Catch and Release

[Taylor]

Gil, I think you are right depends on habitat and species.

In a lot of ways, and especially in small impoundments, catch-and-release is similar to the "don't shoot does" cry/belief that was instilled in us (and rightly so at the time) when deer herds were being restored.

It also closes many such small waters to opportunity. (But maybe that's greed?)

I have always thought it's ironic that people that put up "no fishing" signs, really "need" others (that want to fish) fishing/helping them manage their ponds, lakes, etc.

All that said, I still release a lot more than I keep. LOL.
Unless a lake or pond owner specifically says take 'em out, on most cases I take the "their his fish, I am just borrowing them" approach and toss them back. The whole time thinking, "man, he needs to take some of these out of here."

The trophies...? LOL (at what few I catch, and even then my standards are minimal). They all go back, if for no other reason than to hope somebody else will get to share that kind of fun.

 

[gil1]

I give up, Tubbs. You win. All those guys that spend 200 days a year on the river since before you were born catching tons of 25-inchers are not allowed to have an opinion because they don't fish the way you do. Keep spreading the disease, dude. Hopefully, folks can learn that the best management practice is all about the depletion of the resource. Make sure to keep the tartar sauce in your tackle box, Tubbs.

Taylor - I totally agree. About once a year, I'll get to fish a well-managed private pond. The only reason I'm allowed to is because the fishery needs managing. Keep anything under 2 pounds, and toss the rest back. If you don't want to clean the little ones, toss them on the bank to die. Don't bother coming unless you follow the rules. Pretty interesting.

I fish one pond from time to time where you have to throw all the bluegills back but you are encouraged to take as many crappie as the law allows.

Anyway, I'm off to East TN to wet a line right now. Because the Caney's been dumping and I've been so busy, I haven't been able to wade since last fall. Can't wait to get into 'em if I'm so lucky. I'll report back!

 

[Tubakka]

No, if "those guys" care to chime in, by all means. I'm longing for some people who seriously fish the fishery and know how to catch big trout better than me to come on and share info. But all I get is you, Gil. And you don't fish it 200 days a year, and you don't have lots of 25" fish to your credit. So...why do you keep talking about the status and management of those fish of which you aren't even aware?

Headhunter's right...

...most anglers will never be able ot target those larger trout, or even the mid range ones for that matter. It's hard to manage for osmething that hte limits don't really even apply to. I've said my share on what I think the limit should be. I stand by it. nuff said. And that's what you've never understood gil....if a fly guy is out there catching big fish consistently, I have TOTAL respect for him. I RESPECT the ability to catch big fish. But more often than not, what I've seen out of flyfishermen is excuses to justify using their tackle when they come home with pictures of tiny trout being held out 4 feet in front oft heir face for the camera while they bite down on their rod [Speaking of which, where is Bubbles in all this?...]. I've never been against the tactic, dude. You can't argue with something that works IF IT DOES. But you gotta show me, which there have been very little of. On this river, and under these conditions. That's not too much to ask. You yourself say "well I'm just happy doing what I'm doing." Hey man fine by me. Nothing personal, I just get tickled when you start talking about trophy management of fish when you aren't even aware of how many are actually in there now. I understand there are some great flyfisherman out there that use the tackle brilliantly and catch some giants, but it's their knowledge that catches the fish, not the tackle. The fact they do it on that tackle is all the more impressive, but still...it can be duplicated on spinning, I'm sure. I just lack the knowledge, but that's why I go. To learn.

 

[bowriter]

"Taylor - I totally agree. About once a year, I'll get to fish a well-managed private pond. The only reason I'm allowed to is because the fishery needs managing. Keep anything under 2 pounds, and toss the rest back."

Gil we are now keeping everything under 15 inches from #1 and #2 and anything 8under 18" from the others. The 15's will weigh close to 1.75 pounds. The bream are now close to a pound. The 18"s are bumping 3.

We are still getting a lot of braided line broke back in the timber. After five years, 1-2-4 are producing bass up to 15# Two weeks ago we had three over 10 brought in.

 

[Tubakka]

Um, Captain Hook...

...I believe I'm the one who called a 25" a dink, and called out BD for calling a trophy fish a fish that hasn't even reached half it's potential size in weight. I'm not the one who calls those fish trophies. I've never harped them up to be monsters. "hate to burst my bubble"...um er...where are you pics pal? You talk a big game, but I don't see no show on the court.

