Loren E
03-17-2010, 11:18 PM
I was in the middle of reading the thread regarding the practice of keeping striped bass when it suddenly disappeared. I realize that there were personal issues involved, but wasn't much of the debate regarding rationale behind killing stripers or not valuable information? I for one was a bit shocked at the defensive reaction of many towards Charlie's post.
One common sentiment seems to be that "if it is legal then there is absolutely nothing wrong with it". This is really startling to hear from the fly fishing community, and I'd like to challenge this mentality. What is legal is decided each year by CA Department of Fish and Game, an agency that is infamous for its mishandling of species protection and debaucheries around the state for many years. Just because it is legal to kill striped bass, that does not necessarily mean that it is a sound practice. I bet that many of you would have been quite upset in seeing a wild smith river steelhead killed and that was legal until earlier this month. As not only anglers but also stewards of our natural resources, I think it is our responsibility to go past "well if DFG says so". DFG didn't stop the killing of salmon in our rivers and now look where we are after multiple seasons of poor returns....there are no salmon so finally we get our fishing bans seeing as there are no salmon to catch anyways. My point is as conservations as well as anglers we shouldn't dumb down to the point of following blindly what is and isn't allowed by the DFG. If a species that was thriving decades ago is almost gone, isn't it time to let them all go?
Also, it was mentioned that these stripers are "just a non-native anyways". This mentality completely invalidates striped bass as a valued species of sport fish that has been reproducing in these waters for over a hundred years. That mentality goes hand in hand with Marty's report that "they should be treated like weeds"...if they're "non-natives anyways" then why not just kill every single one seeing as they've only been co-existing successfully for over a hundred years in CA waters?
Additionally, the idea that "it is just one more, what is the harm in that" is very flawed in a state with thousands upon thousands of anglers fishing for striped bass from the ocean to the bay to the delta to the rivers. That is thousands of fish we are talking about being killed each season if each striper angler "just takes home one for dinner". Sure, the party boats take truly greedy bag-limits each day in the bay and outside the gate, and a many stripers are killed by sport fishermen higher up in the system plus many are poached as well.....so essentially many fish are being killed in an already decimated and seriously struggling population....why is this a solid rationale for saying that "if i just kill one more what is the harm in that, its just one when EVERYBODY ELSE is killing so many"? Sure, they are all helping decimate our stripers along with the overriding issue of water diversion, but that should not be an excuse to kill fish just because it is less than everybody else is killing. Change starts with you. If a species is thriving like many runs of salmon in Alaska, it doesn't matter if commercial fishermen are killing thousands or if it is an untouched run of fish....if the population is thriving that should be the rationale for taking one home for dinner....if the population is struggling greatly but you're only killing a minute percentage of what others might kill that is no excuse at all..
Someone also brought up the idea of the fish not being wasted because it would be dinner, and used that as a justification for taking fish. This mentality has always been the one that bothered me the MOST. Whether or not a fish is wasted might weigh on a person's conscience, BUT whether or not it is wasted has ZERO effect on the impact of taking the fish. What I mean: commercial fishermen in Baja come in and net up entire schools of fish, usually tuna, and the results have been felt in the past as taking such huge amounts of fish decimates population. I can assure you that none of that fish "went to waste", it was all canned and sold and eaten but just because it was not wasted not not affect the impact that was had on the population. Going to somewhere like Mexico as a sport fishermen and killing every fish you catch that day because "it won't be wasted" because you will give all of the fish to the people of the town to eat is not a justification for killing these fish. IF the species you are killing is a healthy one that can support the practice of catch and kill fishing, then great...keep some fish if you like...but whether or not at the end of the day you throw these fish on the beach to rot in the sun and be wasted or whether you eat them won't play a part in the sustainability of killing those fish, it will only affect the feelings of morality felt by the angler, and so the idea that killing any fish in any amount is ok "because it didn't go to waste" is a very human construct that is a completely lame justification of killing fish. The health of a population of fish should determine whether you are going to take some home to eat, not the fact that you are sure it will be eaten. Would you feel ok about killing any other endangered or threatened species just because you were going to make sure to eat it and not let it get freezer-burned? Eating an endangered or threatened species does not negate killing it.
