|
|
|
Sorry for the grammar errors in last post, was up to early today.
JS
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | I understand the argument Doug is trying to make, and (in theory anyway) he does have a point.
If an angler is adept at catching muskies but careless or inept at releasing them, then in theory they could actually be killing more fish that had they simply bonked the first fish and quit for the day. That is certainly possible. But how likely is it though, especially considering the fact that more anglers are catching more fish, and getting more practice at handling them successfully? This argument is a bit futile in that respect, because there's no way to ever prove how true or likely it is to happen. But it does make for interesting discussion at the very least, and that itself is very valuable when it raises attention to the issue of minimizing angling-induced delayed mortality; especially as the start of the season approaches.
TB
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| The author of this thread asked for info on C&R, I supplied a few things that I thought to be relevant, that's all.
You know that I have always maintained that I support the C&R concept.
However, C&R is NOT a "no kill" policy.
Because of what I do, I get input from all types of fishermen/women. Not all are able to fish as often as they would like and many have the opinion that they would like to keep a trophy should they have the opportunity. They are aware of replicas but may not choose that approach.
I support "choice" in the practice of C&R. I also support the expansion of knowledge of the C&R concept.
JohnS; "There aren't enough trophies out there for everyone to keep one"
This is a straw man argument.....no one has stated or promoted that concept.
JohnS; "Again I don't know why you keep trying to potray C&R fishing as just as harmful as catch and kill. It very obviously is not and I would challenge you to prove that it is with facts other than opinion."
That is not what I'm portraying at all. If you look at what I said it was related to an individual C&R fisherman....not the whole practice. Take another look at what I said.
I honestly think you missed my whole point........
Address the reason for the Mn DNR making that statement in their 2011 regs.
Why did they do that?
DougP
Edited by fins355 5/12/2011 10:41 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Thanks Tom....I'm glad you understand my point.
I'm not the original author of that statement, it just made a lot of sense to me.
I'm just an advocate for the average fisherman being able [allowed] to make an educated choice in the pursuit of the C&R concept.
DougP |
|
| |
|
Posts: 123
| Long ago and maybe on this very website someone posted a story about a weekend angler who was not a muskie fisherman that caught a near-record fish and they kept it. I believe they even said in the article that it was the only muskie that individual had ever caught. Well someone I won't name but who I know catches 50+ fish per year thought that story should have never been printed, much less posted on this forum. I said I had no problem with it and mentioned that he had probably been responsible for a minimum of 1 fish expiring from delayed mortality due to the sheer number of fish he came in contact with. He about crucified me for that response, but I stood by it and still do. Some fish die no matter what our handling techniques are. Nobody will ever know the % I'm sure but I know it happens. I also know I was not responsible for the demise of a single muskie last year. Didn't fish for them.  |
|
| |
|
|
The MNDNR doesn't want people to throw legal sized fish back if the fish appears to be badly bleeding. That is all. I don't think anyone would find fault with that.
Again, who is saying C&R is a "no kill" practice? Doug you make that point over and over, but to whom are you talking to? I think everyone on this thread knows that C&R fish do can die.
Also, the point that there aren't enought trophies for everyone isn't a "straw man" agrument. I believe it to be very true. If even the majority of anglers kept one trophy for the wall the consequences would be very vivisble. A 50" muskie would still be the "bar" for a trophy, 'cause the majority of them would be killed at that point.
The point you are trying to make, as I see it, is that C&R fishermen are just as damaging as catch and kill fishermen, or the fishermen that kills occasionally.
As an individual you may be right some of the time, but as a group that sentiment is very far from the truth.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Lens Creep.....I know what you're saying. I hear that reponse to a kept fish all too often.
JS...."The point you are trying to make, as I see it, is that C&R fishermen are just as damaging as catch and kill fishermen, or the fishermen that kills occasionally."
John, actually my point is that a C&R fisherman "can be" more damaging...not that they "are" more damaging.
Gord Pyzor even wrote an article sometime back about how the Lac Seul fishery was in decline because of the mortality from the increased pressure even though Lac Seul is 100%C&R.
I make my point to keep the C&R concept not being a "no kill" proposition in perspective.
An angler who catches 50+ fish a year is more of a potential threat to a particular fishery than the casual angler who catches one fish to keep on his weeklong trip spent "up nort'"....
DougP
Edited by fins355 5/12/2011 12:13 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| JS...."The MNDNR doesn't want people to throw legal sized fish back if the fish appears to be badly bleeding. That is all. I don't think anyone would find fault with that."
I don't find fault with that. I think it to be a sound idea but flies in the face of the 100% C&R practice. It also illustrates my point.
IF I C&R a musky that is bleeding heavily or ortherwise wounded gravely, that musky is more likely to die because of those injuries according to the MDNR. So if I continue to fish for muskies after that release, I can now potentially repeat that same scenario again in the same day as well as again during the rest of the trip.
IF I kept that fish [if it were legal] I would be through fishing [legally at least] for muskies as long as that fish was in my possession which would give that fishery at least a measure of protection it would not have in the other scenario.......
