Conference wahoo::fishing

 John-

 I have some general comments to make before I delve into your note on a point
by point basis.

 I do not believe that a 100% catch and release policy is necessary for all 
fishermen seeking all species of fish. I believe that keeping the occasional
fish or two to eat is a perfectly acceptable and reasonable endeavor engaged
in by sportsmen. I do believe that fishermen have a responsibility to protect
their own resources by any means necessary, whether that means throwing a
fish back to allow it to continue breeding or signing a petition to stop
some company from expanding it's buildings to the edge of a river to calling
the Environmental Protection Agency to report haxardous dumping. When I look 
at pictures of stringers full of trout that show old-timers grinning from ear
to ear, I can only be reminded that they once considered our resources to be 
endless. I resent the fact that their excesses have contributed to some 
species extinctions and the generally poorer fishing conditions that exist now
compared to the days when Zane Grey et al were in their heyday. I firmly believe
that it is our responsibility to prevent further deterioration of fishing
conditions and fisheries for those who come after us. And I reserve the right
to label anyone who believes that they do not have such a responsibility
as a slob.

 I for one do not release every fish I catch. I am fond of certain types of 
fish, and I make no bones whatever about eating some, especially when they are
not in prime release condition. There is no contradiction between this and
my aforementioned assertion of responsibilities. What is important is that
we make sure that we are not keeping every legal sized fish we catch, regardless
of how the species is doing in the body of water from which it came. When a 
species is doing well in a given body of water, it is perfectly acceptable and 
in some cases important to retain some of what we catch in order to keep the
school healthy. In some cases harvesting as many fish as we can is actually
beneficial to the school as a whole, when one species becomes overabundant
and threatens to destroy its food supply.

 Anyway, onto some selected points.

 For one thing, you can't expect that studies done in the southern states are 
going to be as applicable to the northern states as they are in the area
where they are done. I'd rather doubt that too many 7 lb female bass don't
breed up here. For one thing, they are pretty scarce. For another, being older
(to reach that size compared to say, a Florida strain) they are less aggressive
and thereby less intimidating to the male bass. And even if such large bass 
aren't _as_ prolific as a 3 lb bass, there's no reason why we shouldn't leave 
them to reproduce- their genes are important if we want to see more large
bass! If for no other reason, keeping a healthy gene pool is a good reason to
release large bass.

 As far as bass go, I don't have a problem with people eating them to their 
heart's content. There are thousands of small to middling ponds and lakes that
are full of bass. This, coupled with the ability of the bass to reproduce in
less than ideal conditions, makes bass a good species of fish to eat alot of,
depending on where you catch them. It wouldn't make sense to keep alot of
bass from a place that is heavily fished that has a poor amount of bass. But
a short distance away may be a place that is much smaller but has loads of
smaller fish that have become stunted due to better a reproductive environment
than the corresponding forage can support.

>     **I believe there is a certain amount of selfishness in the idea that
>    Bass are there to be caught and caught over and over. 

 I disagree with this. How you can claim that one fisherman throwing a fish
back so another can catch it is more selfish than the guy who decides that he
is going to be the top of the food chain for that fish is beyond me. That just
doesn't make any sense. It's like saying the guy who shares his case of beer
with his buddies is more selfish than the guy who drinks it by himself. Sorry-
that fish don't swim. :-)

 Your comments about the survival rate of 'caught and released' fish are
somewhat contradictory. First you make the claim that "the jury is still out,"
then you make seemingly authoritative statements about which ones live and
which ones don't. The fact of the matter is that survival from being caught 
and released remains somewhat a mystery, but that there are a number of factors
which we directly control that have a direct bearing on the viability of any 
particular fish. On the one hand, it is not helpful to use ultra-light tackle
on especially large fish because of the stress it causes them. However, one can 
mitigate this particular problem by making sure that the fish is well on the
road to recovery before releasing it. Like you say, it is very important to 
handle a fish properly to ensure it has the best chance for recovery- and
the maintenance of body slime on some species is of prime importance.

