Yeah, thanks. You stated your opinion very clearly. It must be hard for you to have to stay away from certain waters because of the policies that people are making and you wanting to stand true to what you believe in. I respect that. It seems like an easy decision for you though.
I would still love to hear from others who hunt and aren't against killing/harvesting other animals, but are C&R fisherman.
I am a hunter and I usually C&R simply because I am fishing for the enjoyment of it, not for food. But if for some reason I do need a little meat I have no issues takeing whatever fish I want as long as it is legal (we have game laws for a reason fellas).
I eat everything I kill, and I only kill what I will eat. Usually the deer I kill are a big help to my income. 1 deer can last me 2+ months. STILL the DNR is forced to cull the herd every spring because there are too many deer. The game laws are based on wildlife management. BELIEVE me, if they thought keeping some fish in an area would dramatically affect this situation, they would limit it.
"First of all, WOW, that was very rude! That kinda surprises me on here."
What are you saying was rude. I looked back several post and couldn't find anything that I thought was rude? Maybe I am missing something.
I have hunted many states and Alaska and I don't see that hunting has anything to do with catch and release fish. There is lots of proof that catch and release is good for a fishery. For years big game (Marlin, Sails and such) fish were killed until somebody realized that the numbers of fish were diminishing. Now even Belize has put C&R restrictions on Tarpon, Bonefish and Permit. This in a country that many of its residents were killing fish every day for food.
Fresh water fish that Fly Fishers are attracted to have limitations on where they can go. Except maybe the big lakes. But river fish can be decimated by over harvesting. Texas back in the early 70's did a test on a small lake. They killed all of the fish and planted a specific number of Bass with no restrictions. Within a year every fish, that is "ever" fish had been caught. Over harvesting fish or game will deplete the resource even to a point that it takes years to recover. We have that right now with Steelhead and Salmon in the North West.
Some people think that their measly number of fish taken will not have an impact. When you have thousands of fishers doing the same thing it does adds up.
Location: Lake of the Woods/Rainy River Minnesota Canada border
Re: World Record
Twospots, I don't even know where to begin with what is wrong with that rambling rant. How in the h e double hockey sticks did you deduce I would rather you die than the fish? That is absolutely absurd. And as a matter of fact I worked for the DNR fisheries for 12 years, I think I do know a bit about fish. I never said small fish don't spawn, however, large fish produce many more eggs, and as I did say, have the genetics to produce large fish. Now as to the guy with 400 fish in his freezer, I don't know about your state but in mine daily limit and possesion are the same. If your daily limit for white bass isn't 400, he is in posession of a gross overlimit. I suggest you call Tips or whoever you turn in poachers in your state. The fish he is stealing, and it is theft, belong to everyone including you. It does not take many people like that to have an adverse effect on a fishery. The notion that somehow fishing is cheaper than buying fish I have serious doubts as to the validity of that notion as well. If you take the cost of gas to and from your fishing/grocery hole, cost of tackle and the time spent fishing I think you will find the box of fish sticks to be less costly. I never said you should not keep fish, I said that several small ones rather than one large one would be better for you and the fishery. Somehow you decided that meant I want you to die. Wow! How you deduced what you did from the limited number of lines I wrote amazes me. Wow. If keeping fish means the differance between you living or dying, I think your time would be better spent putting in some overtime at work, maybe get another part time job. If all you are eating is fish, and that's the way you make it sound, I suggest once again you go read your states consumption advisory. As for you saying that the only reason you keep fish is for food in your rambling rant is not exactly accurate either. You said basically the bigger the better because "a record fish oughta feed me for a while!" This isn't fishing for food. This is whacking a record fish to yours and the fisheries detriment. You made yourself out to be a self proclaimed meat hog. All I said was several small fish were better for you and the fishery than whacking the trophy. I am still reeling form the absurdity of the conclusions you leapt to after reading a few lines from me. How did you get all of that from what I wrote? I suggest you go back and reread it. Wow! Holy Cow! How's your blood sugar? You feeling OK?
You picked me out of all the other posts to harp on, not once, but twice!
You stated that you hoped I was the exception to all other fishermen!
You took my quotes out of context and it seemed like you were trying to make me into some bad guy!
What did you expect? A thanks?!
H-E double whatever, YES I was peeved!
I read it like 5 times to be sure I was not missing something and you have to have known before writing that – that there would be a negative response.
I am extremely conservation minded and that truly hit a nerve. In no way am I a meat hog! I simply stated the only reason I personally see for killing anything is food. I also stated that it depended what you are fishing for (If I catch a record Pompano, it’s getting eaten!)
-I know the consumption warnings, there are no limits for white bass in that area, and I’m not going into my previous unfortunate financial issues anymore than I have, but you are wrong about the cost of going to the store (at least here and for me at that time).
So let me go ahead and state that I apologize if my reaction seemed harsh to you, but that really seemed rude to me and I felt compelled to defend myself as I am sure you would if I stated similar things to you.
And I rarely get offended by anyone’s comments, even if they are negative… but that one statement about hoping I was the exception… Man that really got to me on a lot of levels…
Talk about being where you shouldn't be - but here I am.
I've gone back to the post on page 5 that started this debate. I think that the main point that was made was that if a person is fishing in a catch and release mode, then that will be the outcome; the fish will be released, regardless of the size (I know, this thread was originally about a species record-sized fish, but I don' think that the post on page five was specifically targeted to trophy fish).
On the other hand, if a person is fishing for food, then the fish will be taken; again, as I read it, regardless of the size and not really focusing on whether or not it's a trophy-sized fish.
I don't find anything objectionable about these two points.
I do think that the point about large fish and spawning potential is a good one and one that should be kept in mind, but I've also heard people say that the largest fish are nearing the end of their life cycle and may not have that potential for much longer (which I realize is not a strong rationale for actively or intentionally eliminating that potential by taking them).
Case in point. I was fishing a local stream earlier this Spring when I sited a very large rainbow cruising the shallows of a large pool, close to the surface; an unusual practice for a rainbow on a sunny day. I rushed to tie on a good dry fly (there were mayflies and caddis in the air), but before I could get a cast off, I was out-fished by an eagle, which swooped down, hit the water with a slam and took off with "my fish", which I estimate was well over 2 ft. in length.
The person I was with, who has fished this particular stream a lot longer than I, turned to me and said: "tough luck! But it was an old fish." This case isn't meant to be a generalization; it's just an example. I'm catch and release only; but that's my choice, not my rule.
Aw I guess I will step into this one because I feel there are some points to catching a world record that are being missed here. I am only speaking from experience with having a world record in hand, I also live in Florida and have been to speak personally with the IGFA officials in Davie,FL. I work for a safari company that takes hunters and fisherman all over the world. I was in the Amazon November 2007 and fly fishing for Arawana and Peacock Bass. At the time the 16lb class world record was around 4.5lbs for Arawana. I landed a fish that weighed just over 9lbs on my CERTIFIED Boga Grip by IGFA (they certify these so you don’t have to "rush" to a certified scale). One problem, and this is where it cost me the Record. I was in a canoe and hand no where to weigh the fish ON LAND required by IGFA to be legal. I had my witness, my measuring tape(given to me by IGFA as a member) and my photo. Any quality taxidermist can make a great mount of a fish from a few photos and multiple measurements. So really there is no reason to kill a fish with proper preparations by the angler. Also a major point that I am shocked that has not come up, unless I missed it, world record fish are not always MONSTERS. They have everything from 2lb to 20lb class tippet. Where it is possible to catch a World Record on 2lb class tippet and the fish not even be big enough to Legally Keep.