Mt. Whitney Portal Store & Hostel Forums General Mt. Whitney Portal Store Message Board fish greed

http://imhooked.com/cgi-bin/forumsyabb/YaBB.pl?num=1313715834/0

Sad...

Those Golden's are HUGE (unless the fishermen are "Vertically Challenged" that would distort the size difference).

Except for those they ate, I really hope it was a mostly catch and release affair.

Hard to C & R when using powerbait and trebles...
Just greed.

Yea, that's a tough one. Looks like they kept to their limit, but eating 5 trout that size when you're up there is, well.....impossible. Not sure if they packed them out??? Can't imagine how.

It's obvious these guys (I'll stick w/the Adult) thought they were within legal bounds. It's the moral bounds that may be misplaced. I myself release EVERYTHING I catch, unless it's hurt too bad or unless there's a small kid nearby that I can hand the pole to.

I have no problem with them catching a couple of trout to eat, but that looked a bit excessive. And, he runs a fishing charter...... hmmmmmm. But again, nowhere in the images does it show he broke California law, just feels kind of like he should have respected the Sierras and fishing a bit more.

My opinion.

It can be useful to compare the size of the fish to the size of the hands holding them. When the hands holding the fish are hidden from sight, it often turns out the fish are much closer to the camera than the fisherman and enlarged by perspective. These guys have held fish before, but those are nice goldens.

Dale B. Dalrymple

I believe in catch and release and I believe in catch and kill. The hard part is in knowing what to do where. I've read that the average cutthroat trout in the Yellowstone River in the National Park is caught four times a year. If these were killed there wouldn't be much fishing. At the other extreme are many brook trout streams in the eastern Sierra. The strains of brook trout brought west for stocking were selected for ability to reproduce at an early age. With no effective competition or predation, the brooks overpopulate to the point of stunting themselves. I've seen five inch brooks spawning in October in the Bishop Creek drainage. The stunted fish can be recognized by bodies too small in proportion to heads. California law allows higher limits on the take of brook trout under 8" because of this problem. These streams don't have enough fishing pressure to get healthy if every fish caught were killed.

In waters managed for the put and take of hatchery trout, the best thing you can do for the wild reproducing trout population is to catch and eat the stocked fish.

The Owens River basin historically held only suckers, dace, chubs, and pupfish, no trout (or bass, sunfish, carp, perch and catfish). Today, there are streams in the basin that act as refuges for the survival of some of California's native trout that are threatened elsewhere. There are also areas where the introduced trout are having a major negative impact on native species that developed without trout as predators.

I hope we also have examples of Sierra trout populations presenting no problem, capable of sustaining some utilization without damage, and that can generate interest in protecting the Sierras. I hope the pictures came from one of them.

Please learn about the areas you visit and treat them appropriately.

Dale B. Dalrymple

Couple of fishing pics: 1st, my son Cy with what I call a "Crawdzilla" from Bishop Canal.



Here's my daughter Sascha with a small trout from the Sierra's.

soory young man but you remind me of some juries I have seen, you look at the qick bits of news and not all the facts.
I called and spoke with the charter and found out their were 6 total people on scene.
The ammount of fish caught and eaten were barley enough to feed the larger men.
The next time you are at the supermarket I hope you realize that steak you picked up was never thought of a catch and release.
I call the politically correct term what it really is
catch and eat!!!

I think the problem is that, according to Capt (WTF) Denis, this was "advertised' as a trip with his son. No other fisherman were mentioned or photographed. With the exception of the first photograph, there are only two people being photographed in every photograph. Now, we can go by what is in the photographs, let's say minor "pictorial proof", or we can go by what the man said over the phone, basically hearsay after he was questioned about probable and possible legal violations. In any case, there is nothing to suggest that more than two people took this trip.If you say, well someone took the images.......then all you have to do is watch "Survivorman" or check a multitude of images on this site where the camera had a "timer".

I do think it's a good subject though as I find many fisherman don't follow the laws, including limits and littering. I've been in a boat with "professional" fishermen (you know, the ones compete for large cash prizes) and seen them throw plastic bottles and other trash in the water.

And as far as the description is concerned, and I quote "here is our Pictoral Essay......up to 5 pound Golden Trout !!!" How many fricken up to 5 pound trout do you need to feed a group of 5???

