#256226 - 12/15/0612:17 AM
Re: The Stocking of State Record Breaking Fish
D-Roc
Member
Registered: 04/27/06
Posts: 796
Loc: Longmeadow, MA
is it really easier to catch it if its stocked big.. theres no real way to know unless you test it out... i think its still a state record no matter how big it was when it was stocked
#256227 - 12/15/0601:45 AM
Re: The Stocking of State Record Breaking Fish
Brown Bagger
Member
Registered: 11/05/04
Posts: 473
Loc: Black Rock, Bridgeport, CT
I dont know whether a fish such as (for example) a farmed 18lber would be so easy to catch but that isnt really my argument. I can say with almost comlete certainty that it would be easier to catch having never learned the ways to survive and achieve such size in a wild environment. But my main reason for being against it is that it isnt a product of nature. It would be another thing that we are trying to control in nature and thats just takes the sport out of it for me.
Has anyone ever been to Orvis Headquarters in Manchester? They have a trout pond with very large fish in it, approaching 15 lbs, maybe even larger. When you throw the pellets in they go ape Sh@t over them. That is basically what is happening at a hatchery and now imagne putting those fish in lake and tell me that they will be hard to catch. The hard part would be to locate it not catch it.
#256229 - 12/16/0605:03 PM
Re: The Stocking of State Record Breaking Fish
bunkerrman
Member
Registered: 07/31/03
Posts: 1667
Loc: Waterbury
It's even now. I believe that any trout that gains that size should be left in the hatchery ponds for folks to go and practice fishing in the off season. If caught at the hatchery, it wouldn't count as a state record, only as a trophy. Wayne
I fish fresh and salt as well as crab.Streams,rivers,ponds,lakes,bays,oceans.I buy a license so I can keep when I am going to eat it and throw back when I am not.
#256231 - 12/19/0605:45 PM
Re: The Stocking of State Record Breaking Fish
Zach S.
Member
Registered: 01/09/02
Posts: 4601
Loc: Pardeeville, WI
well - I don't feel TOO strongly either way, to be honest- I see both side of the dilemma and all - but the way it's worded - I voted yes - if a brown trout heavy enough to be the state record is caught by a legal method, should it be recognized as the record? of course...
now do I think state record-sized broodstock fish should be released for catching? I am a little more split on that one. I am excited at the chance at catching a 10+ pound brownie without having to travel to the great lakes! but I would also think there should be an asterisk next to a "broodstock record"... but then how do you tell the difference conclusively?
like I said - I'm not too passionate either way. As long as there are quality fish to be caught and a chance at a monster - I'm pretty satisfied
Fishing is way too important to take so seriously...
#256232 - 12/19/0606:32 PM
Re: The Stocking of State Record Breaking Fish
Maz
Member
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 315
Loc: Bristol, CT
So, if I go to a fishery, grab the biggest trout ever seen, then bring it to a lake and catch it, I get the state record? Seems kinda fishy... If I go up to Florida and grab a big gator and bring it up here and shoot it on my lawn, do I get the record for that too? :rolleyes:
#256233 - 12/20/0601:10 AM
Re: The Stocking of State Record Breaking Fish
Brown Bagger
Member
Registered: 11/05/04
Posts: 473
Loc: Black Rock, Bridgeport, CT
So if Joe Scrote (hope you dont mind me using your alias) finds a baby deer raises it to a record weight and rack size then releases it into a parcel of woods, "hunts" it, and shoots it should that be a new state record?
If I caught a fish that i knew was stocked at a weight greater than a standing state record i would be embarassed to take that record from someone that actually caught a fish that grew to such great size naturally.
but i hear everyones arguement but hast this always been an issue. if i have a pond out back my house and i grow trout and catch them then i could say i caught it somewhere else and take the record. i dont think the record books are such a big deal. there has always been a way to trick the system. plus how are you going to know the difference. i think the record books have always been riddled with dishonest people. i think that i will put good faith in poeple. if you caught it fair it should be a record if u want to be an @$$ and cheat the system go ahead. so i dont put as much thought into the record book as i do going out and fishing. im still looking for a good time. i dont go out fishing to put my name in the book, even though it would be cool but i go out to catch fish.
when all those people say that no it shouldnt count, what if you were out with your son or daughter and they cauught one of those fish would u want it to count or no? im sure if my son caught such a fish fairly he should get his name in there.
what im trying to get at is there has always been ways to cheat. the fact that they are putting bigger fish out and may be easier to catch isnt one of thsoe ways. so yes it should count. me personaly dont care much about the record books.
Previous Topic
Index