 There have been more than a few cards returned from shark and marlin taggings
that indicate the fish was dead upon release- yet the fish have been caught
again! And there have been cases where a fish has swum off powerfully only
to be taken by a predator within minutes. You can't predict very much about
the viability of any given fish with complete certainty, but decidedly fewer 
fish recover from the frying pan compared to those directly released. :-)
If the alternative to "catch and release" is "take up something besides 
fishing," I'll take "catch and release" anyday. Not to say that catch and
release is perfect, but it's a step towards ensuring a continuation of our
fisheries.

>But I do NOT espouse the 100% catch-and-release theory either... 

 I don't espouse it, but I'm certainly not going to stop others from engaging
in it. Seems like a perfect case of live and let live to me.

>I think that
>    reasonable harvest and adherance to fishing laws will allow these
>    resources to be available to unlimited future generations.

 Agreed. It sounds like you've had a lousy taste left in your mouth by
someone who looks upon catch and release as a religion. Remember, most of us
are moderates. We just want to have a good time now and in the future, and
allow our sons and daughters! to do the same.

 The Doctah

    I myself practice catch & release because I don't eat fish plus I want
    to make sure our future fisherman have the same fun fishing as I did!
    That does not mean I am a fanatic about it either. I strongly believe
    you should be able to take home some fish to eat!! (as long as you are
    with in the legal limits!)
    
    So if you ever encounter someone who is giving you crap about taking 
    fish home, all you have to do is quote the LEGEND...
    
    
    *******************SHUT YOUR HOLE!!!!!*******************************
    
    That should take care of them 8^)
    
    Bass-O-Matic
     

      Re .1
      I think that we are in violent AGREEMENT on the BASICS here... 
    
       
      First of all, I may not have been clear with the "jury is out"
    statement. I THINK the examples I listed ONLY illustrated situations
    where the demise of the fish was almost certain....and that is probably
    not totally fair, since I have no doubt that the 33 Largemouths that I
    released one warm June day last summer were in super shape...but I fish
    with 17lb test line and a spinning rod that could substitute for a
    cue-stick...and I always remember the advise of an old-timer from
    Minnesota where I grew up who told me in no uncertain terms when I was   
    a kid: "Son!! If you wanna PLAY with the damned fish, take it home and
    put it in the bathtub!! Here on the lake you get the damned fish outa
    the water!" So I get em out fairly quikly, and back in as soon as I
    have some seconds to admire their color and shape.
    
      Yeah, there is some sensitivity to the "catch-&-release" people who
    think they've invented something new...and I do believe that there is
    an element--maybe not large--here that is saying that tournament
    fishing is "THE" only way to fish. I think that if that is the case
    then the torunament fishermen should buy some lakes and keep everyone
    else off of them...then the problem won't exist.
    
      I think the comparisons that I made with southern studies are not
    area specifie either.. The application of human sweat wouls result in
    the same mishap for the fish wherever it occurred...and I also can say
    that your example of saltwater fish may not be totally relevant
    either..since the bacterial problem that freshwater fisheries have is
    not the same in salt water. 
    
      I have a LOT of problem with the element of the population who won't
    use their heads when in the recreation areas. I usually carry a plastic
    garbage bag with me when I go out...and usually it's about half or more
    full of other peoples crap when I return.. It makes me angry as hell to
    see what total slobs some people are, and I have actually asked some
    folks how their luck was and had them show me a dozen little 4 to 6
    inch largemouths...felt like chucking this idiot into the lake!! If we
    could rid the lakes and streams of THOSE kind of jackass, the problem
    wiouyld be much alleviated. However, I don't really know what the
    answer to this abuse is...other than a harpoon.
    
