FFIM

FFIM is a non-profit organization devoted to promoting and preserving Maine's fisheries
It is currently February 17th, 2019, 1:53 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 113 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: March 5th, 2003, 10:44 am 
Offline
FFIMer

Joined: December 21st, 2001, 1:00 am
Posts: 869
The book publisher (Gannett, Portland, ME) stopped publishing books several years ago and sold the rights and remaining copies to SAM (207-622-5503). They sell the book right from the office via mail or direct. <BR> <BR>I made the money up front on the first printing so am not shamelessly pitching this book for profit. <BR> <BR>The book has 200 recipes -- everything from eel and hornpout to coquille St. Jacque and French bread to (gasp) brook trout to cold strawberry soup. All of the recipes are tried and true, a product of an old cooking column I once wrote called "Country Cooking."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: March 5th, 2003, 1:24 pm 
Offline
FFIMer

Joined: February 9th, 2003, 1:00 am
Posts: 48
Great, now they will have to change the term throwing fish back to tossing fish back. I personally never had one go over 65 mpr. sunfish are best. sorry guys. struck a funny bone.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: March 6th, 2003, 9:15 am 
Offline
FFIMer

Joined: December 21st, 2001, 1:00 am
Posts: 869
Steve, one feature of catch-and-release photos intrigues me. Every time I see a page such as at Orvis, it often includes photos of anglers holding dead fish and claiming the critters are alive. <BR> <BR>How do I know the fish are dead? <BR> <BR>I've shot a jillion images of fish, and the vast majority of them are alive. Every one of the live fish is looking back at the water. If I am craddling it by the belly and illustrating the concept to someone, I'll tip the fish over onto its back, and the eyes rotate to the top and continue looking back at the water just as a human looks upwards toward the light when he or she falls into the water. Dead fish just stare vacantly back at the camera. <BR> <BR>I wouldn't want to put myself into a position month after month of looking at dead fish and having to tell the amateur photographer that he or she lied. ...Really bad PR. I also don't want to be running dead fish and claiming they are alive. <BR> <BR>In magazine photos, captions occasionally say a dead fish is alive, but I don't jump to the conclusion that the writer wrote it. Often, captions are changed. <BR> <BR>Several years ago, Jim Teeny was on the cover of a national magazine, holding a king salmon. The eyes stared vacantly at the camera and the fish looked stiff. It had been dead a long time. An astute observer can tell. <BR> <BR>The caption on the inside of the cover said the fish was alive, but I doubt Teeny ever wrote that. He knows as much and probably more than I do about fishing photography. I'd bet my 401k that the caption embarrassed him big time.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: March 6th, 2003, 9:24 am 
Offline
FFIMer

Joined: December 21st, 2001, 1:00 am
Posts: 869
P.S. Jeffus is right, too. I get my way sometimes at The Maine Sportsman, but others are above me and see things differently. They are a more tempering influence on my rather radical ideas on many topics that the average reader would find difficult to tolerate -- like making all quality salmonid fisheries ALO. <BR> <BR>Just for Rory's benefit, I must mention Long Pond in the Belgrade Lakes. I personally attended an DIF&W Advisory Council meeting about eight years ago and heard Dennis McNeish, then the head regional biologist in that area, say that ALO was crucial on Long Pond. It was near six cities and saw tremendous fishing pressure, and at that time, McNeish said, it faced a new threat -- pike. Because of the pressure and pike, it would die without ALO. That's what the professional overseeing that watershed said. <BR> <BR>Here we are, eight years later, and the salmon fishing has plummeted. The cause, according to the public, is pike.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: March 6th, 2003, 10:13 am 
Offline
FFIMer