Seriously dude, where'd you even DERIVE that? You're just TRYING to be an jerk now.

 

[B.D.]

The definition of a "trophy" depends on where you sit.

A lot of people will call a 6 lb. bass a trophy, yet their "maximum growth potential" is at least 22 lbs according to the record books. The world record brook trout is 15 lbs. and the coaster brookies can get up to 6 or 7 lbs., but if you catch a 2 lb brook trout in the Smokies, everybody I know would agree it's a trophy. I'd have to ask Richard Simms to be sure, but I bet most of his customers would call a 30 lb. blue cat a trophy, but their "maximum growth potential" is at least 125 lbs. and probably more. I bet Richard wouldn't go around calling a 30 lb blue a "dink," if for no other reason than he demonstrates more modesty than that.

"Trophy" is a subjective term that has as much to do with ease and relative rarity of capture as anything else.

That said, in my view it's still goofy - and pure egocentrism - to walk around calling a 25-inch brown trout a "dink." You routinely catch trout on the Caney more than a few inches longer than that? Don't think so.

bd

 

[Tubakka]

No, but I'm not stupid enough to pretend like I've maxxed out the fishery at all. Or my own ability to grow as an angler. There were muskies swimming in Kinkaid over 54" long. I rarely took them over 44" and my biggest was 48.5". I didn't go around caling the 44's "trophy".

I think it's pure egocentrism when guides...GUIDES...throw up "trophy" pics on their page of 19-20-21" brown trout. I knew a guy who guided the caney who used to JACK spots off of a friend of mine who was an INCREDIBLE fly angler and then go guide on them...his biggest brown on the Caney was 19". Now there are guides out there that DO know what they're doing and can back it up, but guys like that taint the title.

Yes, the term trophy is relative...but not to a particular tactic. It's relative to the fishery's capability to produce. The Caney has produced browns over 20 pounds. I'm sure there are at least a couple in there pushing 30 or over. I don't think there's a world record, but stranger things have happened.

Somehow the idea was divulged that I think I'm God's gift to angling. I'm the first to admit that I have alot of knowledge to learn and grow, but at least I'm aware of it. Lots of poor souls fish their whole lives thinking that a 25" is a HUGE fish on the Caney it seems. And because of that they don't change their tactics to pursue larger, because they simply don't realize they exist I s'pose.

You notice I didn't call that 30" rockfish yesterday a trophy. It was a really nice fish for that tackle and what we were doing, but even that section of the river has produced 30-40-50 pound fish.

You used the brookie example...that's completely moot. Appalachian brookies are not the sea run labradors, more than tailrace rainbows are Great lakes steelhead. Same fish, but the environments create two different animals. Yeah a 2 lb appalachian brookie is a huge one. But that's a totally different strain in a totally different environment. Are you arguing just to be contradictory now? Surely Matlock is on or something else to occupy your bedfast. Haha jk.

If anything me calling them dinks is a level of humility in my own angling abilities. I 'm not catching the fish I know are there, and I want to learn how, but I'm not there yet. Anyone who gets offended by that...well maybe it'll get them thinking bigger too, I guess.

 

[B.D.]

Why can't "trophy" be relative to a particular tactic? It's a subjective term. It does not mean a damn thing other than what a particular angler wants it to mean.

Last time I checked, nobody held an election and voted you Official Arbiter of What Fishing Words Mean. Just because you believe "trophy" starts at 20 lbs or something doesn't make you right and someone else wrong. If some other dude catches an 18" trout and it's his biggest fish and he wants to call it a trophy, who cares?

On the topic of guides, some people hire guides to teach them how to fly fish, or just to float them around all day with a fishing pole and feed them a shore lunch. If a guy who has never caught bigger than a 19" trout wants to go around claiming he'll put you on big fish, then yeah, I agree that's garbage. But if he says "Pay me $300 and I'll give you a fun day on the river and teach you how to fly fish," well, that's his market and there's nothing wrong with that. Maybe he can't find a 20-incher but he'll give you a 100 stockers a day. Some people would think that was the best fishing day ever. I know a ton of folks who'd rather have steady action from small fish all day than spend the day hunting for a handful of shots at big trout.

bd

 

[Football Hunter]

Didnt know CH misread comments on this thread too