Interesting article on the implications of various types regulations...
Interesting indeed, thanks for posting..
The author's point seems to be that the practice of taking the larger fish from a population isn't necessarily "wrong" but perhaps allows for less stability across time, where as leaving the re-building process to the young fish, a population, may either explode or collapse at shorter time intervals.A single large fish will simply grow a little when it gets more food, or lose a little weight when food is scarce. A population of many young, small fish, however, may explode in number or collapse depending on food availability.
I wonder if these findings differ any species to species?
http://www.troutanon.com rrainshaker at comcast dot netrainshaker at comcast dot net
I think slot limits work.
I didn't need to read that to know that, survival of the fittest is not new. People I fish with have said that for years. That is why I always encourage people to throw the larger more prized fish back. The smaller more plentiful fish taste far better anyway. Larger fish get large for reasons, maybe some of it is chance, but more often they are more fit genetically.
Thanks for posting though, food for thought.
I think it depends on the fishery and abundance of aquatic life. In most of our Southern Appalachian freestone streams trout, particularly rainbow and brook trout don't get very big because of limited food and their short life spans. In those streams, the trout will not get much bigger regardless of C&R. In fact, you may see larger fish if some of the trout are removed.
In more fertile fisheries C&R or a slot limit make perfect sense as the trout can grow to larger sizes over time and there you will benefit from the genetics of the larger fish.