Joined: February 23rd, 2002, 1:00 am
Posts: 416
This thread seems to have wandered from the disaasterous effects of C&R in warm water to general genuflection before the shrine of C&R. <BR> <BR>C&R is just one arrow in the quiver of fisheries management. [In the minds of some, it is a barbaric practice that has no justification among sportsmen.] Ken now brings up another means of controlling the harvesting of fish, ALO, although this will not reduce the number of dead fish rolling thru the bottom of pools as long as people do not restrain their C&R greed. <BR> <BR>Best regards, <BR>Reed <BR> <BR><!-- BBCode auto-link start --><a href="http://www.overmywaders.com" target="_blank">www.overmywaders.com</a><!-- BBCode auto-link end --> <BR>

_________________
Best regards,
Reed
overmywaders
The Contemplative Angler (Blog)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: March 6th, 2003, 10:56 am 
Offline
FFIM Addict

Joined: December 2nd, 2001, 1:00 am
Posts: 4152
Location: Ellsworth
Reed; <BR> <BR> Every time you seem to chime in on C&R you seem to be against the practice in your writings. So be it--it's still a free country--but without C&R on most of the popular fisheries in this country there wouldn't BE any fishing. You're worried about us genuflecting at the "shrine" of C&R? Without that "shrine" (and I've yet to see all these dead fish rolling along the bottom you write about)--we'd all better take up Golf--because we'll be fishing over rocks if you have your way. <BR> <BR> Dave M

_________________
"Fish the West every year. Life is short; and you'll be dead a long time." Chris Hutchins--2009


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: March 6th, 2003, 11:35 am 
Offline
FFIMer

Joined: February 23rd, 2002, 1:00 am
Posts: 416
Dave M, <BR> Regarding your first point, I guess I am consistent in my expressions regarding C&R. Aren't you? <BR> <BR> I'm intrigued: What studies do you have that show C&R as the savior of the fisheries? Do they contrast other management methods, e.g., slot limits, and prove a greater efficacy for one above another? <BR> <BR> Funny you should mention Golf. Actually, it is the golf mentality brought to fishing that we might examine. Arnold Gingrich even suggested (seriously) that we should use golf score counters to track the number of fish caught. With C&R, we can endlessly catch fish (50-100 fish days) and pretend that this has no effect on the fisheries. I simply suggest that this greed not only is detrimental to the fishery, but to the fisherman as well. One previous writer on this thread has suggested temperance in our fishing, and I echo his sentiment --- set a personal limit to the fish caught, slow down, and savour the experience of fishing (not just catching). <BR> <BR> I hope I have not offended in my statements, that was surely not my intent. <BR> <BR>Best regards, <BR>Reed <BR> <BR><!-- BBCode auto-link start --><a href="http://www.overmywaders.com" target="_blank">www.overmywaders.com</a><!-- BBCode auto-link end --> <BR>

_________________
Best regards,
Reed
overmywaders
The Contemplative Angler (Blog)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: March 6th, 2003, 11:51 am 
Offline
FFIM Addict

Joined: December 2nd, 2001, 1:00 am
Posts: 4152
Location: Ellsworth
Reed; <BR> <BR> Actually--I hope that I am consistent in favor of C&R. <BR> <BR> As to the studies--every one I've seen/read done on Salmonids give a mortality rate of between 3 to 4 %, for fly hooked fish (and, surprisingly to me at least--it wasn't statistically significant whether barded or barbless hooks were used). Mortality rate for catch and keep/kill is *always* 100%. <BR> <BR> As to the 50 to 100 fish/day statistics; let's get real now. Fishing an average 8 hour day how many fisherman--really--catch 100 fish/trout? It's *possible* I suppose; given absolutely ideal conditions--but I'd guess many of the posters on this thread don't catch 50 to 1090 trout a year--much less a day. This *piggishness* of flyfishers seems to be greatly exaggerated. <BR> <BR> Andfinally; no you didn't insult or hurt my feelings (or however you put it) at all. I enjoy a lively debate. Anyone with "thin skin" should never post on these boards--because flyfishers are known for having somewhat strong opinions--and most of us usualy feel we're right. <G> <BR> <BR> Dave M

_________________
"Fish the West every year. Life is short; and you'll be dead a long time." Chris Hutchins--2009


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: March 6th, 2003, 12:22 pm 
Offline
FFIMer

