Should we?
Moderators: czkid, Whitefish Press
Should we?
#1Some time ago (10 years? 15?) Trout Unlimited and others organized a campaign to get the Gila Trout listed and the 3 remaining watersheds they were contained in protected. Times being what they were, there was a letter writing campaign to directed responsible individuals, to politic this into being. This effort succeeded. It was surprising, at the end of it all, only 78 persons wrote in, but those 78 made the difference. The fragmented, remote watersheds these fish were surviving in is extremely sensitive to even the smallest disturbance, being it cattle grazing, upstream migration of invasive rainbows, weather, fire, etc, etc,. The fact they still exist is remarkable. I think at that time there were only some 300 fish in existence.
In reading posts I have to ask; Should we be going out and fish for these unique, fragile, remote and low population trout species?
Carl
In reading posts I have to ask; Should we be going out and fish for these unique, fragile, remote and low population trout species?
Carl
Re: Should we?
#3If all we get to do is look at them, then maybe the passion to save them won't burn as hot. After all, the "lookers" probably weren't the ones who wrote the letters, but the fishermen who appreciated them enough to take the time. As a wise friend once quipped, "catch and release, you filthy animals!"
Re: Should we?
#4I’m with Carl on this one. No,we shouldn’t. It’s about preserving threatened species. What’s wrong with “just looking”? To suggest we should be allowed catch them to save them is confusing to me.
Re: Should we?
#5I think I would need to know allot more before making a decision. Allot of information on the New Mexico Game & Fish web site.It lists waters and retention policies. Many of the water bodies have been 'stocked'. How robust is their hatchery program that it supports put and take fishery. Seems like you could restrict fishing to naturally reproducing populations but allow angling on those bodies of water that can only support the species through stockings. If allowing 'harvest' jeopardizes the natural; stocks than maybe the ban should be total.
https://www.wildlife.state.nm.us/fishin ... y-angling/
https://www.wildlife.state.nm.us/fishin ... y-angling/
Re: Should we?
#6My latest issue of TROUT has an update on these trout beginning on page 26 under Pocket Water.
- flyroder72
- Sport
- Posts: 50
- Joined: 03/01/16 00:22
Re: Should we?
#7Arizona has been working on Gila trout recovery and now has fishable populations. The Gila is also one of the trout listed on the Arizona Trout Challenge Program. As soon as Monsoon season comes to an end I will be heading out for my first Gila. It will be carefully released as are all of the fish I have been blessed to catch.
Re: Should we?
#8Look but don't touch? I don't think so. Can't tell you the last time I put money towards saving the threatened animals at the zoo by purchasing admission. My sporting licenses are purchased annually. Pretty sure there is a 10% excise tax on everything sporting I purchase. If enough river systems become off limits to angling, how do you think that would affect revenue used for management? Sportsmen care deeply about their pursuit, prevent them from pursuing and I am afraid their interests will wander elsewhere. Conservation; never preservation.
Galt
Galt
Know the reasons for your actions
- Hellmtflies
- Bamboo Fanatic
- Posts: 8036
- Joined: 01/14/12 10:27
- Location: Bozeman, Montana
Re: Should we?
#9I kind of like this idea.galt wrote: ↑08/29/22 20:30Look but don't touch? I don't think so. Can't tell you the last time I put money towards saving the threatened animals at the zoo by purchasing admission. My sporting licenses are purchased annually. Pretty sure there is a 10% excise tax on everything sporting I purchase. If enough river systems become off limits to angling, how do you think that would affect revenue used for management? Sportsmen care deeply about their pursuit, prevent them from pursuing and I am afraid their interests will wander elsewhere. Conservation; never preservation.
Galt
Re: Should we?
#10I used the Gila trout as an illustration of the more broader question.
Yes, if you have a recovered and sustainable unique salmonid population then fish for them.
The question is for the populations that are not, but a fisherperson, if they choose, can target them.
Carl
Yes, if you have a recovered and sustainable unique salmonid population then fish for them.
The question is for the populations that are not, but a fisherperson, if they choose, can target them.
Carl
- steeliefool
- Bamboo Fanatic
- Posts: 1675
- Joined: 09/07/16 15:28
- Location: Jersey
Re: Should we?
#12Perhaps anglers interested in pursuing the Gila trout or any other threatened species should to more than merely pay an annual license fee for the privilege. Perhaps a special tag or stamp is merited, with the money going to conservation. Perhaps a concerted effort by individuals to let their policy makers know how important these fish are to (a) keep around and (b) make available for angling possibilities--don't just leave it up to groups like TU to do the heavy lifting, but if you do, then support those groups. Perhaps a few more donation dollars, hours, hands, etc. are warranted. Maybe mention why you are in town next time you pop in the general store for some craft brews so the locals see a value to the fish and habitat they previously might not have. Touch-and-go fishing is a good idea, perhaps as a follow on to actually netting one for the bucket list. Catch one and done. Maybe some words of encouragement to your local Fish & Wildlife folks to let them know how important it is to you; you might learn something along the way, perhaps get some good intel, and certainly your interest could affect basin planning going forward. Perhaps a policy of some streams for fishing and some that are closed. Or maybe a more expansionist view, where possible, on re-population of the original species range, including a little more aggressive removal of invasive species. Combined with some good marketing. I mean heck, you can catch rainbows, browns and brookies just about anywhere these days--what's so special about that? Rep your locals! Flaunt it if you got it, right?
Re: Should we?
#13+1cdmoore wrote: ↑08/30/22 10:26Perhaps anglers interested in pursuing the Gila trout or any other threatened species should to more than merely pay an annual license fee for the privilege. Perhaps a special tag or stamp is merited, with the money going to conservation. Perhaps a concerted effort by individuals to let their policy makers know how important these fish are to (a) keep around and (b) make available for angling possibilities--don't just leave it up to groups like TU to do the heavy lifting, but if you do, then support those groups. Perhaps a few more donation dollars, hours, hands, etc. are warranted. Maybe mention why you are in town next time you pop in the general store for some craft brews so the locals see a value to the fish and habitat they previously might not have. Touch-and-go fishing is a good idea, perhaps as a follow on to actually netting one for the bucket list. Catch one and done. Maybe some words of encouragement to your local Fish & Wildlife folks to let them know how important it is to you; you might learn something along the way, perhaps get some good intel, and certainly your interest could affect basin planning going forward. Perhaps a policy of some streams for fishing and some that are closed. Or maybe a more expansionist view, where possible, on re-population of the original species range, including a little more aggressive removal of invasive species. Combined with some good marketing. I mean heck, you can catch rainbows, browns and brookies just about anywhere these days--what's so special about that? Rep your locals! Flaunt it if you got it, right?