Posts: 136
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2003
Reputation:
0
[  ][size 1]for those fish eaters out there, including myself, i think we should let the big fish go and keep the little ones. at strawberry, i have caught about 10 cuts over the 22 in. slot, not one of which i have keep. i would like to see catch and release for all cuthroats at the berry. and for us fish eaters we can keep the under 20 in. rainbows. i want to catch more monsters and the only way to do this is to release the fish. pictures are good enough memories of the big ones not taste. besides the little ones taste better.[/size]
[size 1]what do you guys think
thanks for your posts
jr8fish [/size]
[signature]
Posts: 5,856
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2003
Reputation:
0
That's a good idea. But I think the state had to make some concessions, can't make everyone happy you know. If it was a smaller lake, with not so many people fishing it, I'm sure they could change the regs some.
[signature]
Posts: 3,535
Threads: 1
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
I agree but TKB is right -- there are too many anglers who love to keep everything they catch, so the state had to come to some sort of a compromise. I for one like to keep myself a nice fish to eat now and again, but I never keep the big ones, not just to let the trophies stay (cause you know I've caught so many trophies! lol), but also cause the small ones do taste better. The big ones seem to have more of a fishy flavor to them. I like a nice thin fillet. Most the time I practice C & R.
[signature]
Posts: 1,596
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2002
Reputation:
0
for a fishery it makes much more sense to keep the smaller ones and let the big ones go. big is subjective to the fishery though and is often tossed around lightly. if youre on a small creek and catch a 16 in fish that could be a big spawning female or male and dominant for the next several years in that area producing excellent spawns. i think some consideration has to be taken in when keeping fish now adays.  ly its not of olden days where stringers of fish could be brought back home and no worries cuz the next day would be the same thing again. many anglers low water etc etc. i do have to say though it bothers me to hear when people catch fish and say all was let go except the big guy. if you watn a mount just pay a extra $2 a inch inst a fish worth it to someone for the price of living? or take a picture so the next door neighbor believes your fish story. either way i agree with you totally on this one.
[signature]
Posts: 349
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
Not to be. At least not here in Utah. Selective harvest is something that must come from the anglers, and the majority of Utah anglers want to get their money's worth from every outing. And that means killing every fish they catch, especially the big ones (even though the Strawberry cutts taste like mud).
So until our angling public educates themselves to the benefits of selective harvest, then the DWR will continue to manage our waters for put-and-take fishing desired by the masses. But the slot limit is a great thing, and a good solution to satisfy both meat and trophy anglers. Maybe they'll increase the upper limit soon.
[signature]
Posts: 136
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2003
Reputation:
0
[ ] you hit that one on the money. i understand that many people like to keep what they catch especially the big ones, heaven forbid i was the same way. i would always let the little guys go in hopes for keeping the big one. but know i have changed and would prefer i catch, take a picture, and release system. with age comes responsibility, and our responsibility as anglers is the future success for us and our little one. i could only hope for an increase in the upper limits of the slot some day soon.
jr8fish
[signature]
Posts: 56
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2003
Reputation:
0
You are probably right in a general sense, but there are two waters where I'd like to see more "bigger" fish taken. It bothers me when I flyfish the Provo and see large fish with fungus growing on them because they have been handled so many times. The other is Kolob. They made it 2 over 18 several years ago. After a few years of catch and release there, I caught my first 19" two years ago and then they changed it to 1 over 22 the following year. The last time I went there I caught an 18" rainbow with a disfigured mouth from being caught so many times. It gave a weak fight. He probably would have preferred to be taken. The 2 over 18 is a better rule for that water.
[signature]
Posts: 1,919
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation:
0
If anyone can toot the catch and release horn I am one of them. In the past four seasons, I have kept a grand total of three fish. One a 24 inch walleye that had the gills ripped out of it by my crank bait treble. Another 16 inch walleye when I was hungry one day, and last weekend a 10 inch walleye that was brought up from too deep to survive. Big thanks to fishing waters for eating him for me.
BUT, catch and release is not the best conservation method. If all fishermen were like me, and fished nearly every weekend, and lots of weekdays, and no one ever kept a fish, all our lakes would be stunted due to overpopulation.
The fact of the matter is harvest is a critical part of the managment tool. I like to see guys using the term selective harvest. BUT selective harvest doesnt mean throwing back all the big ones and keeping the little ones. Selective harvest in its ture form would require an angler to understand the lake he was fishing. Theres so much involved there, that most anglers dont have the time to understand it. So, we rely on the fish and game to do the fish population studies, forage base studies, and habitat conditions.
The best we can do as anglers is try to understand the DWR has set the guidlines in the proclamation based on the information they have collected. Then we try to follow the outline and hope for the best.