      I was born and raised in Minnesota..."Land of 10,000 lakes", and that
    is only lakes of over 3 acres...there are actually more like 35 to 40
    thousand if you get down to an acre. I was taught by a true pioneer in
    this country...my Dad, who died in 1987 at the age of 93. He taught me
    and my two brothers to RESPECT the resources, but to use them
    judiciously as well. It seems that the folks who are religiously
    pointing at people who EAT fish as some sort of "meat hunters" have
    been fishing on the ponds and lakes that HAVE been experiencing heavy
    pressure, but there are plenty of areas where there are underfished but
    maybe harder to access waters.
    
       I was taught to hunt and fish...and never to shoot at ANYTHING that
    I wasn't willing to clean and eat(other than rats and woodchucks, that
    is..;-)), and not to take more fish than I would reasonably be able
    to use. I've always done so. I think the large stringers ARE
    appropriate for some species...I.E.: If you get into a school of Black
    Crappies in some of the lakes in the midwest, you can string up 50 in
    less than an hour, and this will only help the ten-or-so-thousand that
    remain to get bigger. A string of 30+ Yellow-belly Bullheads isn't a
    lot either, and these will reproduce much faster than the pressure will
    make any difference.
    
      However, the Largemouth in SOME waters is a different story, and the 
    tremendous publicity and media concentration on this fish in the past
    20 years is, in my opinion, one of the biggest reasons WHY the fish has
    become seriously scarce in some areas. In many places--New England being
    one of them--the amount of people who actually fish for bullheads is
    rather small. Most people look at you like you were a Carp fisherman at
    the mention of bullheads. (By the way..Carp can be a whole LOT of fun
    if they are biting and the fish are large...) I don't even know where
    I'd begin to look for Crappies in this part of the country. Another
    fish that is a fairly fast reproducer is the Walleye, but this one has
    not received the publicity that the Largemouth has, so the pressure in
    most waters hasn't been severe. 
    
      So...I guess you hit the nail on the head...I'm a bit burned at the
    attitude of some of the more fanatical fishermen who seem to not
    understand that one CAN enjoy fishing and STILL have some on the table.
    Most TRUE sportsmen have a deep and abiding interest in preserving the
    element that gives them enjoyment..and the idiots who would take more
    than they could reasonably use are not real sportsmen anyway...but
    selfish and irresponsible individuals...
    
      And not to beat a dead horse...but a Largmouth in New England of
    5 pounds or more isn't much good to eat anyway...so they SHOULD be 
    left unless you want to have one on your wall...(And in the southern
    waters where the Florida strain prevails, no self-respecting Bass
    angler would be caught dead taking a minnow that small anyway...)
    
      But the Connecticut River has more big Catfish than you could
    possibly take to hurt the population...but even here--with NO limit on
    the number you CAN take--I believe that the BASIC aspect should always
    prevail---NEVER take more than you can REASONABLY use....like maybe 3
    per trip....anymore would be greed.
    
    John Mc

    I recently picked up a brochure published by the Mass. Dept of
    Fisheries and Wildlife called "Fish Massachusetts".  The following is
    from the brochure and pertains to this topic.
    
    
    "Despite the abundance of water bodies and the diversity of wild and
    hatchery produced fish species available to the angler, the real and
    potential demands placed on these resources are or can be extremely
    high, particularly for the less abundant gamefish such as bass, trout
    and pike.  Each year Massachusetts inland waters support an estimated
    seven to nine million angler trips - twice the national average per
    acre fishing pressure.  About 80% of this angling effoert is directed
    at gamefish.  Fishing regulations are enforceable guidelines imposed to
    assure the attainment of public benefits.  Existing regulations
    governing daily creel limits and minimum size requirements are designed
    to maintain the reproductive capabilities of of wild fish populations
    as well as to assure and perpetuate the optimal use of our game
    fisheries.  In the face of high harvest rates, present regulations
    cannot maintain the density of the larger "quality" sized gamefish that
    many water bodies are capable of supporting - and which most anglers
    prefer to catch.  If, for example, a high percentage of the 12 inch
    bass in a lake or pond are harvested as soon as they attain that
    length, few will remain that can grow into larger bass - even if the
    water could support many of them.  Because of the high fishing pressure
    in Massachusetts, excessive harvest rates are not necessarily the
    result of many anglers keeping their maximum daily creel limits, but
    rather numerous anglers keeping one, two or three fish which just meet
    statewide minimum length requirements.
    
