The lack of commentary on our previous article suggests fishermen are a stoic and heartless lot, unwilling even in the face of insolvency to spend less of the government’s cash to balance budgets, bomb Libya, or any other semi-humanitarian act …
So we’ll pose the question again, this time with science insisting that were we only to close our most sacred fisheries for a couple of years periodically, we’d have more fish, bigger fish, and they’d all be stupid again.
You heard right. That fearless kind of Stoopid.
Enormous hungry fish unafraid of the harsh glare from your Magenta reel, no longer skittish of your Orange-Orange florescent weight-forward hurtling overhead, and uncaring that your sticky rubber wasn’t – and while you wring the Didymo from your sandwich with much cursing, they’ll continue to feed unhurried and within arm’s reach.
” It seems that by closing the area off, communities may not only build up the amount of fish in the area, but make them easier to catch, which helps meet the goal of having fish for a feast. But this may pose a problem where temporary closures are used for conservation rather than community goals.”
“Our results highlight a previously unconsidered mechanism through which a rapid and large decline in fish biomass may occur when a closed area is reopened to fishing; reduced flight distance resulting from protection may increase some fish species’ susceptibility to spear fishing,”
If science insists special regulations may be needed to protect all them fatties lolling in the current once the fishery is reopened, then it’s the closest thing to “guaranteed” ever.
Weigh the sacrifice before insisting on being heard. A couple of marginal years spent hardscrabble fishing for foot long federales, versus a couple years at a new venue resulting in unmitigated slaughter upon your return.
Think, Gents. How bad can a few days off your home water hurt, compared to the larger picture?
Or you could make the streams/ponds/lakes 100% catch and release. Maybe “no take” on even years and regular limits on odd years. That way, fishermen could still fish, the fish would still be smart and most of them would survive. The problem with that is that most fishermen wouldn’t buy licenses on the years they couldn’t keep fish.
Since this, in essence, talks of rationing a resource, a concept some of us might remember from a time when we were young enough to not need a license to fish, perhaps it’s as simple as closing waters with names that end in vowel during even-number years and those that end in a consonant during odd-number years? As for instituting catch and release regulations, I stumbled across suggestion that might provide an answer for the put and take crowd in a publication on the Department of Fish & Game Commission website titled “Current Issues, Fall 2010, Trout Hatchery Production for Angling Opportunity.” The last line reads ‘…and regional recreational angling at Moccasin Creek Hatchery is being considered to further meet this goal.’ Interestingly enough this short proposal ties together rearing five heritage (native) species of trout for stocking, including Kern River rainbows and Lahontan cutthroats for the Lake Tahoe basin. Is it a problem limiting those who want to fill their freezers to fishing concrete canals?
Patrick, I think you may have stumbled on the essence of genius.
It’s well known that the hatchery theory is predicated on a bulging cooler equals a happy angler. Why not simply offer the hatchery up for angling, complete with scales, plastic bags, beer on tap, and pay-per-pound.
The downside is once they get their liquor license we’ll have to share with the deer and duck hunters …
Wouldn’t sharing with the deer and duck hunter’s allow for the pilaging of their hides and plundering their flanks (wood duck flanks that is)?
Well, I am still trying to formulate something to your post along similar lines last year.
For now, yes to closures, a good move. But I wonder at the carrot you dangle – whether the unmitigated slaughter would appeal to all. Those who profess to love the “technical” side, fishing for “educated” fish almost certainly sneak along, incognito behind the stocking truck to assuage their darker side at least once a year. But if they really do like the “refined” how long does it take before fishing for the stoopid pales and foot long federales becomes attractive again. And since we have created them, and natural AFIs will be the preserve of the ignorant but well-healed, I would expect a backlash after a certain amount of time. Or, I suppose, the brown might witness a sudden and entirely earlier than expected influx of bamboo and bogdan.
You are correct to a point. It’s not adoration of the slimy little beasts that drives us to stalk them, it’s frustration and the long slow buildup of the “killing rage” that drives us to slaughter them while giggling hysterically.
It doesn’t appeal to us either, while we’re smoking that post-orgy cigarette – spent and exhausted …