emergency trout regulations on the white/norfork rivers!

[gotmuddy]

7 hours ago, tjm said:

 

I decided years ago that AGFC regulations don't even look to science, but are strictly political and based around generating money. Fish welfare and welfare of the fisheries always take back seat to the tourist dollar. 

your absolutely correct, and why shouldn't it?  Trout are an invasive species that was brought here specifically for tourists.

[tjm]

Trout were introduced  long before tourism became an industry. And if you class them as an invasive  species you'd want to eliminate all restrictions and encourage wanton waste of them. 

But if managing trout strictly for tourism, you'd want to make them more available by having less restrictions not more. Guides using live bait can reach more tourists than guides using only barbless circle hooks on flies. Killing of the trout should be of no concern and there should be no attempt to legitimize the  exploitation of the trout by saying that one method benefits the fish more than another method.  

Make the Feds supply their contracted number of fish even if they have to buy them from some  fish farm. Aren't the tailwater trout mitigation for loss of native fish?  

[tjm]

3 hours ago, netboy said:

However, I would suspect the overall mortality rate of released fish in the C&R areas is far less than those released in the bait areas.

Studies don't show that.

But ultimately it is up to the individual doing the release,  I've watched as C&R  fly anglers attempted to kill trout at RRSP numerous times.  Mishandling is a trend. Three minute photo shoots don't help a fish recover nor does dropping on the dirt a couple times trying to handle net, rod,  fish and camera. I've also watched as anglers cut the line as close to the mouth  as possible, leaving the fish to choke later just to save a foot of cheap tippet, when leaving the line dangle might allow passing of the hook. The more I saw C&R practiced in the park the more I became convinced that every angler should be required to eat every fish they catch.  

[Flysmallie]

4 hours ago, tjm said:

Trout were introduced  long before tourism became an industry.

 Not true. This was a fishing destination long before any lakes were built. 
 

If you really care about protecting fish, then you don’t fish for them at all. If you’re worried about protecting the fish for your type of fishing then you will do just about anything, except change the way that you do it. 

[tjm]

 

39 minutes ago, Flysmallie said:

If you really care about protecting fish, then you don’t fish for them at all.

Exactly and if you fish, then don't claim to be superior to any other angler in regards to fish welfare. 

[netboy]

Here is a study about catch and release statistics of C&R.
 

• natural bait vs lures – using bait resulted in fish being hooked more deeply and less likely to survive

What Percent of Catch and Release Fish Die? Full Stats

[Terrierman]

uh oh Jigfest is in danger!

[snagged in outlet 3]

8 minutes ago, Terrierman said:

uh oh Jigfest is in danger!

Should be fine.  The kitchen isn’t closed😀

[jdmidwest]

The only real sports are the ones where something dies in the end for food.  You can give mercy with catch and release.

[Quillback]

18 hours ago, tjm said:

 

Make the Feds supply their contracted number of fish even if they have to buy them from some  fish farm. Aren't the tailwater trout mitigation for loss of native fish?  

I believe there is no legislation that requires the feds to stock trout.  It was started as mitigation as you've said, but as far as I know requires congress to include funding in the budget.  The feds have tried to back out in the past, but a large howl is raised across the Ozarks when they try and it gets funded in the end.

From what I've read, the Norfork hatchery has long term water quality issues that may not go away by itself.  I have not seen any plan to fix these issues.