    In view of this situation, at some point in the near future special
    minimum length requirements may be imposed on certain individual,
    heavily fished bodies of water in the state.  Such "water specific"
    regulatins will be designed to foster and maintain higher densities of
    larger gamefish in waters capable of sustaining them.
    
    Because the Division of Fisheries & Wildlife will never be able to
    intensively manage every individual body of water with specific
    regulations, the choice of whether or not to harvest a legal sized
    gamefish and thereby impact the future quality of the fishery for
    yourself and others sharing that water - is a decision that each angler
    must wrestle with himself.  If you consider your immediate needs and
    future desires - as well as those of other anglers faced with the same
    decisions - your choice will undoubtedly be the correct one."
    
    (reproduced without permission)
    
    JPL
    
    

    I agree with much of what the previous replies said.  And I too 
    think In-Fisherman's Selective Harvest philosophy is a good one.
    
    We all have the right to catch and keep fish.  They say that a small
    percentage of fishermen catch most of the fish - that is an old rule of 
    thumb - and with all of the education in rags and on the tube these days 
    that may not be as true as it used to be, but for arguments sakes, lets 
    assume it is.  If all of these 'gifted' fishermen exercised their right 
    to keep a few quality fish every time they went fishing - I believe this 
    would seriously effect some waters in popular areas.
    
    There are lots of bodies of water where sportfish can be harvested 
    responsibly.  But, in general, these types of waters are diminishing.
      
    I agree with In-Fisherman's philosophy that in heavily fished areas,
    people who always exercise their right to catch and eat sportfish 
    should consider seeking out "other" species.  
    
    As the quote from the Mass rule book said, it's up to the individual to
    decide what they want to do.  I would not have hard feelings towards
    any angler taking his/her legal limit of fish on any lake.  However,
    if lots of folks were harvesting fish from a lake that received alot 
    of pressure, I would say, as a group, those exercising their rights are 
    jeapordizing the fishery for all concerned.
    
    When it comes to bass fishing, I preach catch and release often.  I
    think it is important to release most fish in well populated areas that 
    receive alot of pressure.
    
    But I also practice selective harvest.  As far as bass are concerned, 
    it's usually while I'm out in remote areas on canoe float/camping trips.  
    We'll always have fish for supper.  
    
    As far as salmonoids go, I only fish for them on occasion, but when I
    do I'm practicing "subjective harvest", to coin a phrase, I eat them
    all.
       
    -donmac

    I'll make this brief (unlike the 1st 5 replies):
    
    I don't like the taste of freshwater fish much.  I don't fish salt
    often.  I keep pratically nothing of what I catch for those reasons.
    
    Limits are legal.  Where fish populations decline, catch and release,
    reduced limits, vigorous prosecution of polluters and and limit
    violators are among the tactics I approve of for improving the fishery.
    I would never look down on a fellow who kept his fish to eat.  It is a
    right and a priviledge.  There are obligations that accompany that
    right - like seeing that the fishery remains viable for future
    generations (and this one).  I like knowing that one who keeps his fish
    has thought of more than his belly.  I read enough to know that some
    do.  I see enough to know that some don't.  It's hard to distinguish
    between the two so I keep my mouth shut as far as individuals are
    concerned.
    
    BTW, don't eat those big cats from the Conn.  Holy PCB's, Batman!
    
    -SSS-  

    Re .0 

    	Bass are not native to mass? Thats a new one. When were they
    introduced? 

        
    Rich

    re: .last
    
    	I've heard that many of the N.E. smallmouth were brought from
    	the midwest on railroads. My guess at a timeframe would be
    	1870-1880. Maybe the same for largemouth?
    
