View Single Post
  #26  
Old 09-25-2007, 11:55 PM
RuningWolf's Avatar
RuningWolf RuningWolf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 147
Default Re

Byron says

“I have always respected size limits for fish and wildlife.”

I would think most people do at least that has been my observation.

“For at least most of my life there has been size limits on gamefish wherever I have fished.”

There where none when I was growing up. We released a lot of fish but kept those that obviously where not going to make. Also when I was growing up fish was a primary source of meat in our house. The size limits came years later when fishing populations dropped; in some instances it was to protect the breeding size fish. There are several factors at play in why the populations of Crappie, walleye, etc dropped. One is the fish they fed on disappeared. Much debate remains if the striper is the cause or not. But every lake or river they are in has problems. Most of the protected limits had nothing to do with over fishing

“Many anglers and hunters take it upon themselves to better their sport. Years ago bass fishermen decided to practice catch and release fishing. It caught on and bass fishing improved.”

There is more to that story than meets the eye. Most people don’t eat bass, they enjoy catching them but it was never high on the fisherman who fished for them catch and harvest list. At least not all the anglers I was exposed to growing up

It was also noted that since tournament fishing started bass populations dropped. I was surprised at the mortality amount in the study I sent you. It would make a good argument for banning bass tournaments during certain times of the year. This thread (http://littleriveroutfitters.com/for...ead.php?t=7568 )does have some info on normal mortality for non-tournament bass, which is quite high, but the disastrous mortality of the tournaments during the warmer months should have raised some eyebrows.

I know a lot of deer hunters who won’t shoot a small buck even though it is legal. Why, because they want to improve their sport.

How is not shooting a small Buck improving your sport? The younger deer IMO are the better eating. When you establish min. antler size limits it cheapens the trophy. A true trophy IMO is one that you match wits with. He has been hunted in all lilely hood before, he knows to fear man. His defensive skills are more honed. You have to scout sometimes in remote areas finally when you locate him you have to wait until the conditions are right to match your skills against his to stand the above average chance of success (yes some get lucky stumble out of their truck sat drinking their coffee smoking a cigarette and one who has lost all sense of self preservation comes by and the rest is history)

“I wouldn’t consider shooting a young jake turkey. I’ve done it but I wouldn’t now. I might harvest a large older gobbler. Or I might just watch him walk away”

I hear stories of the ones that walk away never the one that gets shot. Along with something about “beans”

”So why would anglers have a problem with a size limit on trout in the Clinch River. Maybe some people don’t consider trout a gamefish. I do.”

I have never heard anyone say it wasn’t. This is a given

Some people might argue that tailwater trout are stocked to be caught and eaten. Some may say a tailwater is an artificial fishery, without stocking there wouldn’t be any trout so why not just kill them and take them home.

I have never heard anybody say just kill them all and take them home. I have seen all types of anglers catch more than their limit and take them home. Since cell phones all I have seen have been reported and a good many of them caught.

” When I grew up there were almost no deer in central Kentucky. We never saw a wild turkey. They started stocking turkeys and limiting the harvest of both deer and turkey. Now they are everywhere”

That happened a lot due from over harvesting in the era where if you did not kill game you might not eat.

“It seems to me that a slot limit or size limit on trout in the Clinch River is a compromise that is good for everyone. The fishermen who want to can catch a limit and take them home to eat. The fishermen who fish for the sport only can enjoy what they perceive to be better fishing. I think that should make everyone happy. “

The same can be said without the special regs. it happens now those who want to eat a fish keep them those that don’t release them. All the major tailwaters in East Tenn have special regs. The Clinch does not. Most of the major stakeholders who use the other tailwaters met and agreed to it. The Clinch has a major group who compromise 83-85% of the fishery who do not want them. It should also be noted that there is a decent number of fly fisherman who do not want the regs. Some catch and harvest and some primarily catch and release. I can name several of them by name and so can your. Granted there may be a few spin fisherman that may embrace them but for the most part they do not. They did a survey and found that most anglers on the Clinch do not want them and we know from the data the user groups is predominately local and has remained the same for 15-20 years, at least from the data taken by creditable and verifiable sources that I have seen. It also coincides with years of personal observations on the river. As you may recall there are a lot of years I spend a lot of time on the river

Now tell me when TWRA is committed to providing a diverse fishery for all the different user groups why the majority shcould give way to the small minority here? They don’t travel to fish. Why should they? The Clinch is a wonderful fishery and produces many outstanding sized fish as well. I catch them, I see them caught regularly, I talk to people who catch them regularly. Most of the 17% fish other rivers both those managed by TWRA, those in the National Forrest, the Great Smokey Mtns and fisheries in surrounding states that all have special regs. The length of these waters probably comes close to 1000 or more miles and people want to force special regs down the super majorities throat that only has about 4.5 miles of what could be called public access and about half of that is because of the good graces of landowners. It does not make sense in my book and by my moral values (*See note below) this is wrong. This is the common blue collar worker that is getting something else shoved needlessly down their throat

I know we disagree as I have said in other threads, as well as in one on one conversation with you. I understand your side and where you are coming from but I do not buy it


Have a good day and pet once Dubbing for us.

*(Note I think Byron already knows this but others may misread what has been said or its intent. This is not saying that Byron is a person of low moral character. Byron IMO does have a very high moral character. This is talking of my values, morals, codes that I try to live by. I understand where Bryon is coming from and they are just opposing views, values, etc. based on a different set of reasoning)

Last edited by RuningWolf; 09-26-2007 at 01:11 AM..
Reply With Quote