DougP
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| I guess my reasoning here is that we can't be so quick to denounce an angler for keeping a legal fish should he choose to do so.
It is also up to an angler who has the ability and the opportunity to catch more fish than the average person to consider the possibility of limiting the numbers he catches in the pursuit of responsible C&R angling for muskies.
Yes, I also agree, it's of great importance to practice the highest degree of release procedures....especially when catching large numbers of fish.
DougP
Edited by fins355 5/12/2011 12:36 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | I have no article, but caught the same tagged fish twice on the Manitowish Chain. I beleieve the first year we got it was 2004, and the next was 2005. 45" both years, and in a different area.
Also on the same lake we got the same fish three times, three years in a row. Not tagged but it had a distinguishable notch out of it's tail. It was also in a different area each time. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | fins355 - 5/12/2011 12:29 PM
I guess my reasoning here is that we can't be so quick to denounce an angler for keeping a legal fish should he choose to do so.
It is also up to an angler who has the ability and the opportunity to catch more fish than the average person to consider the possibility of limiting the numbers he catches in the pursuit of responsible C&R angling for muskies.
Yes, I also agree, it's of great importance to practice the highest degree of release procedures....especially when catching large numbers of fish.
DougP
You're way over John's head. Don't waste your time. Your points are easily understandable. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 444
| Maybe understandable, but not at all based in any logic or what really goes on in the muskie community.
Doug are you a taxidermist? A little conflict of intrest here? |
|
| |
|
|
His points are understandable, but what do they really mean?
Is C&R a failed concept because fish can still die after being released?
It the promotion of C&R over killing a fish to mount hypocritical because a fish may die?
Is the promotion of getting replicas instead of skin mounts hypocritical because the fish you released to get a replica may die?
I would say the answer to all of the above is no.
Doug you bring up points that we all know are true. Fish will die from delayed mortality.
Is pointing out the fact that C&R fish can still die a defense of killing them intentionally?
You are obviously here to make some kind of statement other than C&R fish can still die, because we all know that.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Scottith...yes I'm a taxidermist. How is that any more of a conflict of interest than a guide who practices 100% C&R and yet catches 100 fish per year??
Or a resort owner, or a tackle mfg'r, or....etc??
I think my points are "dead on" logically and exactly what goes on in the musky community.
JS....I think I explained my points fairly well.
I'm sorry you don't understand 'em.
DougP
Edited by fins355 5/12/2011 2:49 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Thanks Pointer....sadly, you may be right. 
I don't view this as a waste of time, however. I think there may be others who are interested in a little different point of view, eh? 
DougP |
|
| |
|
|
Your points are understood Doug, just not your motives.
Are we supposed to feel ashamed for letting a fish go because it may die?
Your telling facts to people who know them already. Fish that are released may die.
Why you're doing so you won't come out and say directly.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| My motive was to answer a question about C&R articles which was posed by the author of this thread. |
|
| |
|
|
The question was why is catch and release important to muskie fishing.
I'm not sure how you answered that, but we'll just let that one go.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| John you have very selective reading habits....LOL!!
The first sentence of this thread reads as follows;
"Anybody come across articles outlining the pros and cons of catch and release. To get this cleared im all catch and release, have been all my life."
Do you see the part where it says "pros and CONS"...??
I guess I supplied some of the latter, eh?
DougP |
|
| |
|
|
So I guess what you are saying is the fact that a fish can still die after release is a "con".
O.K. We all know that, so again, what is your motivation for telling us that fish can still die after release?
Is it to make us feel guilty? To make people think it's O.K. to kill them on purpose, 'cause they might die anyway? Is it to make people who decide to kill one feel like that choice is the same as being one who practices C&R 'cause one that is released could still die?
Are you just trying to make people who have made the decision to never kill one feel bad about that? Or make them try not to persuade others to follow that route?
JS
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Ohhh Jeeeezz, I'm done....!!!
DougP |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Guest - 5/12/2011 5:33 PM
So I guess what you are saying is the fact that a fish can still die after release is a "con".
O.K. We all know that, so again, what is your motivation for telling us that fish can still die after release?
Is it to make us feel guilty? To make people think it's O.K. to kill them on purpose, 'cause they might die anyway? Is it to make people who decide to kill one feel like that choice is the same as being one who practices C&R 'cause one that is released could still die?
Are you just trying to make people who have made the decision to never kill one feel bad about that? Or make them try not to persuade others to follow that route?
JS
Could it simply be to point out to the original poster that C&R isn't a flawless, 100% mortality free way of fishing? It might be worth pointing that fact out in the paper.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32959
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Exactly.
|
|
| |
|
|
So saying a guide and a resort owner who practice 100% C&R is a conflict of interest in the same way that a taxidermist who doesn't do repos because they aren't "real", is merely pointing out that C&R isn't flawless?
Seems to me someone is on the Killing a few isn't any worse than letting them all go propoganda wagon again.
I guess that's a message to be promoted here?