    	Any have any details?
    
    				Robert.

    I'd like to say 2 cents in support of the base note.  (And I rarely
    feel strongly enough to poke my words into the file here.)
    
    It irks the heck out of me whenever I tell someone I caught a fish and
    then had the audacity to actually EAT IT and then they tell me
    something like it's wrong to do so, or that they are better than me
    (implied) because they only practice C&R.  I don't eat everything I
    catch, not by a long shot.  And what I don't eat, I release.  And there
    are some spots that I used to fish that became overfished so I just
    don't go there anymore and hope that others do the same.
    
    What I took the base noter to be saying was simply a version of
    different strokes for different folks and respect for all.  I recognize
    that avid C&R people will not cotton to me eating some fish and that's
    OK, but they should also either treat me as a person with respect or
    just leave me alone as long as I'm obeying the laws.
    
    Well, off my soapbox and counting down the days until May 8 when it's
    salmon fishing for me in the Rangeleys and yup, I hope to eat a few of
    em.
    
    Pete
    

	I agree with the base note also. Basically it comes down to how well 
educated and responsible an individual angler is. With all the means to 
become educated; Books, Magazines, tv, seminars, F&G people, there is no 
excuse. I think someone who critizes you for practicing responsible
selective harvest is most likely not as well educated in this area.

	I ice fish and many people feel that all ice fisherman are meat 
fisherman, but more and more I find selective harvest ice fishermen.
For me this includes all species, I cleanly hooked a fat 16" rainbow through 
the ice and after admiring the fish for a few seconds released him, I was 
thinking it would be nice to get that one on a fly in the spring. At the same 
time I have caught other trout and kept them for the pan.

	
Jim Mrowka 
aka
Johnny Roach

PS Hi John long time, drop me a line an we'll go fishing some time I am

	down in your neck of the wooods these days.

      Re .6
    
      I was of the same belief on those Cats from the Ct. river...but not
    anymore. Tests were made on about 40 of them by N.Y., Ct. and Mass.
    fish and wildlife biologists about 6 years ago, and the cleanup efforts
    in the Ct. River watershed have been remarkably successful. All of the
    fish teste--ranging from 2 to over 25 pounds--were found to contain no
    traceable heavy metals, no PCB's and bacteria levels within acceptable
    levels for human consumption. The report went on to indicate that the
    catfish is probably the first one in the food chain to become polluted
    and the last one to be free of it due to it's scavenging habits.
    
      I don't know if I'd trust this report enough to eat one in the 25
    pound range, because that fish would have been there for a long time
    and would be most suceptable to the cumulative effects of pollution.
    It's pretty much the same with ocean fish...swordfish caught off the
    cosast of South America have shown traces of mercury...but the federal
    fisheries people still say it's safe to eat the fish occasionally.
    Actually, I don't profess to be that great a fisherman that I'll have
    enough of them to eat more than 'occasionally' anyway...
    
    
      Re .7
      I didn's actually say "Bass"....I said "Largemouth Bass". I'm not
    really sure about the Smallmouth, because it is a cold-water fish.
    However, .8 may be right about the Smallie being introduced as well.
    What I've seen on the subject indicates that the first Largemouths were
    introduced during the mid 1800's by fisherman who liked the fish and
    introduced it progressively northward from lakes in the mid-atlantic
    and southern states. A bass can be moved fairly easily with the right
    equipment and some specualte that some rich fishermen actually moved
    quantities of the species in live-wells on railroads. Bass are pretty
    hardy and adaptable species, so they prospered and reproduced very well
    in northern waters, even though they don't grow so big up here due to
    the winter dormancy or semi-dormancy period when they almost stop
    eating and slow their metabolisms--I.E. stop growing. I actually have
    topographical maps of some Mass ponds where the Fish & Wildlife folks
    state in no uncertain terms that the Largemouth was introduced to the
    pond illegally, but in the cases that I remember, they also go on to
    state that the introduction was a fortunate one...
      Don't misunderstand me....I SURELY ain't entertaining the idea that
    the Largemouth Bass should be exterminated because it isn't native!!! I
    have a ball catching those bucketmouths every summer! I was just
    stating a point....
    
