Catch and release?
Pnut9000
breaker?
--
Pnut9000
Clark Reid
are the ones I most want to return, ( I return all fish anyway). That's the
genes the stream needs.
Clark
"Pnut9000" <Pnut...@spamsucks.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jELu7.27704$Pr1.7...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
TBone
news:PGLu7.756$jc1....@news.xtra.co.nz...
> No, Never! In fact even in Non Catch and release streams the biggest fish
> are the ones I most want to return, ( I return all fish anyway). That's
the
> genes the stream needs.
This is a manifestation of the notion that animals cull the weak in nature
and is countered by facts such that the ELk populations are healthier than
ever even though hunters cull the best species year after year.
I simply do not buy this as it applies to fisheries management at all.
The amount of standard deviation of the size of all of the year class of
fish will probably be very small. Any difference will more likely be
attributable to environmental conditions than genetics. A fish that has
grown that large is more likely the statistical anomoly and flat luck than
the 'better of the gene selections'. It may also be that the fish is a poor
fighter in Catch and Release waters or is difficult to catch, neither of
which are, by definition desirable genetic attributes.
Besides, how would you know, if you killed a smaller fish, that you haven't
killed the next King of All Fishes, or that the very large fish is actually
slightly smaller than it's sister would have been is she'd had the same
environmental 'breaks' throughout its life. You're reading a lot in to the
size of that fish that simply might not be true.
All that aside, it is well documented that, at a certain size and age, a
fish needs to consume more energy to maintain that size and, eventually, is
not returning the increased biomass to the system for the energy it has
consumed from that system. Negative growth rates is not a desirable
attribute of a healthy fishery. Also, a very large fish might begin to
consume fry to maintain its size, and can consume a huge number of a given
year class.
It is my opinion that we should try to optimize the biomass over creating a
situation where a few larger individuals exist. The river is simply a
garden. A radish farmer culls the very small and the very large.
It is for these reasons precisely that slot limits are maintained, where the
slot represents the maximum return to the system. It is also for these
reasons that a 'trophy fish' regulation might be in affect as a component of
maintaining a healthy viable fishery as well as giving the fisherman the
shot at keeping a very large fish.
Clark Reid
Clark
"TBone" <twa...@aspenres.com> wrote in message
news:trn3na4...@corp.supernews.com...
Chip Bartholomay
>This is a manifestation of the notion that animals cull the weak in nature
>and is countered by facts such that the ELk populations are healthier than
>ever even though hunters cull the best species year after year.
Hmmm....so wolves take the most healthy caribou and elk? Humans are they only
animals that preferentially cull the most healthy (i.e., the "best")
individuals. Of course, since humans do this and have eliminated other major
predators, humans now find it necessary to actively manage the prey populations
>The amount of standard deviation of the size of all of the year class of
>fish will probably be very small. Any difference will more likely be
>attributable to environmental conditions than genetics.
Huh? The standard deviation in size within a year-class is likely to be small.
The SD in size the entire population (all year-classes) is likely to be much
larger.
> A fish that has grown that large is more likely the statistical anomoly and
flat luck than
>the 'better of the gene selections'.
Or perhaps it is an older fish.
>It may also be that the fish is a poor
>fighter in Catch and Release waters or is difficult to catch, neither of
>which are, by definition desirable genetic attributes.
Perhaps not desirable to humans. Certainly desirable traits (if genetic) for
survival of the species, especially in the face of predation by humans.
>All that aside, it is well documented that, at a certain size and age, a
>fish needs to consume more energy to maintain that size and, eventually, is
>not returning the increased biomass to the system for the energy it has
>consumed from that system. Negative growth rates is not a desirable
>attribute of a healthy fishery.
Good heavens....I wonder how fish populations survived before man arrived to
manage them?
> Also, a very large fish might begin to
>consume fry to maintain its size, and can consume a huge number of a given
>year class.
Yep. Trout are predators. Have been for millenia. Their prey includes
smaller versions of themselves. Yet those populations survived (and thrived)
before humans arrived on the scene.
>It is my opinion that we should try to optimize the biomass over creating a
>situation where a few larger individuals exist. The river is simply a
>garden. A radish farmer culls the very small and the very large.
Or perhaps we could try "managing" systems to be as natural as possible. A
healthy self-sustaining population would most likely meet your consumption
needs as well as a heavily managed one would. Perhaps more so as it likely
would be less susceptible to even minor perturbations in the ecosystem.
Chip Bartholomay
>Is it OK to keep a fish from a catch and release stream if it is a record
>breaker?
>
Not if the regs require all fish to be released.
Charlie Choc
>Is it OK to keep a fish from a catch and release stream if it is a record
>breaker?
It would be illegal (and unethical <g>).
--
Charlie...
Peter Charles
wrote:
>Fair enough!
>
>Clark
>
There's already a well established precedent to illustrate Tim's
contention. Though one can't draw too strong a parallel between
vastly different species, the concept should hold. I've asked MNR
biologists about this and they couldn't give me clear answers.
I've mentioned before here, that the Cree in Northern Ontario and
Quebec for hundreds of years, had a moose management system that had
them often take the best animals, sometimes mothers with calves, yet
their herds remained vibrant. Problems started to happen with
scientific management studies that didn't pay any attention to Cree
history. Cows tend to have healthy twins when young and only single
calves when older, plus the older, dominant cows can out-compete
younger ones. When the hunters killed the large cows and bulls in
their prime, they were helping to keep the herds young, prolific, and
healthy.
I presented this scenario to some biologists (one through ROFF) asking
essentially the same thing about large salmonids. The distribution of
fish by age class in a given population should be a downward curve.
If that curve is distorted (e.g. too many large fish due to selective
stocking, too few large fish because of fishing pressure, etc.) then
the population could suffer. I didn't get a definite answer on the
question, "Does an overabundance of large fish result in an overall
decline in the population?" There's an obvious trade-off between the
huge egg-laying capacity of a big hen and her rapacious appetite. On
which side does the preponderance lie - I don't know. My instincts
suggest that the largest of fish are probably consuming more than they
are contributing. I'd be interested to see if any studies have ever
been done in this area.
The bottom line - the issue is far too complex for simple answers.
Peter
Visit The Streamer Page at http://members.home.net/pcharles/streamers/index.html
rw
>
> I simply do not buy this as it applies to fisheries management at all.
