Murdoc Posted September 9, 2008 Author Posted September 9, 2008 Bill, The only bad thing I can see with one Brown limit is the people that fish just for the big fish or "lunker hunters". I would love to be one of those that could say I caught a 10+ fish but (there's always one of those "but"s) If you caught your one and you catch a Maybe state record or even a world record of some type you would have to turn it loose because you've caught your one for the year. Only draw back I can see. Smiles are free http://rdpflyrods.com/
Bill B. Posted September 9, 2008 Posted September 9, 2008 Bill, The only bad thing I can see with one Brown limit is the people that fish just for the big fish or "lunker hunters". I would love to be one of those that could say I caught a 10+ fish but (there's always one of those "but"s) If you caught your one and you catch a Maybe state record or even a world record of some type you would have to turn it loose because you've caught your one for the year. Only draw back I can see. That's true. But that would just be the breaks. Kind of like filling out your deer tag, then spying a Boone & Crockett record standing at the edge of the cornfield. Gotta let it go until next year. Or keep your powder dry until you find the record. I have a friend who has caught a couple of Florida bass that might have threatened the state record, but in the lake where he was fishing, he had to release them immediately. That's just the price he pays for the abundance of PIGS. About kids: The Dry Run Creek area below Norfork is popular with kids under 16, yet they have to release everything they catch. Wouldn't the hatchery area be a lot more interesting for nearly everyone if there were bigger fish to be caught there? About barbless hooks: I'm one of those guys who loves to fish with crankbaits at night for browns. Just from my personal experience, it's a lot easier to remove barbless hooks from a fish in the middle of a dark, foggy night. (It's also a lot easier to remove them from my gloves, coat and fingers...) I'm pretty convinced that, overall, they do less damage to the fish I catch. But that's just anecdotal. As for enforcement, other states -- Arkansas, for example -- have barbless regulations in place on some streams. At the very least, the MDC could talk to biologists and field agents in those states to get real data about the effectiveness and enforceability of those regulations.
Bill B. Posted September 9, 2008 Posted September 9, 2008 By the way, Murdoc, I agree with you about skinning one cat at a time. I threw out the other stuff to generate a little discussion.
Trav Posted September 9, 2008 Posted September 9, 2008 Bill, The only bad thing I can see with one Brown limit is the people that fish just for the big fish or "lunker hunters". I would love to be one of those that could say I caught a 10+ fish but (there's always one of those "but"s) If you caught your one and you catch a Maybe state record or even a world record of some type you would have to turn it loose because you've caught your one for the year. Only draw back I can see. As one of those "Lunker Hunters" you mentioned, I can say that I haven't kept a Brown yet. And I have caught a dozen or so that went 10+. If I catch a state record, I would let that go as well. It is not like a lottery ticket. No money in it. Maybe 15 minutes of fame. But I have my own scale and a digital camera. If the "Officials" don't take my word for it, "Up theirs" is my philosophy. As far as barbless.......I think it should be a personal choice. I use barbs and only have problems with them when they get caught up in my clothes, or the carpet. If you are having problems, here is some advice, "Needle Nose Pliers." "May success follow your every cast." - Trav P. Johnson
laker67 Posted September 9, 2008 Posted September 9, 2008 Dano, Here's a question for you. Do you have to be logged on as member to vote on this topic? I see over 1000 looks and only 80 votes.
Danoinark Posted September 9, 2008 Posted September 9, 2008 Dano, Here's a question for you. Do you have to be logged on as member to vote on this topic? I see over 1000 looks and only 80 votes. Yessir, one would have to be a registered member in order to vote. Its noted right under the results of the poll and where you vote. Dano Glass Has Class "from the laid back lane in the Arkansas Ozarks"
Don Posted September 10, 2008 Posted September 10, 2008 Rossanna Danna,....... Is that the new womens flyreel? Don May I caught you a delicious bass.
Members streamer Posted September 10, 2008 Members Posted September 10, 2008 I think a larger size limit on browns would be great, and I voted yes for 24 inches. Does anyone really keep the 20-23inch ones though? I've just never really thought of that before this came up! I've fished taney for nearly 25 years now, and never kept a single brown. I've caught Browns up to 27in, but have always just let them go. As a kid, my father always took me to taney to trout fish. He was a tournament bass fisherman, but loved trout fishing. We brought home a few ocassional rainbows to eat, but never a brown. The browns were always the catch and release trophy fish, keep a few rainbows because there's more of them ect.. ect.. I really dont like to eat trout that often, but keep 8-12 rainbows a year to eat ocasionally. Does a Brown taste better? I've always wanted to know! If so, I might keep one and try it! But, the size restriction brings up a point on family fishing! When I was 5, I caught a great 21in rainbow off the dock at fall creek. My father was working in real estate in Arkansas, and my mother was fishing with me on the dock that morning. My mom thought it needed to be on my wall, along with me of course. Well the taxidermist' freezer went out before he got to it! Anyway, if my kids caught a trout that size i'd be tempted to keep it for them, even if it were a brown. That's just the only way i'd ever see keeping a brown that justifies keeping the current size limit.
jjtroutbum Posted September 10, 2008 Posted September 10, 2008 As one of those "Lunker Hunters" you mentioned, I can say that I haven't kept a Brown yet. And I have caught a dozen or so that went 10+. If I catch a state record, I would let that go as well. It is not like a lottery ticket. No money in it. Maybe 15 minutes of fame. But I have my own scale and a digital camera. If the "Officials" don't take my word for it, "Up theirs" is my philosophy. As far as barbless.......I think it should be a personal choice. I use barbs and only have problems with them when they get caught up in my clothes, or the carpet. If you are having problems, here is some advice, "Needle Nose Pliers." Agreed Voted yes. I fish for em all but will target a large fish if spotted. There for I don't consider my self a real lunker hunter. Every brown and personal best I have caught has been released and I don't think that would change no matter the size. I do eat some bows. I do use mashed/barbless hooks. I also don't feel that they should be regulated. No dead/fake fish on my walls I am entirely to cheap to pay for one of those. Jon Joy ___________ "A jerk at one end of the line is enough." unknown author The Second Amendment was written for hunting tyrants not ducks. "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Benjamin Franklin, 1759
taxidermist Posted September 10, 2008 Posted September 10, 2008 Browns taste like mud, worse than swamp catfish.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now