Joined: December 21st, 2001, 1:00 am
Posts: 869
Reed, I have personally seen stricter regulations turn a fisheries around, and I fish one of them three to five times a week from Mid-July through September 30. <BR> <BR>Three or four years ago, on this small river, I had an abnormally wonderful afternoon and evening, catching brookies. While driving home, it dawned on me that I had caught more 16-inch brookies that day (four) than I had caught in my whole life on this particular river. Why? In the old days, brookies were routinely caught and killed and never grew that long. <BR> <BR>Furthermore, this river lies 30 minutes from downtown Augusta, and it holds a butterball, 25-inch brook trout that has been caught and released by better anglers than I two times that I know of. <BR> <BR>I hesitate to use figures on this board because the last time I did, someone accused me of bragging. I was not talking personal catches, however, but using a figure a doubting Thomas had thrown out to support that catch and release sucks. <BR> <BR>Anyway, if a fly rodder into catch and release caught 500 salmonids this coming season, 10 to 20 of those released fish would die, according to studies, some of them that were conducted over years with average anglers. <BR> <BR>Just my two cents.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: March 6th, 2003, 12:44 pm 
Offline
FFIM Addict

Joined: October 13th, 2002, 12:00 am
Posts: 3333
Location: Sidney, Me
Ken, since you mentioned my name, for the record - I have never disputed whether or not ALO could benefit the salmon fishery in Long Pond. I have also never disputed whether or not ALO and FFO are appropriate techniques on waters where the primary fisheries will benefit as a result. My objection to ALO at Long Pond is simple - there are tons of perch, bass, and now pike in that lake that do not need any ALO protection, and I see no need to restrict people exploiting these self-propagating species in order to protect a small, expensive population of stocked fish.

_________________
All tradition, no culture


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: March 6th, 2003, 12:48 pm 
Offline
FFIMer

Joined: March 14th, 2002, 1:00 am
Posts: 419
Location: Raymond, Me.
steve, RW here <BR> <BR>Ken Allen certainly doesn't need any defending by me, but I'll say this anyway. I've been reading THE MAINE SPORTSMAN almost since its inception in the early 70's. I believe Ken started writing for that mag around the third issue. Where in the world you get your information from I don't know, but I can't remember ever seeing Ken in that magazine holding up a dead fish, or any fish for that matter. His fly fishing and fly tying columns down through the years are pictureless, and he writes about, and is probably one of the most devoted catch-and-release fishers I know. Geeeeez! where do you guys get this stuff from. You can't get it cuz it doesn't exist, so why do you and a few others go off on the guy like that. I'd really like to know. C,mon steve, I'm puttin you on the spot. Back up your statements. Where do you get your information that we all can't get. Be specific. <BR> <BR>Tark. please don't put a lock on this. It's not a personal attack. I'm just looking for information and steve seems to have the answers. <BR> <BR>Later, RW

_________________
"Maybe your stature as a fly fisherman isn't determined by how big a trout you can catch, but by how small a trout you can catch without being disappointed." <John Gierach>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: March 6th, 2003, 1:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: December 5th, 2001, 1:00 am
Posts: 5348
Location: Manchester, ME
We get to this point in this debate about 3 times a year, and I will interject what I always do. Call it middle ground if you want (or call it stupid). <BR> <BR>On a few select, highly pressured special regulations waters--I am thinking here of places like the Presumpscot, Ken's river (where I once caught a 13 inch fish with more than 10 hook scars), etc--would it make sense to have a C+R limit? <BR> <BR>Let's say (for the sake of argument) that you would be required to quit angling after releasing (or breaking off, for us small fly/small tippet types) something like 5 fish. <BR> <BR>I know it's unenforceable, but I'm not sure that's the point. On most of these waters the use is high enough that peer pressure alone would enforce the rule if the broad angling public supported it. <BR> <BR>Some Canadian provinces take this approach for Atlantic salmon. Does it have a place in Maine? <BR> <BR>Fire away! <BR> <BR>


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 113 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 1spd1way, Google [Bot] and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group