So are you saying that it's OK to keep trophy fish in C&R waters? :-)
I released that huge rainbow I caught at the Yellowstone Clave. I could
have kept it because, as a rainbow, it wasn't indigenous (or native, or
whatever you want to call it). I'd have been required to release a
whitefish, which will probably gladden your heart.
I think it would have been obscene to keep that fantastically beautiful
and healthy fish. What would have been the point? I certainly didn't
need the meat, and the last thing I want is some lame pseudo-replica
trout mount on my cabin wall.
--
visit my web site: http://home.earthlink.net/~royalwulff/
TBone
news:3BBBB521...@earthlink.net...
> I think it would have been obscene to keep that fantastically beautiful
> and healthy fish. What would have been the point?
> I certainly didn't need the meat, and the last thing I want is some lame
pseudo-replica
> trout mount on my cabin wall.
Perhaps it's vital to a spiritual balance. Perhaps you needed to eat that
fish for reasons you may never understand. Perhaps if you watched a video of
the struggle of small fish to survive, the overwhelming odds against them
followed by a video of old mother hen rainbow vacuuming them in by the dozen
you'd think differently. What better way to consummate a successful meeting
of hunters than to celebrate by eating some of the catch. This would
transcend even tradition. This would have eons of historical precedent.
TBone
Warren Findley
"Pnut9000" <Pnut...@spamsucks.hotmail.com> wrote
> Is it OK to keep a fish from a catch and release stream if it is a
record
> breaker?
It would be illegal and hopefully someone would turn you in.
--
Warren Findley
(remove spam blocker to reply via email)
www.geocities.com/troutbum_mt
George Cleveland
regulations is that you must immediately contact the nearest game
warden and inform him of your catch. Then you are required to
accompany him to the exact spot you took the fish from and pose for a
picture for the state tourism department. They will also allow you to
be photographed (at only modest expense) at the nearest law
enforcement facility.
Hope this helps,
G(rizzilla). Cleveland
rw
That is total, utter bullshit. I got far more satisfaction from letting
that magnificent fish go, still strong and healthy, than I ever could
have gotten from eating it or mounting (!) it.
If I'd eaten its flesh it would have been mere protein, fats, and
carbohydrates -- no better or worse than the hamburger I can buy at the store.
Maybe you think I'm missing some inner spirituality that prevents me
from appreciating the mystical properties of eating the fish I kill.
Baloney. I eat lots of fish that I kill. They're just meals. That fish
was something more, and I hope that someone else has the good luck to
catch it again.
William Loehman/Susan Schwarz
If you're a real person and are asking a serious question, I apologize.
Tim,
We haven't had a C&R post here in quite some time. You come back and
begin discussing the Whitefish Roundup and low and behold we have a C&R
question from a Mr. Pnut9000.
Coincidence?
Willi
gol...@frii.com
Chip Bartholomay
>Perhaps if you watched a video of
>the struggle of small fish to survive, the overwhelming odds against them
>followed by a video of old mother hen rainbow vacuuming them in by the dozen
>you'd think differently.
How anthropomorphic of you.
Gee....lets save all of those poor, stuggling little fishies by killing what
they may become (environment willing) in a few years.
Of course, the fish that you seem to want to keep in the river (call them
"middle-aged fish") also eat fry. I guess its OK by you for them to do so.
William Loehman/Susan Schwarz
Peter Charles wrote:
> The bottom line - the issue is far too complex for simple answers.
I've given this issue quite a bit of thought over the years and I think
you're right. Regulations, in order to be really effective, need to be
done on a case by case basis. Angling pressure, fertility, adequate
spawning grounds, water levels and quality etc. etc. etc. are all
factors that contribute to the number and size of fish that can be taken
from a stream.
Willi
gol...@frii.com
TBone
> That is total, utter bullshit.
Like so much in life my friend.
TBone
TBone
news:3BBBB655...@frii.com...
> Tim,
> We haven't had a C&R post here in quite some time. You come back and
> begin discussing the Whitefish Roundup and low and behold we have a C&R
> question from a Mr. Pnut9000.
> Coincidence?
Can't say...but heck...I didn't start it...I won't finish it.
Besides that particular post had the particular duality of being C&R plus
Trophy...mighty big teaser.
Your pal,
--
TBone
TBone
news:20011003211523...@mb-mr.aol.com...
> TBone wrote:
>
> >Perhaps if you watched a video of
> >the struggle of small fish to survive, the overwhelming odds against them
> >followed by a video of old mother hen rainbow vacuuming them in by the
dozen
> >you'd think differently.
> How anthropomorphic of you.
No...actually of you. My vision did not include the smily faces on the
wiped out biota but, apparently, yours did...Chip.
> Gee....lets save all of those poor, stuggling little fishies by killing
what
> they may become (environment willing) in a few years.
Gee... let's ignore natality and mortality by predation in the formula.
That the odds are stacked up against a small fish, or a small sea turtle, or
mayfly...will evoke tend to invoke some anthropomorphism, eh Chip ? What was
it the greeks said about the mayfly ?
--
TBone
TBone
> Regulations, in order to be really effective, need to be
> done on a case by case basis. Angling pressure, fertility, adequate
> spawning grounds, water levels and quality etc. etc. etc. are all
> factors that contribute to the number and size of fish that can be taken
> from a stream.
Apparently they're listening to you too Willi.
The 2001 Colorado Angling Regulations pamphlet is larger than ever but the
old, cool sections having the species of game fish pictures and descriptions
and the state records listing are missing...there's no dirth of special
regulations, however, and it's fairly small print.
Your pal,
TBone
Charlie Choc
> They will also allow you to
>be photographed (at only modest expense) at the nearest law
>enforcement facility.
>
>Hope this helps,
Very nice! <g>
--
Charlie...
Wolfgang Siebeneich
TBone wrote:
>
>
...will evoke tend to invoke some anthropomorphism, eh Chip ?
Whadhe say? Whade say? DAMN I wish I could read Greek! :(
Wolfgang
guilt debased the meal
Chip Bartholomay
>> >Perhaps if you watched a video of
>> >the struggle of small fish to survive, the overwhelming odds against them
>> >followed by a video of old mother hen rainbow vacuuming them in by the
>dozen
>> >you'd think differently.
>> How anthropomorphic of you.
>
>No...actually of you. My vision did not include the smily faces on the
>wiped out biota but, apparently, yours did...Chip.
Smiley faces? Didn't see any of those. Which wiped out biota are you
referring to? The ones that have been eaten or the ones that you propose to
wipe out because they are doing the eating?