      Re .9
      You've said it about as well as it can be said. I have on occasion
    been made to feel like some sort of fish-rapist by the "never-never" 
    type. I happen to believe that I AM a fairly responsible utilizer of
    the few natural resources that I like to participate in.. I don't
    pollute and have big problems with those who do. And I haven't really
    seen any replies here that I'm not agreeing with. I just have this
    problem with the attitude of some folks. I don't hunt anymore, but I
    don't try to tell people that hunting is "evil" just because I don't do
    so anymore. I remember that I received a lot of enjoyment when I did,
    so who am I to tell someone that they shouldn't?? No more than anyone
    should tell ME how to fish. Usually when I get into a herd of
    Largemouths like happens about once every 4 years and actually catch 30
    or 40 in an afternoon, the ones that I do actually keep are hooked in
    the gills or have swallowed a spinnerbait and would probably die if
    released anyway...
    
      I'm pleased to find that I'm not alone feeling this way..
    
      John Mc

    I must say I prefer 'rabid' catch and release folks to meat
    fisherfolks on the waters I fish. My favorite spot is probably all
    of 30 acres in size with moderate fishing pressure - about 3 boats
    out on any given day. I guess taking an occasional fish isn't all
    that bad, but if everyone did that, small ponds like this one would
    be dead in no time. It does break my heart when I see someone leaving
    with a few fish - only because I see others fishing with shiners and
    leaving with full stringers. By mid-July of last year, the size of the
    fish and the numbers caught dropped dramatically in this pond; maybe
    too many people keeping fish, maybe just the time of year. This spring
    will tell. I did notice that when I gave up on the pond, and tried
    fishing a local polluted river, I started catching decent bass again;
    *VERY* few people would keep and eat fish from this river - maybe
    there is something to catch and release after all.
    
    				Robert.
    P.S. - I'm really not against occasionally keeping a bass - hell, I
    	might even keep one someday! (It ain't happened yet - with 10+
    	years of bass fishing)

    I really understand what this base note says, yet its not the
    responsible fishermen that are the problem. I know of two lakes, one
    very large one and one small one that have been decimated by people
    taking their limits.  In both cases I can see them appear, whole
    families with those plastic dunkin donut flour containers and then for 
    the rest of the time every fish they catch goes in that bucket.  Perch, 
    bass whatever.  In some cases they even yell to me to give them the fish I
    am releasing.  I eat some of the fish I catch, but the bulk goes back
    and I am like most of the fishermen I know.  It's those others the ones
    who continue to drain the lakes that make it look like keeping fish  
    is a bad thing to do.
    
    Brian
    do.

      Re .12
      You miss my point a little... 
      I have NO problem with restrictions on specific waters and/or areas.
    I believe there are some trout waters in Mass that are fly only and/or
    catch/release only. I agree that taking limits from small ponds is a
    bit stupid if not downright selfish, but compare that to the Quabbin
    and you have a totally different situation. Anyone who has fished the
    Quabbin knows that this body of water is so big and the
    species/quantities so large that not more than 1 in 100 people who fish
    there even know WHERE the best fishing is. Chances of depleting stocks
    there by REASONABLE harvest is almost non-existent. So taking a
    reasonable amount for the table from this sort of waters is not what I
    would consider detrimental to the area...in fact it may HELP the
    population in some cases.
    
      Re .13
      I have not problem with what you've outlined here either. I don't
    even call that sort of individual(s) "fishermen"! I beleive a more
    appropriate term for those people is "Greedy hogs"! Even if the fishery
    was somewhat unlimited, that kind of thing is stupid at best and
    criminally negligent at worst. Those sort of people are also the ones
    who will have their lunch on the shore and leave a dozen Burger King
    and Dunkin Donuts boxes along with a couple of six-packs of empty Bud
    cans for someone else to pick up! 
       