Sorry, in my experience, the biggest abusers are the ones who think they know the best. In other words, something's "fishy" here.

We've read the ad copy, now how many 5 pound fish do you believe were really caught?


What law do you believe was broken?
CA Freshwater regs:
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/regulations/freshfish-mar2011/

Dale B. Dalrymple

Oh, I agree, that was pointed out in my first post..... I didn't see any law broken. I know the regulations well. I didn't have to look them up. And, yes, I'm going by the ad copy, straight from the fishes mouth. Those were just the fish photographed. I stand completely by my statement that some of the biggest abusers are those who think they know best. Just take a look at the wag bag thread.

I am 54 years old. I have fished the Eastern High Sierras since I was 4 years old. My mom taught me to fish. My average trips per year to Bishop and above is 6 times a year. I've fished everything from Walker River, Owens, Sabrina basin, even the canal in Bishop (which has some very large Browns), Buckley Ponds, Tinemaha and very small outlets along the canals, etc. Again, 50 years of fishing experience in the Sierra's.

Now, let me say something you really may disagree with: A very large percentage of the fishermen are complete pigs with no regard to trashing the environment. Remember, I'm a fisherman..... but if I had a nickel for every line, bait bottle, beer can, sinker, lure, jig, sandwich bag, potato chip bag, on and on and on that I've found....well, you know. And some of the places I'm talking about take a bit of energy to get to. Trash to many fishermen is like wag bags to many hikers. Again...HANDS ON experience in dozens and dozens of locations. I don't need a manual to see that.

So, if a very large percentage of all people are complete pigs with no regards, how does that justify your pointed mudslinging and innuendo in this thread?

Dale B. Dalrymple

Also in the guy's initial post, he mentions they are out there for 9 days and went to several lakes... if they were catching their dinner most nights, it totally makes sense that they would catch as many (and not release) as they did. Not all of the pictures are necessarily from the same day.

Dale, Not mudslinging.... just pointing out fact. There is a big difference. If you fish, then I guess you have to decide which side you're on.

Pretty simple really. I think you could understand that. I can't imagine that if you've spent any time at all in the Sierra's, especially fishing.... you haven't seen the trash problem. Paying for a license only gives you the right to fish according to the regulations set up by the DFG. Fishing in the Sierra's doesn't give an individual the right to trash it, in fact it's not only contradictory of the environment, it's absolutely repugnant.

As far as innuendo, I don't think I'm being indirect towards anyone. If you've taken offense, it was certainly not aimed at you, but at the multitudes of people who have no respect for our environment, the Sierra's and especially Mt Whitney. I've never read a post of yours that would make me feel you're one of those people, in fact just the opposite.

I think we may be talking about two different things here as I am concerned in your defense of people who think they are above the law, when I've always been of the belief you have the utmost respect for the environment.

I will repeat (again) that I do not believe this person broke any regulations, but I can see how people could think that. My points are towards other problems that are much more clear...... and yes, from people who say they respect the Sierra's and others on the trail, but still poop without a wag bag, to fishermen who don't pick up their messes. Same type of behavior, both disgusting.

For those of us that are not into Sierra fishing, what is the limit(s) on these Golden Trouts?

Not sure where those fish were caught but it does appear as if all the pictures were taken at arms length towards the camera.

Below was taken from the California Fishing regulations handbook.

GOLDEN TROUT WILDERNESS excluding the main stem of the Kern River.
Fishing season in the Golden Trout Wilderness is open the last Saturday in April through November 15th. Only artificial lures with barbless hooks may be used. The limit is 5 trout a day and 5 trout in possession.
Regulation information taken from the California Sport Fishing Regulations California Department of Fish and Game.
“

And let's take this one step further, as long as we are talking about moral grounds. Before I say it, let me make it clear that I, too, am disgusted by those who trash the environment, leave garbage in the wilderness, and can't even exert themselves to dig a cathole or find a spot away from the shore of the lake or stream to defecate. I have done some fishing, but not a lot. To me it is only a means to acquire a meal, and I only fish until I have caught what I intend to eat that day. I view that as an acceptable activity, no different from buying ribs at the grocery store.