>Gee... let's ignore natality and mortality by predation in the formula.
>
As you are apparently wanting to do by advocating removal of large fish from
the system.
>That the odds are stacked up against a small fish, or a small sea turtle, or
>mayfly...will evoke tend to invoke some anthropomorphism, eh Chip ?
Certainly not in me. Big trout eat little trout, among other things. They are
predators, after all. Why should that invoke anthropomorphism?
RalphH
one of the best reason to protect larger trout is that they are normally
more fecund (often many times more) then the average sized fish. A large female
(4 or 5 lbs) may produce 3,000 to 4,000 eggs versus 500 or 600 for a typical 12
or 14 incher.
predatory impacts may be a factor but compared to all other predators on trout
would be relatively minor. Such discussions get close to talk about culling
osprey, king fishers and otters something I find abhorent so I don't like the
logic as it applied to large trout.
--
RalphH
Scott
"Warren Findley" <troutbum...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9pgc9e$i720f$1...@ID-80575.news.dfncis.de...
|
| "Pnut9000" <Pnut...@spamsucks.hotmail.com> wrote
| > Is it OK to keep a fish from a catch and release stream if it is a
| record
| > breaker?
|
| It would be illegal and hopefully someone would turn you in.
I believe that to receive credit for record, the catch must be
completely legal. Take a photo, fits in the pocket better, can be
displayed multiple places.
A artificial mount can be made from the photo, length & girth
measurements.
Scott
George Cleveland
<gol...@frii.com> wrote:
>Pnut9000,
>
>If you're a real person and are asking a serious question, I apologize.
>
>
>
>Willi
>gol...@frii.com
I seriously doubt that Mr. Nut is a serious fellow. Check out his "Who
Would Win" thread in todays rec.backcountry.
G.Cleveland
Warren Findley
"rw" <royal...@earthlink.net> wrote
> That is total, utter bullshit. I got far more satisfaction from
letting
> that magnificent fish go, still strong and healthy, than I ever
could
> have gotten from eating it or mounting (!) it.
That fish
> was something more, and I hope that someone else has the good luck
to
> catch it again.
Amen! Preach on Brother RW!
Warren Findley
"TBone" <twa...@aspenres.com> wrote
> "rw" <royal...@earthlink.net> wrote
> > That is total, utter bullshit.
>
> Like so much in life my friend.
Yeah, we get a lot of that when you are around TBone <g>
Handyman03333
Pa catch and release reg.
No trout may be killed or had in possession. pg 27 2001 fishing regs
TBone
"Handyman03333" <handym...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011003231610...@mb-mw.aol.com...
for that period that it's in the net you're poaching...
TBone
TBone
"RalphH" <"heidecke_\"spam blocker\""@direct.ca> wrote in message
news:3BBBCF71...@direct.ca...
> one of the best reason to protect larger trout is that they are normally
> more fecund (often many times more) then the average sized fish.
You've been waiting a long, long time to say 'fecund', haven't ya Ralph...
TBone...
Warren Findley
normally
> more fecund (often many times more) then the average sized fish. A
large female
> (4 or 5 lbs) may produce 3,000 to 4,000 eggs versus 500 or 600 for a
typical 12
> or 14 incher.
Not only that, but according to the fisheries biologist I talked to,
those large fish are also more successful spawners.
rw
Especially when you come creeping around with your mystical crappola.
"Spiritual balance", my ass.
Charlie Choc
>for that period that it's in the net you're poaching...
>
Ho fucking hum. <g>
--
Charlie...
daytripper
>TBone wrote:
>>
>> "rw" <royal...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:3BBBB521...@earthlink.net...
>> > I think it would have been obscene to keep that fantastically beautiful
>> > and healthy fish. What would have been the point?
>> > I certainly didn't need the meat, and the last thing I want is some lame
>> pseudo-replica
>> > trout mount on my cabin wall.
>>
>> Perhaps it's vital to a spiritual balance. Perhaps you needed to eat that
>> fish for reasons you may never understand. Perhaps if you watched a video of
>> the struggle of small fish to survive, the overwhelming odds against them
>> followed by a video of old mother hen rainbow vacuuming them in by the dozen
>> you'd think differently. What better way to consummate a successful meeting
>> of hunters than to celebrate by eating some of the catch. This would
>> transcend even tradition. This would have eons of historical precedent.
>
>That is total, utter bullshit.
Yes. Yes, it is.
/daytripper (How does Tim square his desire to do the B.A.S.S. thang? ;-)
daytripper
>
>We haven't had a C&R post here in quite some time. You come back and
>begin discussing the Whitefish Roundup and low and behold we have a C&R
>question from a Mr. Pnut9000.
>
>Coincidence?
>
>Willi
Gee, ya think?
/daytripper (Where's Mulder 'n' Sculley when we need 'em? ;-)
Warren Findley
"TBone" <twa...@aspenres.com> wrote
> for that period that it's in the net you're poaching...
The way you view legal issues, that shouldn't matter at all "Mr.
Poachit." <g>
Warren Findley
"Charlie Choc" <hugh_ja...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Ho fucking hum. <g>
Dammit Charlie! You aren't supposed to agree with me and I'm not
supposed to agree with you! Cut it out dammit!
;-)
Charlie Choc
>On Thu, 04 Oct 2001 01:03:51 GMT, rw <royal...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
[snip]
>>That is total, utter bullshit.
>
>Yes. Yes, it is.
>
>/daytripper (How does Tim square his desire to do the B.A.S.S. thang? ;-)
I think all Tim wants is for everyone to be as fucked up about sport
fishing as he is.
--
Charlie...
Warren Findley
"daytripper" <day_t...@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote
> Gee, ya think?
>
> /daytripper (Where's Mulder 'n' Sculley when we need 'em? ;-)
Well, I did my part and investigated the allegations. I have a
theory, but I need Sculley errr I mean Charlie to analyze the results
and give the scientific explanation. :-)~
The headers don't match, but I have this theory that TBone uses two
computers for his split personality. One half of him wants to play
B.A.S.S. boy, the other half wants to play PETA boy and they both
cannot occupy the same seat and computer. <g>
rw
>
> The headers don't match, but I have this theory that TBone uses two
> computers for his split personality. One half of him wants to play
> B.A.S.S. boy, the other half wants to play PETA boy and they both
> cannot occupy the same seat and computer. <g>
Right. It's the Findley Exclusion Principle. Two personalities with
different spins cannot occupy the same state.
