simple thing and would be common if it wern’t for the Bunny Huggers. Am I the only one that eats fish here? If you get a fish that is as good as a trout as table fair, you should make it table fair. i know I’ll get hell from everyone about this but I accept that. BryceC

Response:

Its Catch and Cook. I practice it regularly. What is the point if spending hundreds of dollars in tackle and not eating a fish that you catch? I am not saying only fly fishing.

While that’s nice (and perhaps you’d like to trade some recipes): Somewhere some nincompoop(s) cooked this whole issue into a one or the other kind of argument. What was supposed to an idea of applying common sense for the good of fishing for the future has been perverted into a sort of quasi religion and had a concommittent religious backlash. That there are those who say you should never kill a fish and to kill a fish bespeakes a blatant disregard for the sport and the environment versus those who say there should always be a kill and a meal regardless or close a fishery down ( like you having to justify the cost of your sport with a meal on the table as if being on the water and hooking a fish or two can’t be enough) just proves to me there are people who don’t really want to think about an issue and then ironically decide they have all the answers. One eminent poster here once eluded to Ecclesiates and said there is a time to kill (as in your fishery has an undeniable surplus available) and a time to release (such as is the case for virtually all wild steelhead) where you can’t really be certain of a sufficient number of fish being available for the future of the stocks to be assured. It may be a matter of convention (like on the Dean) where the body of anglers fishing there agree releasing is the best thing to do or boil down to personal preference. But why not accept it as a fact sometimes it is best to let it live. For those that don’t like those sorts of fisheries they can go someplace else. It’s a big free wide world. Ralph H replace "spamsucks" with direct for email reply.

Response:

Its Catch and Cook. I practice it regularly. What is the point if spending hundreds of dollars in tackle and not eating a fish that you catch? I am not saying only fly fishing.  Am I the only one that eats fish here? BryceC

Bryce; The point is that many (most) FFermen prefer the opportunity to catch lots of quality fish all year.  If I and all other FFermen kept a good % of the trout we caught, there would really be very little reason to continue the sport.  Here in PA, wild trout would not exist in the numbers that they do were it not for voluntary C&R.  We have way more fishermen than fish to support the sport.  If people keep the fish they catch, it will not ever be able to be caught by other fishermen or yourself, guaranteed.  Here in the East, we would very quickly run out of the good populations of wild fish that already struggle to survive in the shadow of Man.  All Catch and Cook would do is deplete the resource to the point of destruction.  (But, then again, that IS the american way, isn’t it? Fuck it all to hell and let someone else pay for the baby.) Jason Beary

Response:

        Killing a fish and eating it is not a dishonorable thing to do. The angler should use a little discretion, though. Where they are scarce, it’s foolish to kill them. On the other hand, if the trout are plentiful I may keep one or two per trip.         You are right, Bryce, when you admit that you are likely to catch some flak over this issue. But, where legal, it is your RIGHT to do that if you wish. People can holler all they want, but it’s their problem not yours. Just use good judgment, and don’t overcook those beauties. Enjoy! (Try poaching them in wine and garlic.)

Response:

Jason makes a good point, but it is true that there is nothing wrong with keeping fish where it is legal to do so.  If you care about the resource (which you should if you want to continue to C&C) then I strongly recommend supporting a mixed management program in your area that protects some waters with C&R, some with limited C&K.  If eating trout is your real pleasure, try searching out the put-n-take waters in your area (if they exist).  Living in San Diego, as I do, means travelling long distances for abundant trout streams, but the winter fishing in local lakes for put-n-take trout is pretty good.  And believe it or not, the private hatchery that provides the fish feeds them on something that makes ‘em taste really good.  Maybe you can find something like this in your area.   —                                                            -dnc- – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Its Catch and Cook. I practice it regularly. What is the point if spending hundreds of dollars in tackle and not eating a fish that you catch? I am not saying only fly fishing.  Am I the only one that eats fish here? BryceC Bryce; The point is that many (most) FFermen prefer the opportunity to catch lots of quality fish all year.  If I and all other FFermen kept a good % of the trout we caught, there would really be very little reason to continue the sport.  

Response:

Question:

James, The world’s largest (sales volume) flyfishing store is in my hometown and the people there are incredibly helpful.  Give them a call between the hours of 9 and 6. Good luck.  The name of the store is Bob Marriott’s and the number is 714-525-1827.

Response:

Family member recently received as a gift from his father, a bamboo fly rod manufactured by Horrocks-Ibbotson, Utica, NY. We are looking for any information about the age and/or value of this rod. It’s 9′ long with all guides in tact. Thanks for any information any of you can provide about this. Jim McMillan Jim McMillan, Internet Training Specialist Cooperative Extension Service, University of Illinois 548 Bevier Hall, 905 S.Goodwin, Urbana, IL 61801 **** (217) 244-0346 (O) **** (217) 837-2610 (H)

Jim: I have a friend who is a bamboo rodmaker and he knows a lot of the historical info on a variety of rods.  If he can’t tell you anything he probably can point you to someone who can.  Call Steve Roche at (916) 258-2849. Good Luck!! Paul

Response:

Family member recently received as a gift from his father, a bamboo fly rod manufactured by Horrocks-Ibbotson, Utica, NY. We are looking for any information about the age and/or value of this rod. It’s 9′ long with all guides in tact. Thanks for any information any of you can provide about this. Jim McMillan Jim McMillan, Internet Training Specialist Cooperative Extension Service, University of Illinois 548 Bevier Hall, 905 S.Goodwin, Urbana, IL 61801 **** (217) 244-0346 (O) **** (217) 837-2610 (H)

Response:

H&I made hundreds of thousands of rods. I think they were #2 behind Montague in number sold.   They also had a seemingly infinite number of grade and models. From exceedingly cheap to some pretty decent rods. I would need some info on what the incription on the rod said to start giving you a value. Due to current fashion the 9′ rods are worth a bit less than the shorter lengths. A.J.Thramer Bamboo rodbuilder

Response:

Family member recently received as a gift from his father, a bamboo fly rod manufactured by Horrocks-Ibbotson, Utica, NY. We are looking for any information about the age and/or value of this rod. It’s 9′ long with all

Current prices for this well-known line of US rods on http://www.gorp.com/bamboo.html — |  Donald Phillipson, 4180 Boundary Road, Carlsbad Springs,  | |        Ontario, Canada, K0A 1K0, tel. 613 822 0734         |

Response:

James: All I can add to the other replies on this is that the rod certainly won’t have great monetary value, even if it turns out to be one of H-I’s better models.  I don’t recall ever seeing an H-I rod sell for more than about $250, and maybe not more than $150 for the nine-footers, which, as somebody else noted, were made in the largest numbers and are not much in demand these days.  On the other hand, I have a couple of better H-Is that cast decently, so you should try it out and perhaps find you have one of the high-end models.  Good luck. George Black

Response:

Question:

You should try and find someone that sell ST. Croix rods There well made and not that expencive. I’ve had a sage and orvis rods and personally think    the ST. Croix to be just as good, also less money. and they have a good  gaurentee on there rods.

Response:

I’m in the market for a new fly rod. I’m an experienced (3-years) fly fisherman fishing mainly on small to medium rivers in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Montana for ‘bows, cutts and browns, and on lakes though I don’t have a float tube yet, just a canoe. I hear good things about Sage and Loomis. Any feedback or suggestions. I’m trying to stay below $250

Response: