From the minnow chaser thread - An ethics lesson


Quote:
"This is the dumbest thread I have ever seen. I think I have heard it all now. It seems to me that Tim has written the book on ethics, hence why he thinks he is entitled to tell people what they can and cannot catch."

1wt wrote: LOL! Tim posts dumber threads than I do! he he he



Now THATS funny. 🙂

I've adjusted my thinking atleast once thanks to Tim. Cant see it happening here with the beauty natives possess which is unrelative to their size in most cases. I'll always wish I had a picture of a certian 6" native that haunts my memories from about 3 decades ago.
Add to that the fact that brookie streams possess mostly sub-legal trout by a longshot..... I'm just not gonna stop fishing for them. Their too ingrained into my flyfishing. They were there from the start.
 
Squaretail.............What you said there reminds me of a lime from something i read once that i can't remember the book or article that it came from , but it was a quote from Ansel Adams , he went on to say the bookie IHO was the most beautiful fish in the world and that they only lived in beautifulplaces ,he compared them with precious gems saying that they didn't have to be big to be spectacular , each one was an individual and sometimes the ssmall ones had something that made them special even when compared to big ones , mostly speaking of emeralds , Ansel could have gone anywhere in the world and lived or visited but he chose book trout country and he named his cabin in the woods " Fontinalis" One of my favorite thing ro tell someone who is learning about them and fishing forthem for the fist time is Think about it "those have been here since the dinosaurs" I think i'm gonna continue to fish for them also , even the little ones. The minnows.
 
Squaretail, we both have a great respect for Tim, but I agree with you......I just don't get it either.

The size of fish is relative on any stream. Small brookie streams have small brookies. To believe that it is unethical to fish for and catch adult fish in a stream because they don't "measure up" to the arbitrary size limit set by the FBC is crazy.

Like Pat, I think it's MUCH more rewarding to hike into some remote dink water than it is to fish at the bridge hole on a stocked stream to catch the "legal" ones.

Oh well....to each his own, I guess.
 
I gotta say that after coming on here for at least half a decade , maybe not but when you are OLD sometimes you lose track of your senses , like your sense of time. Anyhow................I can't believe that THIS OP came from Tim.......i would be lying if i said i wasn't a ljttle dissapointed , i thought i had a much better better judge of character. You always struck me as a pretty good fella but this post is way outta line. I think it's the intolerance that gets me most.
 
Tim,
I just want to let you know that anything I posted in this thread was not meant to disrespect you in any way. We certainly all have the right to our own opinions. At times I sensed this thread going the wrong direction over the past couple of days. I totally 100% disagree with your line of thinking on this topic and I am really struggling to find the logic in it. Does this make me better than you? Absolutely not or vice versa. Sometimes to agree that we disagree is our only common ground on a particular topic. Heck, if someday I find myselft fishing upstream from you I won't even muddy up the water. :lol: Tight lines!
 
Tim, this is totally meant to disrespect you.

You need to STFU! about passing judgement on what you deem to be ethical or nonethical when it comes to the bloodsport of fishing.

If you're gonna climb up onto that high horse of yours, then please, please, please leave all of your fishing gear behind and quit the sport, join PETA and STFU. You can't parse the rules that you personally follow in order to put yourself on some pedestal. Hooking a 5" trout with the intent to release is no different than hooking a 20" trout from an ethical standpoint. Ethics have nothing to do with some arbitrary size limit number or calender based season as determined by The State. You're off your rocker and if you're gonna play this B.S. ethics card, I fully expect to see you posting all of your gear for sale in the Swap Forum and giving up the sport based upon these so called ethics of yours.
 
tomitrout wrote:
Tim, this is totally meant to disrespect you.

You need to STFU! about passing judgement on what you deem to be ethical or nonethical when it comes to the bloodsport of fishing.

If you're gonna climb up onto that high horse of yours, then please, please, please leave all of your fishing gear behind and quit the sport, join PETA and STFU. You can't parse the rules that you personally follow in order to put yourself on some pedastal. Hooking a 5" trout with the intent to release is no different than hooking a 20" trout from an ethical standpoint. Ethics have nothing to do with some arbitrary size limit number or calender based season as determined by The State. You're off your rocker and if you're gonna play this B.S. ethics card, I fully expect to see you posting all of your gear for sale in the Swap Forum and giving up the sport based upon your so called ethics.
Click to expand...


Hey tomitrout,

Everyone has the right to express their opinion.

I can't think of a more upstanding, big-hearted, shoot-straight type guy than Tim Murphy. Even straight shooters go off-target from time-to-time (when judged against my beliefs, anyway), but one opinion or belief held by a person does not change the character of that person.