Charlie Choc
>Right. It's the Findley Exclusion Principle. Two personalities with
>different spins cannot occupy the same state.
Tbone is a boson so it doesn't apply to him. <g>
--
Charlie...
rw
>
> Tbone is a boson so it doesn't apply to him. <g>
We're all bosons on this bus.
Charlie Choc
>Charlie Choc wrote:
>>
>> Tbone is a boson so it doesn't apply to him. <g>
>
>We're all bosons on this bus.
Which is good, we can sit anywhere we want. Imagine trying to arrange
the seating with fermions. <g>
--
Charlie...
daytripper
>Charlie Choc wrote:
>>
>> Tbone is a boson so it doesn't apply to him. <g>
>
>We're all bosons on this bus.
Excellent!
/daytripper (waiting for the electrician...)
Warren Findley
"TBone" <twa...@aspenres.com> wrote
> Besides that particular post had the particular duality of being C&R
plus
> Trophy...mighty big teaser.
Yeah, I noticed how you didn't even address the legality issue.
Warren Findley
"Wolfgang Siebeneich" <wolf...@mcw.edu> wrote
> Whadhe say? Whade say? DAMN I wish I could read Greek! :(
Well, you may not know Greek....
> guilt debased the meal
but you still have the wisdom! <g>
Warren Findley
"Charlie Choc" <hugh_ja...@yahoo.com> wrote
> I think all Tim wants is for everyone to be as fucked up about sport
> fishing as he is.
Oh yeah, it is always someone else's fault eh Charlie. . . Wait a
sec, we are on the same side....sorry, was just a tad confused because
I am "DUMB"! Tell me, are you now dumb too or did I get smart again?
Quick, give me some of what Tripper's smokin! <g>
Charlie Choc
>Oh yeah, it is always someone else's fault eh Charlie. . .
Didn't say it was his fault, just his intent. Not sure there's enough
content there to even *have* sides, though. <g>
--
Charlie...
Warren Findley
"Charlie Choc" <hugh_ja...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > Didn't say it was his fault, just his intent. Not sure there's
enough
> content there to even *have* sides, though. <g>
Dopf! Got me again, but dammit I will find something to disagree
with! <bseg>
Warren Findley
"daytripper" <day_t...@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote
> >We're all bosons on this bus.
>
> Excellent!
>
> /daytripper (waiting for the electrician...)
You mean the Navy! Bosuns are with the Navy! (that should take a bit
to figure out unless LaCourse steps up and explains;)
Charlie Choc
>/daytripper (waiting for the electrician...)
Or someone like him...
--
Charlie...
Opus McDopus
Op
"daytripper" <day_t...@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:89onrtcc8q1hkv210...@4ax.com...
Charlie Choc
>Dopf! Got me again, but dammit I will find something to disagree
>with! <bseg>
You may be right, but now isn't a good time to discuss it.
--
Charlie...
Warren Findley
"Charlie Choc" <hugh_ja...@yahoo.com> wrote
> You may be right, but now isn't a good time to discuss it.
Asshole! You are trying to restrict my fre.....okay you got me again!
Wolfgang
> Warren Findley wrote:
> >
> > The headers don't match, but I have this theory that TBone uses two
> > computers for his split personality. One half of him wants to play
> > B.A.S.S. boy, the other half wants to play PETA boy and they both
> > cannot occupy the same seat and computer. <g>
>
> Right. It's the Findley Exclusion Principle. Two personalities with
> different spins cannot occupy the same state.
Occam's razor. We don't need to know anything about spin. Two
personalities of that girth cannot occupy the same state.
Wolfgang
well, alaska maybe
Wolfgang
"Warren Findley" <troutbum...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9ph682$i98v9$1...@ID-80575.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "daytripper" <day_t...@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote
> > >We're all bosons on this bus.
> >
> > Excellent!
> >
> > /daytripper (waiting for the electrician...)
>
> You mean the Navy! Bosuns are with the Navy! (that should take a bit
> to figure out unless LaCourse steps up and explains;)
Well, Coast Guard in this particular instance.
Wolfgang
semper paratus
daytripper
wrote:
>
>"Charlie Choc" <hugh_ja...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> You may be right, but now isn't a good time to discuss it.
>
>Asshole! You are trying to restrict my fre.....okay you got me again!
Why don't you two get a room?
Pnut9000
current record will it be the new record, or will it not count?
--
Pnut9000
Charlie Choc
>Why don't you two get a room?
Good post. Many agree.
--
Charlie...
Don Thompson
news:MG3v7.30415$Pr1.8...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
> If a fish is caught in a catch and release stream that is larger that the
> current record will it be the new record, or will it not count?
>
wild bear even crap? How do you know?
--
Don Thompson
Another Thompson Scion
> --
> Pnut9000
>
>
>
George Adams
>If a fish is caught in a catch and release stream that is larger that the
>current record will it be the new record, or will it not count?
Never seen a fish that could count worth a damn yet, but with them in schools
and all, I guess you never know.
George Adams
"From the rockin' of the cradle to the rollin' of the hearse, the goin' up was
worth the comin' down."
___Kris Kristofferson "The Pilgrim/Chapter 33"
Drew
> This is a manifestation of the notion that animals cull the weak in nature
So, if wolves attack the weakest of the herd and make it stronger does
that mean that the brain cells of mine that alcohol kills makes me
smarter?
Cool!
Cheers!
Drew
Drew
The only records I care about are mine and I measure them against my arm.
Drew
rdean3...@flash.net
<p_s_c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 4 Oct 2001 10:33:28 +1200, "Clark Reid" <clar...@xtra.co.nz>
>wrote:
>
>>Fair enough!
>>
>>Clark
>>
>
>There's already a well established precedent to illustrate Tim's
>contention. Though one can't draw too strong a parallel between
>vastly different species, the concept should hold. I've asked MNR
>biologists about this and they couldn't give me clear answers.
Well, you're confusing three scenarios:
1. "Natural" management, in which man plays no managements role - for
an example, I'd offer Antarctica
2. Man manages, but "manages" by theory, in such a way to please man
with infinite demand - for an example, I'd use all the fisheries
management mentioned as of late on ROFF in which it's done to provide
enough fish for which man can attempt to catch. While the health of
species comes into play, it's really only a primary concern as to
numbers available because man would catch all there were without
management.
3. Man "manages," through some combination of planning through
observation and lesser de-population activity (finite demand) - your
Cree example. They weren't interested in "sport," etc., and even if
they were actively "managing" through selective harvest, they still
only de-populated as predators: only as much as they _required_ to
survive. There was little or no de-population due to "sport," and the
burden on the population was able to naturally balance, as it would
with any other predator.
