Martin, I agree. I'm not positive but I don't think Skip, Don or anyone else intended to condem anyone for keeping fish over 40" I think they were just suggesting the practice. In the end everyone should get to make their own decision and do so free of guilt.

Also, I know I have trouble deciding whether a fish that is still in the water is going to be over 40" or not. If the box is empty it's awfully hard to let them go. Now if I caught more regularily, maybe I would have more confidence in weeding some out. As far as the 40" rule, I don't know were that came from, but how did the state choose 18" or 28"?

Hopefully, everyone here will feel free to post and continue to encourage and helps others.

Now if we could just do something about the gay undertones...:D Not that there is anything wrong with it.

I only post fishing reports here. I will post on the other board if I feel I can help someone by answering a question or by posting about a good business (like I did with Legendary Trailer).
Let's say what happened to Don, happens here. I hope we can handle it in this manner or a similar manner. After someone posts a "inapproprate" reply, we can come back with a post about this site not turning into a BS site; and then LET THE POST DIE. Let it drop right off the first page and be done with it. No need to get out the popcorn box and have a *** for tat battle with someone just trying to be an ahole. 5th (Marty)

A state of Cum By Ya has returned to TF. Ric and I have made our apologies. Now can we get back to talking about fishing...Don

Yea, were are you fishing Wednesday? I have been working my butt off and my last trip out was 2 Sunday's ago.

I am also thinking about moving my boat from Breezy. Do you guys on the South like the area?

Hockleyneck,

I like the area a lot. When I come out of the West River I have about 13 miles to the BB or about the same to Breezy. It is all good water up into Eastern Bay and into the Tank.

My boat stays on its trailer at a marina and the marina has a ramp. I don't know if you keep your boat on a trailer or a slip but send me a PM and I can tell you about a few places there.

Convenient Conservationists
 

As a casual bystander, here's my take on this topic;
Several of you were very vocal on TF when the pre-season C&R issue was presented. A couple weeks later, the same individuals are posting pictures of dead large cows which were full of roe and would spawn in a couple of months.
It comes across as hypocritical to some. It gives the appearance that certain people only jumped on the C&R bandwagon after they thought that their particular type of pre-season fishing was in jeopardy. Practice what you preach if you don't want to be criticized and lose credibility. For example; don't tell everyone to release all 40" fish and then post a report with a 44" fish that was killed.
I believe that no one should be chastised for posting fishing reports (i.e. do what you want as long as it is legal and moral). However; keep in mind that C&R means more to some people than just some type of regulation, it is a philosophy and approach to fishing that is practiced year round.
Shoot the messenger if you want, but that's the way it looks from my perspective.
Mark

Convenient Conservationists ?

I had to look this up in the Dictionary. All I found was a refrence to the MCBA.

Hey a good chance to practice the new technique. Mark, thanks for your comments. Now let it go (let the thread die). 5th (Marty)

der Fischadler, Thanks for your comments. I always appreciate honesty so positions can be clarified. I think something may have been lost in the whole C&R debate and that is that i believe most fisherman like to be able to keep fish too. I know I do and actually enjoy hunting for the largest fish I can catch. I even enjoy fishing tournaments. To me the C&R debate was about some on the SFAC wanting to reduce or restrict fishing access without scientific justfication. Given that there are known aspects of the fishery, such as the catch and keep seasons, I believe that adjustments to when and how many fish a person keeps should come prior to access reduction/restriction over anecdotal concerns. To me it just makes sense for sound management policies and would have been a bad precedent for DNR to reduce access given the unknowns on C&R and knowns on the keep seasons.

I also believe many recreational anglers believe the practice of catch and release fishing to be a way to sustain the stock and keep access to fisherman open. By preserving the practice of catch and release it at least gives dnr the option to keep fishing open while taken tough measures should they be needed for conservation issues. Lets face it, if C&R is regulated and accepted as a bad practice for sustainability without science, then total access to fishing can be taken away when stonger measures are needed. In my mind sport and recreational fishing is about being able to fish and not how much we can keep. As stated before I dont think keeping fish is wrong when done legally. However the sport is about being able to fish regardless if we can keep 10 per person, 1 per person, or if we have to catch and release to sustain the resource. I believe a sport fishery should be managed so that people have the opportunity to catch a fish, keeping it should be secondary.

While conservation is important or should be to most fisherman, I do believe some that wanted access restricted or reduced during the C&R only season were wanting to do so only to protect Marylands trophy season. Given that there are so many knowns to this season, i do like the term convenient conservationalist to those that supported making C&R the red herring in an attempt to preserve the trophy season. I will say that their positions may have bit them in the butt as they didnt even wait for the DNR to come out with their final position on C&R before asking for an extention of the fall season. While I cannot say for sure, I am sure it helped in DNR not making access restrictions part of their final proposal on the C&R only season.


Again, There is nothing wrong with catch and keep within the law. However, if there is a conservation issue that needs to be addressed through public policy, I believe DNR has an obligation to address it through scientifically known measures and not through reducing access based on anecdotal conerns.

Thanks again for your honest post and I hope you continue to contribute here, Especially fishing reports as that is what many of us here are most ineterested in sharing. :)

I stopped posting on the main board YEARS ago. No matter what you write someone has to reply with criticism, and some are down right ignorant.

I like what I see here so far.