Tim is, and remains one of my favorite guys on here and I would fish or drink or break bread with him anytime. If you actually met him in person, I'm sure you would agree.

Disagree, don't disrespect.
 
+1 to Pat!!!!!
I fish these types of streams almost exclusively, but my goal is to find out how big the brookies get in those places, so you still won't find me fish a # 18 or # 20 fly in them, because in over 40 years of fishing these streams I've found the brookies simply inhale small flies and do more damage eating small flies than larger flies.
Like I said where it is likely I'll catch big brookies, and I'm talking about fish over 10 inches, I'll cast the big flies. I feel not guilt, I feel worse when I use a small fly and the fish inhales it and causes damage to it's gills or tongue and starts bleeding then when I catch a fish on a larger fly and release it unharmed.
If you think using large flies is an issue take it to the PFBC, NOT ME!
 
tomitrout wrote:
Hooking a 5" trout with the intent to release is no different than hooking a 20" trout from an ethical standpoint. Ethics have nothing to do with some arbitrary size limit number or calender based season as determined by The State. You're off your rocker and if you're gonna play this B.S. ethics card, I fully expect to see you posting all of your gear for sale in the Swap Forum and giving up the sport based upon these so called ethics of yours.
Click to expand...


And actually you're more likely to kill a large brown accidently then a just legal or sub legal fish. The more times a fish is caught the more likely it is to not survive, does that mean we don't fish at all? Or worse kill all fish caught?
 
You can't say that C & R is a good thing on the Tully at that location in August, if you're fishing there they aren't wild fish and they should be harvested because more then likely they will die after being caught. Fishing for any trout in water that is over 70 is unethical.
 
Chaz,

Tim's opposition stems not from large or small flies on small fish. I could understand some consideration of methods in order to do the least harm possible.

But that's apparantly not what this is about. Tim has an ethical problem with targeting small fish period, or fishing in any place where they are the norm rather than the exception. It's not about the hook size or method.

It seems that it stems on the idea that they are not a legal target, since they can't be harvested. But they ARE a legal target, they just are not legal to harvest. It's no different, ethically than fishing for foot long trout under C&R or TT regs. Really it's no different ethically than fishing for ANY trout while practicing C&R, as if you're not keeping them, the "legal" size limit becomes totally meaningless.

This is the logic that would say that you shouldn't fish at all for fun. It is only ethical if it's purely about recovering meat for dinner.

Unless he has the mistaken belief that small fish are less likely to survive an angler encounter?
 
I think we all need to take a step back and remember that our beloved sport is damaging to the environment and the animals that live in it, REGARDLESS of restoration projects, C&R, your yearly TU membership to make you feel like you're making a difference, etc.

If we fish size 32 dry flies to small brookies, or chuck streamers at them, the end result is that we are still yanking them out of the water, stressing them out, and increasing their mortality rate. Same goes for every other single fish you catch.

We also get flies snagged, that fish will pick up and potentially get killed from, use synthetic materials that can take a thousand years to deteriorate on this flies stuck at the bottom of the stream, leave mono and flouro all over, have birds eat our lead shot, stomp through spawning grounds (not to mention some of you fishing for spawning fish), etc.

Every single one of us is responsible for the above, I don't care how safe you are about it, and how well you handle a fish. We all need to remember that and not point fingers. What we do definitely isn't ethical, it's just that some of you are more ethical than others with how you approach it.


My .02


 
Hey tomitrout,

Everyone has the right to express their opinion.

I can't think of a more upstanding, big-hearted, shoot-straight type guy than Tim Murphy. Even straight shooters go off-target from time-to-time (when judged against my beliefs, anyway), but one opinion or belief held by a person does not change the character of that person.

Tim is, and remains one of my favorite guys on here and I would fish or drink or break bread with him anytime. If you actually met him in person, I'm sure you would agree.

Disagree, don't disrespect.
Click to expand...

I'm just showing the same amount of respect he's shown the rest of us with his holier than thou outlook on this subject. I'm sure he is nice fella and all, but if he wants to climb up on his pedestal in order to pass judgement on his fellow anglers like this, then I'm merely returning in kind.

When you go fishing whether it's for table fare or sport, you are doing harm, doesn't matter if it's a dink or 'legal' size or a trophy. You are doing harm, period. . We all have our personal set of rules for the game as we play it individually and I'm not going to tell you that how you play your game is ethical or unethical based upon my ruleset. As long as you're within the bounds of the law, then who am I to pass judgement on how you play your game? And to come on here and to do so, is BS. In my not so humble opinion.
 