For example, we don't "hunt" our cattle for sport, we only
"de-populate" in such carefully-controlled fashion as to continue with
a viable herd to supply future production. Granted, this is a
somewhat different situation than fish (or elk) which are "wild"
(meaning they aren't the directly managed property of one entity as
are out cattle), but the overall principles are the same. IMO, the
reasons "public wildlife management" tends toward failure is because
the managers are only able to control a portion of the situation, with
the majority being out of the control of the manager.
Back to the cattle example, generally, beef cattle ranchers don't
allow buyers to come pick cattle to buy, we take what we determine
should be sold to market, and any attempts to, um, "poach"...well, you
can imagine. The example, 2, above, is why I also tend to favor
privatization of land and water where conservancy is crucial. It is
also why those who are not the owners tend to oppose it - they wish to
have access to fish, game, whatever because _they_ want sport from the
fish, game, etc., not because they have a true concern that the
private landowner is somehow abusing the fish or game - i.e., the
argument is that "it's not fair," meaning it's not fair _for them_.
>
>I've mentioned before here, that the Cree in Northern Ontario and
>Quebec for hundreds of years, had a moose management system that had
>them often take the best animals, sometimes mothers with calves, yet
>their herds remained vibrant. Problems started to happen with
>scientific management studies that didn't pay any attention to Cree
>history. Cows tend to have healthy twins when young and only single
>calves when older, plus the older, dominant cows can out-compete
>younger ones. When the hunters killed the large cows and bulls in
>their prime, they were helping to keep the herds young, prolific, and
>healthy.
>
>I presented this scenario to some biologists (one through ROFF) asking
>essentially the same thing about large salmonids. The distribution of
>fish by age class in a given population should be a downward curve.
>If that curve is distorted (e.g. too many large fish due to selective
>stocking, too few large fish because of fishing pressure, etc.) then
>the population could suffer. I didn't get a definite answer on the
>question, "Does an overabundance of large fish result in an overall
>decline in the population?" There's an obvious trade-off between the
>huge egg-laying capacity of a big hen and her rapacious appetite. On
>which side does the preponderance lie - I don't know. My instincts
>suggest that the largest of fish are probably consuming more than they
>are contributing. I'd be interested to see if any studies have ever
>been done in this area.
To use the cattle example, there is certainly a point in which food
consumption (cattle, like any "commodity" management/husbandry
process, is an amount of weight produced versus cost of producing that
weight venture) becomes greater than the capacity of the rancher to
recover the costs of that food (even if the animal is grazed only),
which is why the only older cattle being sold is old breed stock.
>The bottom line - the issue is far too complex for simple answers.
If you're gonna have so much public access (uncontrolled variable),
it's pretty much an impossible issue, but even getting to "adequate"
is a major undertaking.
TC,
R
Clark Reid
hear him... is he still wrong?
Clark
"Don Thompson" <flas...@ix.netcom.comghost> wrote in message
news:9pihda$opu$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
Don Thompson
--
Don Thompson
Another Thompson Scion
"Clark Reid" <clar...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:O05v7.1206$jc1.1...@news.xtra.co.nz...
Clark Reid
Clark
"Don Thompson" <flas...@ix.netcom.comghost> wrote in message
news:9pin77$7fm$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
Don Thompson
--
Don Thompson
Another Thompson Scion
"Clark Reid" <clar...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:VK5v7.1225$jc1.1...@news.xtra.co.nz...
Clark Reid
bring up the old equation.. behind every good guide is a wife with a job in
town.
Clark
"Don Thompson" <flas...@ix.netcom.comghost> wrote in message
news:9pipcc$8kc$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
Peter Charles
[snip].
>
>>The bottom line - the issue is far too complex for simple answers.
>
>If you're gonna have so much public access (uncontrolled variable),
>it's pretty much an impossible issue, but even getting to "adequate"
>is a major undertaking.
>
>TC,
>R
Richard, you've dragged enough red herrings through this argument to
produce a manageable resource. <G> I don't think you can equate this
issue to either cattle ranching or private ownership. Even stockers
become wild fish (down Tim, I'm using the term loosely) after they
have survived for a while. Cattle are completely managed from birth
to death, fish aren't despite our "management" programs. And private
ownership of a nation's natural resources smacks of the "King's Deer."
You're trying to work in the "Tragedy of the Commons" scenario where
it doesn't apply. Our fisheries aren't a free-for-all.
Each waterway and each fish population is unique in some way -
ideology doesn't provide an answer to that riddle.
Peter
Visit The Streamer Page at http://members.home.net/pcharles/streamers/index.html
pete dondlinger
rdean3...@flash.net wrote:
> .....If you're gonna have so much public access (uncontrolled variable),
> it's pretty much an impossible issue, but even getting to "adequate"
> is a major undertaking.
Hm.....there ARE places with virtually unlimited public access to fishing.
It's worked well enough here in Wisconsin for the last century and a half
that millions of people still come here every year for the
fishing......even if the fish DO eat shit.
Wolfgang
you should see what our dogs eat!
rdean3...@flash.net
wrote:
Well, shit-eating aside, that is why I wrote "...why I also tend to
favor privatization of land and water where conservancy is crucial."
If the population of whatever resource, fish or other game, it not in
a "conserve it or lose it" situation, then "management variance" is
not as critical, and public or private ownership is not material to
it.
TC,
R
Clark Reid
were getting away from English feudal system.
Buy a $75 annual license (Covers virtually the entire country for a year)
and fish where you want. Most streams have access guaranteed in law
regardless of ownership.
We also have some of the best quality angling in the world, management is in
place and it's not a problem.
Clark
"pete dondlinger" <pd...@execpc.com> wrote in message
news:3bbcfa4d$0$10963$272e...@news.execpc.com...
William Loehman/Susan Schwarz
rdean3...@flash.net wrote:
>
> Well, shit-eating aside, that is why I wrote "...why I also tend to
> favor privatization of land and water where conservancy is crucial."
> If the population of whatever resource, fish or other game, it not in
> a "conserve it or lose it" situation, then "management variance" is
> not as critical, and public or private ownership is not material to
> it.
Please explain how either privatization or private ownership of our
public lands is preferable.
Willi
gol...@frii.com
rdean3...@flash.net
<p_s_c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Oct 2001 22:02:04 GMT, rdean3...@flash.net wrote:
>[snip].