In regards to the comment "even Blanton advocated for a slot limit for stripers" as to suggest that Dan Blanton is even in favor of the occasional killing of striped bass is a COMPLETE misinterpretation. Dan Blanton and many other passionate striped bass activists have been advocating for a slot limit because it is a step in the right direction, and it would mean that less stripers would be getting killed than are right now, NOT because he believes that anglers should take stripers home from time to time. I am not Dan Blanton and so I cannot truly speak for him, but I would challenge any one of you to ask him and I can assure you that he would explain to you that that a slot limit is just a step in the right direction and an improvement, as we are not going to have an over-night change to catch and release only fishing for stripers. If catch and release was a realistic regulation change right now I think he would be advocating for that, but he is simply working towards the most realistic change at the moment.
The idea that killing a smaller striper is a justification as well seems very flawed in that sure, the effect won't be felt next season because it was not this 18 inch fish that was full of eggs to be spawned for the next season of stripers, but isn't it this 18 inch striper that will grow into a spawner in a few years? Isn't this not really a justification, as it just means that the effects of killing the fish won't be felt for longer? Sure, killing a big spawner sucks because those fish won't be back as the new generation, but who will be the big spawner in a few years?? If a virus or some freak thing was wiping out pre-pubescent 8-12 year olds we wouldn't see our human populations fall now but they sure would in 15-30 years.
I realize that my response is very long winded, but it is an issue that I feel very strongly about, like Charlie. Although I do not agree with the decision to keep stripers, please let me be clear: my response to the thread is not intended to be an attack on either Tony Buzolich or Mike Bosworth and so I hope that is too is not deleted, as it is about the health and associated practice of catch and kill versus catch and release of a game fish that I hope is loved by many of us, and not about Tony or Mike. I am trying to speak to the larger issues that this thread brings up in regards to the practice of killing endangered or threatened species as sportsmen, because of how surprised I was by the many justifications of keeping a striper that I strongly disagree with.
Tight lines -Loren Elliott
One common sentiment seems to be that "if it is legal then there is absolutely nothing wrong with it". This is really startling to hear from the fly fishing community, and I'd like to challenge this mentality. What is legal is decided each year by CA Department of Fish and Game, an agency that is infamous for its mishandling of species protection and debaucheries around the state for many years. Just because it is legal to kill striped bass, that does not necessarily mean that it is a sound practice. I bet that many of you would have been quite upset in seeing a wild smith river steelhead killed and that was legal until earlier this month. As not only anglers but also stewards of our natural resources, I think it is our responsibility to go past "well if DFG says so". DFG didn't stop the killing of salmon in our rivers and now look where we are after multiple seasons of poor returns....there are no salmon so finally we get our fishing bans seeing as there are no salmon to catch anyways. My point is as conservations as well as anglers we shouldn't dumb down to the point of following blindly what is and isn't allowed by the DFG. If a species that was thriving decades ago is almost gone, isn't it time to let them all go?
Also, it was mentioned that these stripers are "just a non-native anyways". This mentality completely invalidates striped bass as a valued species of sport fish that has been reproducing in these waters for over a hundred years. That mentality goes hand in hand with Marty's report that "they should be treated like weeds"...if they're "non-natives anyways" then why not just kill every single one seeing as they've only been co-existing successfully for over a hundred years in CA waters?