      
    
    John Mc

    I agree with the base note and all the replys.  If you keep the fish
    then eat it, mount it, or give it to someone who *will* eat it;
    otherwise release it gently.
    
    I fish only in the salt water now and have seen buckets full of
    mackeral and bluefish leaving boats only to see them rotting in a
    dumpster later (it makes me sick - not the smell either).  Walk along
    the beach after a bluefish blitz and see all the fish left behind.
    
    When releasing do it so the fish has a better than even chance.  My
    favorite C&R story a surfcaster catches a 10+lb bluefish and drags it
    thru the sand 10 ft to his sand spike.  Then steps on the fish and
    remove the hook, sticks his scale in the gills and weighs the fish. 
    Then parades around the beach showing off to the kids/adults who have
    gathered.  And after a few minutes releases the fish by heaving it high
    in the air in the direction of the water the slap on the water can be
    heard from the parking lot.  
    
    I'm sure this person says he practises catch and release.
    
    Sorry for rambling on - it drives me crazy when I see someting like
    that.
    
    Gordon (take what you need and leave some for another day)
    

    re: .14
    
    	I agree about Quabbin (as one of those folks who DOESN'T know
    	where the good fishing is there :*)). Quabbin seems to be under
    	fished for its size, of course, I've never tried it during the
    	early season. I guess the problem I have is that most waters in
    	this area, unlike Quabbin, are overfished. I saw a guy come into
    	a tackle shop last spring with a bucket that had 2 bass in it
    	over 5 lbs. each. He caught them in Solomon pond in Northboro,
    	he wanted to have his picture taken with them then he was going
    	to put them back into the pond! The tackle shop owner told him
    	not to bother - they were already half dead - such a waste. I
    	hope this guy will know better next time...
    
    			rambling again...
    				Robert.

    I can remember when my favorite pond (I have a cabin on it) was chock
    full of brook trout, smallies, and perch not that many years ago. Now
    it has no brookies, very few perch and a rare smallie or two. It DOES
    have stunted pickeral and sunnies in abundance. This pond does not have
    good public access in the summer but does in the winter. Icefishing has
    been very destructive along with meat fisherman. The good news is that
    largemouth have begun to take hold and promise improved bass fishing in
    the future. But I miss my bronzebacks. 
    
    I eat fish. I like fish, but these guys are like family to me now and
    each one we lose is hard to replace. I take occasional fish for shore
    lunches when I fish remote areas with abundant fish and support those
    who do the same. I have no respect for people who "limit out" mostly so
    they can brag about it later. Poachers should be shot on sight.
    
    Chris

      Re .17
       I understand your concerns, but there MAY be more to the problem
    with your specific pond than the taking of the fish. The reason I say
    this is because of your statement on stunted pickerel and
    sunfish(A.K.A. "kivvers" in New England.) The sunfish, although it does
    provide some level of a food-source to gamefish such as Northern Pike
    and Largemouth Bass, has a tendency to explosively reproduce if there
    are not sufficient predators, and within an extremely short timeframe
    they can and will literally take over and crowd out the gamefish.
    Smallmouths are usually the first to disappear, because the damned
    little sunfish will eat their eggs as fast as they lay them, since the
    Smallie doesn't usually protect them like the Largemouth does. If there
    are more weeds appearing in the lake, this is another problem. Soon the
    habitat won't be supportive of Smallmouths, who prefer clear, cold
    water with few weeds. Farm and/or dwelling buildup along the lake
    causes an increase of nutrients that support weed buildup to leach into
    the lake...this process is called "eutrofication", and when this occurs
    the oxygen level in the water diminishes...another anti-smallmouth
    situation, since Smallies like high-oxygen waters. Largemouths are an
    extermely adaptable species, and are able to live in some waters that
    one wouldn't even swim in. Sunfish and pikerel are also along those
    lines. 
      Without actually knowing the reasons, it would almost seem that the
    lake has somehow become 'eutrofied' and the water warmed up...since
    from what you've stated BOTH of the cold-water species---Trout as well
    as the Smallies--have disappeared. Unfortunately, this has happened to
    MANY lakes and ponds all over the U.S.. Sometimes the State Fish & Game
    people will attempt to cure the problem by poisoning the entire lake
    and cleaning out the weeds and dead fish...then restocking after a
    period of time with the desired species...however, it only takes a
    small corner to harbor a few sunnies or some nutso who LIKES them to
    reintroduce the undesireables and the cycle repeats itself.. The
    eutrofication process is much harder to cure, because dwellings and
    farms aren't that easy to get rid of or move. However, since the zoning
    laws have become more restrictive, and many of the septic systems are
    being removed and replaces by town sewage systems, some of this may
    also be alleviated.
    