In the case of strawberry, the DWR has asked anglers to voluntarily release cutts. That is not to grow trophy fish. Thats forage base control. Large fish are a nice side effect. But at some point in time you have to consider that the chub population is going to be down, and having all those big fish in there will create a situation like we have at flaming gorge. Big macks, no chubs, decline in big mack numbers.
So we have to trust the DWR and realize that an all out ban on cutts is not the best answer, niether is only keeping small fish. Selective harvest is about BALANCE. I dont pretend to know the answers, I leave that up to the biologists who's job it is to create and maintain that balance.
I just thought I would throw in a positive outlook on keeping fish, even some of the big ones. I like catching big fish as much as the next guy, but a lake full of toads is never good for very long. Thank the good lord for guys who eat fish.
[signature]
Posts: 1,389
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2003
Reputation:
0
Frogfish- I can't believe how you could even think the old 2 over 18 rules was better. Sure the fishing was good but the average size was way down. Now they are a easy 4" bigger and healthy. Just because you catch a couple fish that have ripped mouths or war wounds is definetly not any reason to change the regs. Heck if you really fish this lake you'ld know how bad the violations are now and how they were before they changed the regs. I'd have to commend the DWR for blessing the locals with such a great fishery. I just wish we could get that water level back up to the road.
Selective harvast on most lakes, I believe it is better to release the bigger fish mainly because they are put and take lakes. With the constant harvasting of smaller or dumb planters how can anybody expect to catch a decent or trophy size fish. Most of the trophy lakes can support a large population of larger fish because they have the lake structure that can support them. For example take Otter Creek, it has general regs and produces some above average size fish. Why, for starters the food source is larger and the lake is much shallower and produces a great number of forage and habitat. This is much the same as Minersville but has trophy regs. Or the other side of things like Boulder where access is very limited but produces outstanding brook trout. Most of you know this area has many problems with stunted brookies but with the current regs and fisherman keeping a good number of smaller brookies you will rarely find a place that stunts, but only if fisherman keep those smaller fish. I think Predator put it best when he said "understand the lake your fishing".
[signature]
Posts: 56
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2003
Reputation:
0
I'm glad you are happy.
[signature]
Posts: 2,778
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2003
Reputation:
0
Well said Predator..
[signature]
Posts: 1,013
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
0
Once again in my opinion the large increase in population in Utah has in part caused the changes that the DWR implement on our fishing waters. When ever the stress of over fishing pressure causes a change in the quality of the lakes or streams,a management change of that water can and does improve the quality of that water. We as anglers are not expected to have the answers to the problems but we are obligated to support those who do know what tactics will work. I like many of you have not always been happy with the changes in regulations in the past but I will admit that after the changes are made most of the time the quality of fishing has improved.We all have our own opinions and have the right to express them however we also have to obey the regulations or pay the consequences. DKSRenegade
[signature]
Posts: 1,181
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2003
Reputation:
0
predator, that was an extremely deep and profound comment you made here. It starkly explicates your superior insight and intelligence. What is unique about this comment is that it is also an incredible action of self-reflexiveness, the ability to critically recognize and analyze your own actions. It takes COURAGE to go beyond merely advocating what you like to personally do (C&R) and recognizing that it could be problematic if everyone participated in it. Too often people are merely seeing c&r as the RIGHT thing to do and the general attitude towards people who do otherwise is condemnation or even hatred. We already have enough hatred going on in terms of classicism, racism, and sexism, no need to create a new category of people to hate. And yes, you are right on the money about balance--- how many natural populations of animals have individuals that are ALL freakishly huge with no small or medium-sized ones? The question is why are we attempting to construct artificial populations of giants or "trophies?" Clearly we are just doing this to make us happy but is it at the expense of a healthy, balanced wildlife population? Okay, here is where I will participate in self-reflexiveness. Yes, I too, want to catch big fish, it's exciting, but I realize that creating populations of trophies in every water might not be what nature intended. Thus I will still do C&R but I won't go so far as to say everyone needs to. Most importantly I will not frown upon those who keep fish within legal limits.
[signature]
Posts: 705
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2002
Reputation:
0
I agree with you, cat man. As with so many edible things of this world, bigger is definitely not better. A 10" Uinta Mtn. brook tastes plenty yummy to me and nothing is worse than a bigger rainbow with white meat in it.[unsure] If you want to eat fresh trout on a frequent basis, try a fish farm. To me, nothing is worse than a bunch of freezer burned trout that are thrown away.[mad] I will honestly do an occasional "Hook 'em and cook 'em" but you can count those on one hand the past several years. Part of passage into young manhood or womanhood is a freshly cooked, freshly caught fish but jamming a red hook disgourger into a tiny fish and having it make that awful noise certainly is not.
There will always be both sides of the issue, no matter what anyone types on a BFT site. The main thing is not to waste resources, clean up after yourself, enjoy the fishing and resign yourself to deal with the catching.
[signature]
|