>>
>>>The bottom line - the issue is far too complex for simple answers.
>>
>>If you're gonna have so much public access (uncontrolled variable),
>>it's pretty much an impossible issue, but even getting to "adequate"
>>is a major undertaking.
>
>Richard, you've dragged enough red herrings through this argument to
>produce a manageable resource. <G>
Surprisingly, not my intent....well, OK, not my ENTIRE intent <G>.
>I don't think you can equate this issue to either cattle ranching or private ownership.
Well, I think I can, and as it's my opinion, HEY!...whatya know, I
can! <G> Seriously, note the (snipped) portion, "....why I also tend
to favor privatization of land and water where conservancy is
crucial." I don't think private ownership is an all-encompassing
answer, simply a better answer than public ownership when resources
are dangerously limited.
>Even stockers become wild fish (down Tim, I'm using the term loosely) after they
>have survived for a while. Cattle are completely managed from birth
>to death,
Actually, no, they're not, or more accurately, not in all situations.
Moreover, if you have 25K-plus acres and hundreds or thousands of
cattle, the term "management" becomes relative.
>fish aren't despite our "management" programs.
I disagree, at least insofar as "fish" meaning all fish everywhere.
And moreover, you can't buy a license to attempt to catch most cattle
- there is no "public access" to cattle in the US.
>And private ownership of a nation's natural resources smacks of the "King's Deer."
>You're trying to work in the "Tragedy of the Commons" scenario where
>it doesn't apply. Our fisheries aren't a free-for-all.
No, not at all. I'm simply saying that the tighter the control, the
greater the likelihood of a management program working, the less
chance for the abuse of a resource - a private owner has a vested
interest, whereas there is no guarantee "the public" at large has any
interest other than their own, whatever it may be. I in no way
advocate totally private ownership in the sense of the "King's deer,"
where one person owns all the game in the country, simply the limited
ownership of certain areas where resources are in danger by practices
of "Socialist Deer." <G>
>Each waterway and each fish population is unique in some way -
>ideology doesn't provide an answer to that riddle.
See above (or talk to Snedecker...<G>)
TC,
R
rdean3...@flash.net
wrote:
>New Zealand has virtually unrestricted access. The pioneers deliberately
>were getting away from English feudal system.
>
>Buy a $75 annual license (Covers virtually the entire country for a year)
>and fish where you want. Most streams have access guaranteed in law
>regardless of ownership.
>
>We also have some of the best quality angling in the world, management is in
>place and it's not a problem.
>
>Clark
And Sweden, for a great number of years, seemed to make socialism
work. Of course, they did it by not being completely socialist. My
point being that what may work in place is not proof that it will work
anywhere.
TC,
R
rdean3...@flash.net
I will, but indulge me (and I don't mean this sarcastically, it's
actually part of the explanation) - explain why it isn't.
TC,
R
>
>Willi
>gol...@frii.com
William Loehman/Susan Schwarz
rdean3...@flash.net wrote:
> >rdean3...@flash.net wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> Well, shit-eating aside, that is why I wrote "...why I also tend to
> >> favor privatization of land and water where conservancy is crucial."
> >> If the population of whatever resource, fish or other game, it not in
> >> a "conserve it or lose it" situation, then "management variance" is
> >> not as critical, and public or private ownership is not material to
> >> it.
> >
> >Please explain how either privatization or private ownership of our
> >public lands is preferable.
>
> I will, but indulge me (and I don't mean this sarcastically, it's
> actually part of the explanation) - explain why it isn't.
No, I want you to present your position, not me present mine.
Willi
gol...@frii.com
rdean3...@flash.net
OK, then, my position is that it is my opinion, and I have reasons
that I feel support my opinion, as I'm sure do you for whatever yours
may be. You asked me to explain my position, I offered to do so, and
politely asked, as part of that explanation, for your reasons as to
why you thought it wasn't. My way of explaining apparently isn't
satisfactory, so let's just agree to disagree, if we do, in fact,
disagree.
TC,
R
>
>Willi
>gol...@frii.com
Peter Charles
<gol...@frii.com> wrote:
>
>> >
>> >Please explain how either privatization or private ownership of our
>> >public lands is preferable.
>>
>> I will, but indulge me (and I don't mean this sarcastically, it's
>> actually part of the explanation) - explain why it isn't.
>
>
>No, I want you to present your position, not me present mine.
>
>Willi
>gol...@frii.com
Ah, the in-built tension of the liberal-democratic society once again
surfaces in ROFF - reconciling property rights with the common good.
Hint: Property rights has never assured conservation, rather it is
usually associated with exploitation (can we say "clear-cut"?) For
every "Tragedy of the Commons" there has been more than ample examples
of the "Tragedy of the Privately Owned." I'll say it again - ideology
provides no answers to this conundrums. Rather the answers are likely
to be found in competency and commitment. If the agency, be it
private or public, has both a commitment to conservation and the
competency to carry it out, then good things tend to happen.
Rusty Hook
> > > I think it would have been obscene to keep that fantastically
beautiful
> > > and healthy fish. What would have been the point?
> > > I certainly didn't need the meat, and the last thing I want is some
lame
> > pseudo-replica
> > > trout mount on my cabin wall.
TBone wrote:
> > Perhaps it's vital to a spiritual balance. Perhaps you needed to eat
that
> > fish for reasons you may never understand. Perhaps if you watched a
video of
> > the struggle of small fish to survive, the overwhelming odds against
them
> > followed by a video of old mother hen rainbow vacuuming them in by the
dozen
> > you'd think differently. What better way to consummate a successful
meeting
> > of hunters than to celebrate by eating some of the catch. This would
> > transcend even tradition. This would have eons of historical precedent.
rw wrote:
> ...
> Maybe you think I'm missing some inner spirituality that prevents me
> from appreciating the mystical properties of eating the fish I kill.
> Baloney. I eat lots of fish that I kill. They're just meals. That fish
> was something more, and I hope that someone else has the good luck to
> catch it again.
I saw the photo in camp. It was more than one person could eat!
Seriously, though, rw did something that hunters and anglers around the
world have been doing for a long time. He didn't feel like keeping it, so he
let it go. I eat a lot of fish, too, but I let others go, and still others
might not even be cast to. It's not that uncommon for hunters to have a nice
animal in their sights, only to just watch it walk away. I'm sure that this
tradition is as old as hunting.