Additionally, the idea that "it is just one more, what is the harm in that" is very flawed in a state with thousands upon thousands of anglers fishing for striped bass from the ocean to the bay to the delta to the rivers. That is thousands of fish we are talking about being killed each season if each striper angler "just takes home one for dinner". Sure, the party boats take truly greedy bag-limits each day in the bay and outside the gate, and a many stripers are killed by sport fishermen higher up in the system plus many are poached as well.....so essentially many fish are being killed in an already decimated and seriously struggling population....why is this a solid rationale for saying that "if i just kill one more what is the harm in that, its just one when EVERYBODY ELSE is killing so many"? Sure, they are all helping decimate our stripers along with the overriding issue of water diversion, but that should not be an excuse to kill fish just because it is less than everybody else is killing. Change starts with you. If a species is thriving like many runs of salmon in Alaska, it doesn't matter if commercial fishermen are killing thousands or if it is an untouched run of fish....if the population is thriving that should be the rationale for taking one home for dinner....if the population is struggling greatly but you're only killing a minute percentage of what others might kill that is no excuse at all..
Someone also brought up the idea of the fish not being wasted because it would be dinner, and used that as a justification for taking fish. This mentality has always been the one that bothered me the MOST. Whether or not a fish is wasted might weigh on a person's conscience, BUT whether or not it is wasted has ZERO effect on the impact of taking the fish. What I mean: commercial fishermen in Baja come in and net up entire schools of fish, usually tuna, and the results have been felt in the past as taking such huge amounts of fish decimates population. I can assure you that none of that fish "went to waste", it was all canned and sold and eaten but just because it was not wasted not not affect the impact that was had on the population. Going to somewhere like Mexico as a sport fishermen and killing every fish you catch that day because "it won't be wasted" because you will give all of the fish to the people of the town to eat is not a justification for killing these fish. IF the species you are killing is a healthy one that can support the practice of catch and kill fishing, then great...keep some fish if you like...but whether or not at the end of the day you throw these fish on the beach to rot in the sun and be wasted or whether you eat them won't play a part in the sustainability of killing those fish, it will only affect the feelings of morality felt by the angler, and so the idea that killing any fish in any amount is ok "because it didn't go to waste" is a very human construct that is a completely lame justification of killing fish. The health of a population of fish should determine whether you are going to take some home to eat, not the fact that you are sure it will be eaten. Would you feel ok about killing any other endangered or threatened species just because you were going to make sure to eat it and not let it get freezer-burned? Eating an endangered or threatened species does not negate killing it.
In regards to the comment "even Blanton advocated for a slot limit for stripers" as to suggest that Dan Blanton is even in favor of the occasional killing of striped bass is a COMPLETE misinterpretation. Dan Blanton and many other passionate striped bass activists have been advocating for a slot limit because it is a step in the right direction, and it would mean that less stripers would be getting killed than are right now, NOT because he believes that anglers should take stripers home from time to time. I am not Dan Blanton and so I cannot truly speak for him, but I would challenge any one of you to ask him and I can assure you that he would explain to you that that a slot limit is just a step in the right direction and an improvement, as we are not going to have an over-night change to catch and release only fishing for stripers. If catch and release was a realistic regulation change right now I think he would be advocating for that, but he is simply working towards the most realistic change at the moment.
The idea that killing a smaller striper is a justification as well seems very flawed in that sure, the effect won't be felt next season because it was not this 18 inch fish that was full of eggs to be spawned for the next season of stripers, but isn't it this 18 inch striper that will grow into a spawner in a few years? Isn't this not really a justification, as it just means that the effects of killing the fish won't be felt for longer? Sure, killing a big spawner sucks because those fish won't be back as the new generation, but who will be the big spawner in a few years?? If a virus or some freak thing was wiping out pre-pubescent 8-12 year olds we wouldn't see our human populations fall now but they sure would in 15-30 years.
I realize that my response is very long winded, but it is an issue that I feel very strongly about, like Charlie. Although I do not agree with the decision to keep stripers, please let me be clear: my response to the thread is not intended to be an attack on either Tony Buzolich or Mike Bosworth and so I hope that is too is not deleted, as it is about the health and associated practice of catch and kill versus catch and release of a game fish that I hope is loved by many of us, and not about Tony or Mike. I am trying to speak to the larger issues that this thread brings up in regards to the practice of killing endangered or threatened species as sportsmen, because of how surprised I was by the many justifications of keeping a striper that I strongly disagree with.
Tight lines -Loren Elliott