Blue Ribbon Trout Poll

[troutfiend1985]

I don't think I know of a way to fish that is less harmful than C&R, but hey I don't know everything. LOL. I think mortality rates are a part of the sport, yes some fish you release will die, its unfortunate.

As for my comment, it was aimed at poachers. I personally feel that wild trout streams should be C&R, but that is only my opinion. If someone wants to go to a wild trout stream and legally keep a trout, so be it. Would I frown on it? I couldn't say that I would be pleased but no, I wouldn't look down on it either because it is within the regulations that our state feels is adequate to protect wild trout and satisfy the needs of anglers.

More holy than thou? Hardly, maybe I'm left wing on this issue, but I don't tip my nose up at those who legally catch fish and wish to keep them. I think my statement was charged because of the comment that we should treat wild trout as if they were stocked, and that is something that cannot happen if we wish to preserve our limited wild trout populations.

[Flysmallie]

Been wondering when we were going to have another catch and release debate. This one will turn out like all the rest.....pointless.

[troutfiend1985]

Been wondering when we were going to have another catch and release debate. This one will turn out like all the rest.....pointless.

I understand how a C&R discussion can be pointless. I just don't understand someone trying to make a point of a less harmful way of fishing that C&R. I know that C&R doesn't equate to no kill, but what other way can a person fish that is less harmful?

[Flysmallie]

I understand how a C&R discussion can be pointless. I just don't understand someone trying to make a point of a less harmful way of fishing that C&R. I know that C&R doesn't equate to no kill, but what other way can a person fish that is less harmful?

Don't take it wrong, I don't think C & R is pointless. I think the debate that happens all the time on here about it is pointless. After a couple of hundred posts you are still going to do what you feel comfortable with, I'm going to do what I feel comfortable with, and everyone else is going to do the same time. The end result will be that everyone will continue to do what that were doing before except some people will get all personal and attack someone because they don't see things their way..............kind of like what we are doing right now. :lol:

I just wish we would get passed some of these silly arguments. If it's legal and it works for you then do it, nobody has a right to say anything to you.

[patfish]

I just wish we would get past some of these silly arguments. If it's legal and it works for you then do it, nobody has a right to say anything to you.

AMEN brother!

I think a C&R debate pops up on here just about quarterly. If you want to keep and eat a fish and its by legal means; do it and enjoy.

Don't get me wrong, I take pleasure in reading the things that people type that they would never have the guts to say to someone's face. Everyone's a bad butt behind a keyboard.

Comical yet pathetic.

"....to protect and serve.... with lemon"

Oh, and FS, I edited your post to ward off the grammar Nazi's... Just looking out for ya.

[Chief Grey Bear]

Don't get me wrong, I take pleasure in reading the things that people type that they would never have the guts to say to someone's face. Everyone's a bad butt behind a keyboard.

Not sure I would go so far to make a blanket statment like that. That covers alot of people and some of those may just surprise you. I do think it is the TONE in which those reading the statement is what is misinterpreted.

[ozark trout fisher]

I thought this thread had died out a long time ago. I said what I said a few months ago when I first posted this thread, and I still pretty much believe it. I don't see a need to keep wild trout, but as long as it's legal, I'm sure not going to confront folks that choose to. With the rules as they are now, if it's over 18", it's a choice. I just don't like seeing wild trout killed.

[patfish]

I do think it is the TONE in which those reading the statement is what is misinterpreted.

Good point Chief.

[fishgypsy]

I actually wound up voting no on all the questions, which surprised me.

1.) I'm sort of ambivalent towards no-kill, I've never kept fish from the blue-ribbon waters, but if someone wants to keep legal fish, I'm not opposed. I don't think the resource is suffering. And in smaller wild trout streams like Mill and Blue Springs Creek, I'm not sure the few larger fish are a result of overharvest or simply due to habitat constrictions.

2.) I wasn't sure whether there would be a distinction made between treble hooks and multi-point articulated flies, which are a blast to fish.

3.) I think asking anglers and agents to discriminate between wild versus hatchery raised fish in waters where they co-mingle would be a lot to ask. Besides, wild trout are free. It's the hatchery fish that cost money to produce.

4.) I've never been a fan of barbless regulations. Contrary to popular opinion, there's very little scientific evidence they have any positive effect on

[ozark trout fisher]

I actually wound up voting no on all the questions, which surprised me.

1.) I'm sort of ambivalent towards no-kill, I've never kept fish from the blue-ribbon waters, but if someone wants to keep legal fish, I'm not opposed. I don't think the resource is suffering. And in smaller wild trout streams like Mill and Blue Springs Creek, I'm not sure the few larger fish are a result of overharvest or simply due to habitat constrictions.

2.) I wasn't sure whether there would be a distinction made between treble hooks and multi-point articulated flies, which are a blast to fish.

3.) I think asking anglers and agents to discriminate between wild versus hatchery raised fish in waters where they co-mingle would be a lot to ask. Besides, wild trout are free. It's the hatchery fish that cost money to produce.

4.) I've never been a fan of barbless regulations. Contrary to popular opinion, there's very little scientific evidence they have any positive effect on

I think the one part I would take out of the original poll if I could do it again would be the barbless hook question. I think that may be too much to ask.

If I gave the impression that I think fisherman should have to distinguish between wild and stocked trout, that's not what I meant. My point was just that waters that hold primarily wild trout should be no kill for all trout caught. My main thought on not allowing people to keep over 18" trout is that they are good breeding fish at that size. I would think taking one 20" trout from a little wild trout creek could have the effect of eliminating a lot of potential young of the year trout.

I realize that wild trout are "free", but I think that's kind of beside the point. I don't think the value of a trout should be based on whether the state used it's money to raise it.

In an ideal world, this is what I would like to see... The current Blue Ribbon waters would be divided into two sections: Hatchery supported Blue Ribbon, and Wild Trout waters. The wild trout waters would be catch and release with single hooks only, and the other Blue Ribbon waters would keep the same regs they have now. Hatchery supported water would include the Eleven Point and Current, and the rest would be under the wild trout, no kill regs.

It's just an idea.