FWIW, seeing the photo and hearing the story in camp made for at least as
good a celebration of the hunt as grilled fish steaks would have been.
Besides, I'd had a rather large portion of brookies the night before, and
most (all?) of us were looking forward to another helping of venison that
night. (thanks Warren)
It was a hard life in trout camp ;^)
--
Rusty Hook
Laramie, Wyoming
c...@eightysixthis.uwyo.edu
rdean3...@flash.net
<p_s_c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Oct 2001 19:00:08 -0600, William Loehman/Susan Schwarz
><gol...@frii.com> wrote:
>
>>
>
>>> >
>>> >Please explain how either privatization or private ownership of our
>>> >public lands is preferable.
>>>
>>> I will, but indulge me (and I don't mean this sarcastically, it's
>>> actually part of the explanation) - explain why it isn't.
>>
>>
>>No, I want you to present your position, not me present mine.
>>
>>Willi
>>gol...@frii.com
>
>
>Ah, the in-built tension of the liberal-democratic society once again
>surfaces in ROFF - reconciling property rights with the common good.
Nope, not for me. Property rights and common good are different
subjects. As for the "common good," I don't think there is such a
thing - it's almost a contradiction in terms.
>
>Hint: Property rights has never assured conservation, rather it is
>usually associated with exploitation (can we say "clear-cut"?)
Well, I think you'll find most "clear cutting" going on leased land,
or with "bought trees."
>For
>every "Tragedy of the Commons" there has been more than ample examples
>of the "Tragedy of the Privately Owned." I'll say it again - ideology
>provides no answers to this conundrums. Rather the answers are likely
>to be found in competency and commitment. If the agency, be it
>private or public, has both a commitment to conservation and the
>competency to carry it out, then good things tend to happen.
OK. Think about how most treat rented cars, hotel rooms, and other,
er, temporary relationships versus how people treat that with which
they intend to have long-term relationships. It has almost nothing to
do with complex socio-economic reasons as much as pure human nature.
TC,
R
Don Thompson
news:9pj1sn$ohp$1...@roper.uwyo.edu...
Well fellers, I tell you what. When rw posted the picture of his FINE fish
over on abpf I saved it to my printer. When all was said and done, the
PICTURE of the fish weighed 4 1/2 lbs. No wonder he let it go. There weren't
enough guys at the clave to eat the thing in one sitting.
--
Don Thompson
Another Thompson Scion
> FWIW, seeing the photo and hearing the story in camp made for at least as
Rusty Hook
> ...I in no way
> advocate totally private ownership in the sense of the "King's deer,"
> where one person owns all the game in the country, simply the limited
> ownership of certain areas where resources are in danger by practices
> of "Socialist Deer." <G>
Be especially careful around the Stalinist Deer. They can be quite brutal
when threatened. The ones around here have been starving the elk who refuse
to collectivize. But I digress.
I think we can all agree that a wild herbivore with a political ideology is
a dangerous thing. Some of the antelope around here have started reading
Kropotkin and it's making me uneasy...
--
Rusty Hook
Laramie, Wyoming
c...@eightysixthis.uwyo.edu
(not a member of the Bull Moose Party)
Peter Charles
>>
>>Ah, the in-built tension of the liberal-democratic society once again
>>surfaces in ROFF - reconciling property rights with the common good.
>
>Nope, not for me. Property rights and common good are different
>subjects. As for the "common good," I don't think there is such a
>thing - it's almost a contradiction in terms.
>>
The society you exist in is an example of the common good at work.
>>Hint: Property rights has never assured conservation, rather it is
>>usually associated with exploitation (can we say "clear-cut"?)
>
>Well, I think you'll find most "clear cutting" going on leased land,
>or with "bought trees."
>
>>For
>>every "Tragedy of the Commons" there has been more than ample examples
>>of the "Tragedy of the Privately Owned." I'll say it again - ideology
>>provides no answers to this conundrums. Rather the answers are likely
>>to be found in competency and commitment. If the agency, be it
>>private or public, has both a commitment to conservation and the
>>competency to carry it out, then good things tend to happen.
>
>OK. Think about how most treat rented cars, hotel rooms, and other,
>er, temporary relationships versus how people treat that with which
>they intend to have long-term relationships. It has almost nothing to
>do with complex socio-economic reasons as much as pure human nature.
>
>TC,
>R
You're doing the apples & oranges thing (not be confused with P & Os.)
Humans tend to treat well those things they value and treat poorly
those they do not. If a rancher values a stream only for the water
it carries, then he is likely to allow his cattle to destroy the
riparian ecosystem, effectively destroying the stream. However, in
his eyes, nothing much has changed - the stream still flows and
provides water for his cattle. His private ownership destroyed that
stream. Elevating the common good beyond individual greed or personal
preference is a hallmark of all functioning human societies - even the
bad ones. If that stream was managed for the common good, it would
likely survive (assuming C & C are present.)
You've based your assumptions on the notion that ownership equates to
caring. There are countless millions of examples out there that
refute that notion.
rdean3...@flash.net
And humans tend to value those things they own and/or are responsible
for and/or with which they have (or wish to have) a long-standing
relationship, and tend to not value those things that are they don't
have to work for and/or on, or fight for, etc.
> If a rancher values a stream only for the water
>it carries, then he is likely to allow his cattle to destroy the
>riparian ecosystem, effectively destroying the stream.
OK, what are this rancher's cattle are going to do to destroy an
entire stream?
>However, in his eyes, nothing much has changed - the stream still flows and
>provides water for his cattle.
No. If the stream is destroyed, how is it supplying him, or anyone,
anything?
>His private ownership destroyed that stream.
See above.
>Elevating the common good beyond individual greed or personal
>preference is a hallmark of all functioning human societies - even the
>bad ones. If that stream was managed for the common good, it would
>likely survive (assuming C & C are present.)
>
>You've based your assumptions on the notion that ownership equates to
>caring. There are countless millions of examples out there that
>refute that notion.
Well, I doubt that there are "millions," but however many there are,
I'll be willing to bet that the "common good" failures greatly
outnumber the private ownership failures.
TC,
R
Warren Findley
"Peter Charles" <p_s_c...@hotmail.com> wrote
> You're doing the apples & oranges thing (not be confused with P &
Os.)