One insight is the reason for the 7" size limit to begin with. It is chosen to be below that at which you will find any stocked adults, but above which is suitable to protect a sizable % of wild fish. Stocked fish can be replaced and are intended to be harvested.

But with the minimum size, you are protecting the bulk of wild fish from harvest. It's not because it's unethical to fish for smaller wild fish, quite the opposite really, it's a nod to their value for sporting purposes. It's to protect those fisheries as viable sport fisheries.

If you wanted to improve the size of fish in these waters, you'd do the opposite, and cull the little ones while protecting larger ones. Just like you improve the size of bluegills in a pond by harvesting small bluegills, or introducing bass which will do the same.

If the PFBC did not want them fished, it would be easy enough to restrict all fishing activity to ATW's and special reg waters. i.e. you can only fish where they specifically designate and regulate as fishing waters. But they don't do that. In fact, they go as far as helping anglers find all of these small streams, with the Wilderness Trout Stream list, streams with natural repro list, etc. When that wasn't sufficient to highlight these fisheries, they invented wild brook trout enhancement regs, spread throughout the state, to draw attention to them. They are actively encouraging fishing on these kinds of waters, as I think they should (even if I selfishly cringe when one of my favorites gets put on a list).

i.e. the reason for the size limit is the same as the reason for C&R and Trophy Trout regs. The latter regs are used in streams where the average wild trout surpasses 7". If deemed necessary, extra restrictions are warranted to protect the fishery. That doesn't mean anyone is deeming them unethical to fish. Merely that harvest restrictions are needed to maintain a suitable fishery.
 
That's right Pat, but by placing a limit at 7 inches you're also saying it's fine to take all the legal trout you want, wild or stocked. To me a 2 fish a day limit on any size trout is fine on wild trout streams as long as people don't cull their catch. But it has to be enforced, and there are WCO's that won't enforce special regs.
 
Well, it's saying it's fine to take up to 5 legal trout, which it is.

I mean, I don't do it, but I have no problem with someone taking a limit now and then. My personal test is "if everyone did as I did, would it degrade the fishery?".

Take a limit now and again from varied and relatively unpressured locations, and the answer is no, it wouldn't, even if they are wild fish. Multiple times in a short time frame from the same popular fishery, and that changes.

Nonetheless, yes, I'm putting my own ethics on it slightly beyond what the PFBC mandates. But my "excess" ethics are in the spirit of the PFBC'd, i.e. have fun but do no harm to others' enjoyment of fisheries. Tim's are not, they stem from something else, and I don't fully understand them.

And I do my best not to judge others on their ethics, so long as they are legal. That's why I won't criticize or insult Tim. I was honestly trying to understand his viewpoint. Though I'm pretty sure I strongly disagree with his views, that doesn't mean I dislike him.
 
Cant believe that my post about brookie streamers turned into a 6 page debate.

 
You just never know what will start the fire...
 
mike_richardson wrote:
Cant believe that my post about brookie streamers turned into a 6 page debate.
Click to expand...

This long thread was in response to Tim's post.

 
I am glad you guys enjoy exploring, fishing headwaters, and they are certainly scenic and the fish are beautiful, however while I am glad you guys like to catch little brookies it is not for everyone, myself included. I am an oldtimer who feels a little paternal about the little ones and even if you catch them on super light fly outfits it is not for someone like myself who likes to imagine that the fish has a chance of winning the battle. It is simply a matter of personal preference and personally I don't like to catch small fish in tiny waters where they end up on the bank or a rock just trying to escape the hook and line in tiny pools.

Don't get me wrong: have at it and enjoy youself, however there perhaps a few of us who prefer to stay out of the nursery areas and target larger quarry. Yeah sometimes we get a little guy, but they are not the target and we handle every fish with care.

You can argue about the fragile nature of smaller fish versas larger fish and I handle all of them with reverence and appreciate everyone of them, however these days my personal preference is to target larger fish in larger waters.

Maybe ethical is not the right word. Ethos is more like it and like Tim I prefer to target larger fish when I can. There is something about a big fish whipping up on you and sometimes winning that makes you feel that you have not stacked the odds too highly in your favor and have given them a sporting chance, but then again it is a personal preference issue.

I would like to thank Tim for bringing this subject up and while I may be alone I do appreciate and share his ethos. I would rather have a fish test my tackle and me to it limits and that is how I personally feel about sport fishing, but I don't expect anyone else to share that ethos. It may be enthnocentic opinion, but is my own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top