But here comes what will probably place me in the minority here. I do not feel that there is a moral justification for catch and release fishing. That is nothing more than injuring other living things for your own entertainment. If I were to tie a rope around my neighbor's cat's leg and swing it around over my head, I could easily claim that it was harmless fun and no permanent damage was done, just as catch and release fishing is justified. But I would fully expect to be arrested for cruelty to an animal, and most people who catch and release fish would applaud that arrest. The only real difference is that catch and release fishing is legal and encouraged, while tormenting my neighbor's cat is not.

So be careful about pointing fingers at others. Yes, the pictures in the linked report make it appear that they were greedy. Perhaps they even violated the regulations, I'll never know for sure. But it could also be nothing more than bragging and exaggeration. By the regs, two people for nine days could total 90 fish legally kept, as long as they didn't keep one day's catch over to the next day. The pictures show far fewer than that, although I doubt the pictures show every fish that they caught. And I do agree with the excessive part, in some of those pictures the trout would appear to be more than two people could eat. But just be careful about taking a moral high ground here.

I think people can figure what side I am on from my first two posts in this thread.

As to my current concerns;
The original post url shows:
Two or more fishermen, nine days, pictures of 21 trout.

Quoting quillansculpture in this thread:
"Looks like they kept to their limit" (Note: that would be 10 fish per day)
"eating 5 trout that size when you're up there is, well.....impossible"
"basically hearsay after he was questioned about probable and possible legal violations"
"How many fricken up to 5 pound trout do you need to feed a group of 5???"
"the biggest abusers are the ones who think they know the best. In other words, something's "fishy" here."

These are statements about the people in the original post, who you also claim have violated no laws.
It looks like your posts in this thread are riddled with false claims, slurs and inconsistencies not justified by pictures or text in the url of the original post. I consider that to be "pointed mudslinging and innuendo."


Then why do I bother to bring this up? Because I don't want anyone to think that my respect for the environment leads me to believe that respect for the environment justifies the lies, inconsistencies and abusiveness in your posts in this thread.

Dale B. Dalrymple

Dale.... my advice: relax.....breath, breath, breath ;-)

Okay......hmmmmm, how do I put this gently. Oh, WTF! Here goes:

Dale, I really feel like I should apologize to you for somehow insulting you on a thread that is so important to you.....Fish.

As a note, nowhere in my posts did I mention you in any way except positive. I find it humorous that you took exception to that. You may need to look into that further. Groucho must have been tapping you on the back urging you to "resemble that remark", again, none of which were directed at you. But in hindsight, I see that arguing is part of your life. It makes you feel better. Looking up statistics, counting the number of fish multiplied by a number you just came up with from your vivid imagination.....wow, I am impressed. Though you said you read the regulations, I guess you must have mis-read.....because your statements are wrong. Notice I didn't say lie. I deeply believe you just had a hard time with the page number, county, streams, rivers, whatever, but you did get them wrong. I have so much respect for your analytical side, that I can't image you would ever actually put the wrong information down to make yourself look like you actually have a clue. And gee, yes, this post of mine is aimed at you. I mean, when I tried to tell you before that I had respect for you, I did........but that was then. Oooops, did I actually write that? I deeply and sincerely apologize for that. Just must have come out of the blue since I was attacked for not attacking you. What's funny is that you never, ever figured out who I was writing about. Your brain automatically thought I was attacking you. Wow, you really need to boost your confidence a bit so you know people like you, they really, really do. Again.... when you figure out who I was writing about, please inform the media.

They're waiting..........

Just a few things that have not been expressed: Goldens are trout that generally are only found at high elevations (>10,), in very pure waters. As such, their growth seasons are very short, and their food sources are scarce. So, it is unusual to find large fish, larger than 10 inches. Really big fish are extraordinary.

There is a school of thought, that even if one is catching and keeping, one should not keep a trophy sized fish, but should preserve that fish's genetics by releasing, and preserving that fishes ability to reproduce on an ongoing basis, and may ethical fisherman behave this way, even when they would keep other fish.

But the bothersome thing about the site linked, was that the photos were of a professional fishing guide, although I think of a deepwater ocean fishing operation, which work by a different ethic by my observation. Flyfishing guides, in my experience, would never give this kind of impression. Here is a more typical example, the last 20 seconds would be typical of how they would want to be seen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-9fgrM3OhM&feature=player_embedded