> Humans tend to treat well those things they value and treat poorly
> those they do not. If a rancher values a stream only for the water
> it carries, then he is likely to allow his cattle to destroy the
> riparian ecosystem, effectively destroying the stream. However, in
> his eyes, nothing much has changed - the stream still flows and
> provides water for his cattle. His private ownership destroyed that
> stream. Elevating the common good beyond individual greed or
personal
> preference is a hallmark of all functioning human societies - even
the
> bad ones. If that stream was managed for the common good, it would
> likely survive (assuming C & C are present.)
Not to argue with you here Peter, but there are also examples of where
private ownership has improved things for the common good: Nature
Conservancy as one example.
> You've based your assumptions on the notion that ownership equates
to
> caring. There are countless millions of examples out there that
> refute that notion.
As well as there are countless examples of how public ownership has
resulted in less than admirable progress for the "common good." How
about the lax restrictions of some states regarding water quality?
How about the lack of accountability for environmental damage where
the public ends up footing the bill?
My point is this: life isn't black and white and there are tons of
different shades of grey in between. There are good examples and bad
examples of both sides and it is up us, the public, to make sure that
the shades of grey don't get too dark or too light IMO.
--
Warren Findley
(remove spam blocker to reply via email)
www.geocities.com/troutbum_mt
Warren Findley
<rdean3...@flash.net> wrote
<snipped a ton of stuff that has been around for 3 rounds now>
Hey, what happened to trimming out stuff for the people who have to
download this shit? I do recall you jumping my ass about that not too
long ago.
John Russell
>
> Not to argue with you here Peter, but there are also examples of where
> private ownership has improved things for the common good: Nature
> Conservancy as one example.
What percentage of the land now under Conservancy protection was formerly
public land?
JR
Warren Findley
"John Russell" <jtru...@attglobal.net> wrote
> What percentage of the land now under Conservancy protection was
formerly
> public land?
What does that have to do with anything? I was thinking more along
the lines of the chunk of land they are trying to purchase over by the
elk refuge along the Madison to keep it from being SUBDIVIDED while
still allowing the public access to the Madison. Private ownership
with the good of the people in mind.....
You want comparisons of public lands vs private? I am sure Muskie can
come up with tons of stuff about the USFS. That's public land and
they sometimes do a lot of stuff that isn't exactly in the "public's
interest" apparently.<g> What I was trying to do was illustrate that
sometimes private ownership benefits the greater good of the public
and used the Nature Conservancy as an example. I don't think
"privatization" is the only answer though and thought I made that
pretty clear in my closing.
RalphH
fish can easily bury them under 6, 8 or more inches. Take a guess which
eggs are more secure.
Warren Findley wrote:
> "RalphH" <"heidecke_\"spam blocker\""@direct.ca> wrote
> > one of the best reason to protect larger trout is that they are
> normally
> > more fecund (often many times more) then the average sized fish. A
> large female
> > (4 or 5 lbs) may produce 3,000 to 4,000 eggs versus 500 or 600 for a
> typical 12
> > or 14 incher.
>
> Not only that, but according to the fisheries biologist I talked to,
> those large fish are also more successful spawners.
> --
> Warren Findley
> (remove spam blocker to reply via email)
> www.geocities.com/troutbum_mt
--
RalphH
Chip Bartholomay
>What percentage of the land now under Conservancy protection was formerly
>public land?
Zero (at least in the US)? Nature Conservancy generally purchases or otherwise
arranges to protect private lands.
RalphH
TBone wrote:
> "RalphH" <"heidecke_\"spam blocker\""@direct.ca> wrote in message
> news:3BBBCF71...@direct.ca...
> > one of the best reason to protect larger trout is that they are normally
> > more fecund (often many times more) then the average sized fish.
>
> You've been waiting a long, long time to say 'fecund', haven't ya Ralph...
>
> TBone...
--
RalphH
RalphH
TBone wrote:
> "Clark Reid" <clar...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:PGLu7.756$jc1....@news.xtra.co.nz...
> > No, Never! In fact even in Non Catch and release streams the biggest fish
> > are the ones I most want to return, ( I return all fish anyway). That's
> the
> > genes the stream needs.
>
> This is a manifestation of the notion that animals cull the weak in nature
> and is countered by facts such that the ELk populations are healthier than
> ever even though hunters cull the best species year after year.
>
>
if one is going to use an anolgy ... let's make it an appropriate anolgy and not
one that simply supports a point of view
Hunting ungulates predominately focueses not on harvesting the best of species
but the males of species. No small lose when you consider most males simply
don't get a chance to mate in a typical season. Few hunters get a crack at the
primest bulls - in fact most I've talked to are more then happy top pot any amle
young old or otherwise. The best of best stags can service numerous does so the
lose of a large % of unsuccessful males is not a great matter.
RalphH
Warren Findley
large
> fish can easily bury them under 6, 8 or more inches. Take a guess
which
> eggs are more secure.
Well, that I was unaware of but it certainly does explain what the
biologist told me. Thanks for the info.
Warren Findley
Hey, whatever happened to TBone's nemesis? What was his name?
Powlesland or something like that? Anyone have an email addy for him?
<g>
John Russell
It was a rhetorical question. I don't know the emoticon for those. ;)
JR
Warren Findley
"John Russell" <jtru...@attglobal.net> wrote
> It was a rhetorical question. I don't know the emoticon for those.
;)
The State of Montana does a lot of "land swapping" with private land
owners and I wasn't sure if the Nature Conservancy had gotten a chunk
of that. Ted Turner has done a couple of these swaps and in an area
not too far away from some Nature Conservancy lands. Either way, it
really doesn't matter to proving my example of how private ownership
benefits the public. The Nature Conservancy is protecting land for
the public and allows the public access to what was formerly private
land in many instances. If I had money, I would definitely be giving
some to their organization and plan on doing so once I am finished
being "edumacated" and I gradumenate. :-)
Bob Weinberger
"Chip Bartholomay" <ocl...@aol.comxqz> wrote in message
news:20011005004512...@mb-cv.aol.com...
Actually, at least in the West (excluding Texas), almost all of it was at
one time public land. I realize that your statement deals with ownership of
the land immediately prior to TNC acquiring it, but most people forget (or
never even knew) that, except for Texas, virtually all of the land in the US
west of the Mississippi was owned by the federal government. It transferred
to private ownership through sale, grants (various homestead acts, railroad
grants, donation land claims, etc.), or indirectly through the states who
received ownership of land (usually 2 sections/township) upon admittance to
the Union.
I'm not sure, but I believe there have even been some recent cases of TNC
buying mining claims on public land to prevent the land from going out of
public ownership through sale under the 1872 mining act.
Bob Weinberger