      I know the feeling though...I've seen a few ponds go to the
    trash-fish, and it's not pleasant to see that happen...
    
    John Mc  

    et al:
    
    I was going to stay away from this one. But, ........in the FWIW dept.
    if you  look back into this file you will see the first note on C&R
    appropriately called "The Case for Catch and Release". Should you do so
    you will also notice that I was the author of the base note and that
    many of the replies at that time (say five years or so ago) are much
    the same as the ones now in this note/replies.
    
    Having said that, I will once more point out some of the arguments used
    in the original note while trying not to stir up a "hornets nest". Let
    me first say that I have no trouble with the views stated here. Then
    let me say that I, indeed, am one of the die hard C&R fishermen and
    have been for going on 20 years........way before it became
    "fashionable" to be one. Ray Scott of "Bassmasters" was one of the
    first to start pushing for it and still is one of the leading lights,
    back in the late 60's and early 70's. That is where and when I got
    "religion". I was born and raised on a lake and have first hand
    knowledge of what can happen to a fishery...and its not real pretty,
    unless you are a water skier or swimmer or now, jet skier. They first
    don't care and second like the idea that there are no fishing boats
    around to get in the way......:^( But I rammble on...sorry.
    
    I can't condone taking fish durning the spawn. This the only time of
    the year that these spieces have a chance to carry on and I think that
    is one of the most insensitive things to do for anyone that has any
    wish for a future for our fisheries. The rest of the year I will go
    along with the views of the most of the people in this file. Selective
    harvest and such is great on the right bodies of water etc......But if
    you take them out durning the spawn there will never be a chance for
    getting to the point of being able to "selectively harvest".
    
    Couple of asides...The largemouth and the smallmouth bass are BOTH
    NATIVE to this area......The largemouth were wiped out by the early 
    colonists using nets and strainers and were RE-introduced to the area
    in the late 1800's. The smallmouth (the were called greentrout) were 
    wiped out of some areas...mainly the rivers by these very same
    colonists and most of the fishery in this part of the country was dead
    by the end of the 1700's and early 1800's. There is still work going on
    to try and recover from the polution and such today, as we all know,
    that went on in the 1700 and 1800's. So don't think that any area
    or body of water is immune from being wiped out by polution or over 
    harvesting. Now I know that no one in this file is saying anything like
    that, but it is still one of the major reasons that I "preach" catch
    and release. It has already happened and could again.
    
    Now there is a "segment" of our society that fishes for meat to eat and
    do so because that is one of the ways that they survive in this less
    than perfect world of ours. I have no complaint against them and will
    in some cases (not the spawn ;^) give a fish if I happen to get one.
    For all our "rules and regulations" I think there are some exceptions.
    As mentioned by others, "intellegent" use of our resources is the answer.
    
    If the Quabbin were to ever be "opened up" I think that even this body
    of water would be trashed both ways within 5 years if C&R weren't
    practiced and poluters arrested or fined.
    
    IMHO,
    
    Tight lines, Ranger Ron