JS
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 444
| Exactly, Doug's trying to justify killing muskies for the wall for a little extra.....$$$
Anyone who has done any research on C+R knows it's not 100%...not alot in life is 100%...well except a 100% of the muskies you mount for the wall are dead Doug.
There are no Cons to C+R with Muskies, IMHO |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32959
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I think a couple of you boys need to take a reading comprehension course or ten.
The question was pros and cons. That was the question, and well thought out answers were offered. Doug said repeatedly he supports CPR, and tempered that with the concept he doesn't feel it should be forced upon anyone if the law allows otherwise. THAT is what MuskieFIRST also supports, and always will, because THAT is the model that allows for cooperation and education without confrontation, and forwarding the CPR ethic to those who are not yet educated. A baseball bat approach doesn't work, and never will. Education occurs when all viewpoints are discussed in a civil manner (A couple folks here need a few courses on that front, too) and change occurs when the benefits of a proposed course of action are presented, and ultimately accepted by, the majority.
The point that CPR is not perfect and fish will die is well made, and accurate. No where is it stated CPR is futile, just that the process is not without harm to the Muskie population. If you fish for muskies and release every one, you very likely will kill a few over your time as a muskie angler. Fact. No where in this conversation does anyone say CPR is a bad idea or shouldn't be practiced; that shouldn't even be necessary to point out.
I'm certainly guilty of releasing fish that did die. I justify that personally by telling myself that if I didn't, the result is obvious, and argue with myself that I KNEW that one wouldn't make it, but released it for my own self righteous gratification and so I can claim I'm 100% CPR. A true conservationist would not do that....a true conservationist would utilize that fish so it's not wasted. Then, of course, there's the argument that the turtles gotta eat too, and interestingly, no one good guyes at the turtles for doing exactly that.
If the opportunity to CHANGE the law to match what is socially acceptable to increase the quality of the fishery comes along, MuskieFIRST is not only behind those efforts, but has been actively involved in many cases.
|
|
| |
|
|
With all due respect Steve Doug's "approach" is to tell people that C&R is just as harmful or more so than people killing fish for the wall.
That has been his message here and other places for a long time.
That is not pointing out pros cons of C&R with facts or articles as was asked, it is Doug trying to justify killing fish by lumping C&R mortality with intentional kills.
Call a spade a spade.
JS
|
|
| |
|
| fins355 - 5/12/2011 2:44 PM
Scottith...yes I'm a taxidermist. How is that any more of a conflict of interest than a guide who practices 100% C&R and yet catches 100 fish per year??
Doug, the difference is that the guide is trying to keep the resource renewable while promoting C&R to fishermen who are probably less experienced than he is. On the other hand you are telling those who have never released a big one that they should consider taking the fish to a taxidermist because it may die.
Both of you are making a living off the resource but at least the guide is TRYING to keep the big fish alive so they can be shared with other fishermen. Even if 50% of the guide's big muskies died from delayed mortality that's still better than your telling them to thump it. That's a big difference IMHO.
You mounted a big walleye from Lake Erie for me a couple years ago. Beautiful work. You were on my short list of taxidermists if I ever had a big muskie die in my hands. Not anymore.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Some of you guys are really amazing....
Mr. Guest
I guess I need to address a couple things here.
First of all I have never advocated anyone "thumping" anything. You can't quote me saying that.
I also never mentioned that I am a taxidermist until I was asked directly. The accusation that I'm trying to get more business is silly.
IF some of you were to read what I have posted and not "spin" my words to fit your agenda I think you will find nothing that is not pretty rock solid.
Since you can't negate the info I have provided it is easier to try to devalue me as a poster.
Lastly, Mr. Guest, thank you for your past business. I'm glad that you are happy with my work and I appreciate the nice words.
I'm sorry that I am no longer on your list. However, I've never let my opinions and beliefs be swayed with the prospect of "getting more work". I'm not going to start now.
Best of luck to you in your future fishing ventures.
DougP
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32959
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'With all due respect Steve Doug's "approach" is to tell people that C&R is just as harmful or more so than people killing fish for the wall. '
Show me where I (or anyone else...edit)have EVER said that. That's just your weak debate skills showing when you can't argue your point using actual facts and references to what has really been said and resort to completely inaccurate personal attack to try to win a point.
On one hand, some bash guides for increasing pressure on the fishery and additional angler related mortality on the Muskie population, on the other, the SAME folks argue they are better for the fishery because they forward CPR philosophy. The truth is somewhere in between.
Taxidermists will no longer mount fish when folks stop bringing them in. If that is the desired goal, then get busy trying to get the actual facts out to the general public and eventually acquire a total CPR philosophy for the sport. There are negatives to our personal feelings as to what a Muskie Nirvana would look like from TOTAL CPR law as well, ask your local fisheries manager.
Until that time, it's not the taxidermist who kills the fish...it's the angler. Until you can show where any taxidermist has actually told anyone here to kill a fish, I'd suggest you refrain from that. Fair is fair, Skarie, you can't have it both ways.
|
|
| |
