Adrenjunky,
Welcome to the forum. With post like that I hope you hang around for a while!

I agree, IMHO this isn't the forum for this thread.

No offense taken whatsoever, and likewise, none meant. But, as I understand it, due to the threatened status of the species, the catch and release law applies to the threatened species, and the waters are designated as catch and release because there are threatened species in those waters, and anglers need to be aware of that fact, so as to inform them to be able to distinguish the threatened species from the non-threatened species. The limit refers to five fish can be caught and kept, but certainly not the threatened species! The five limit only refers to non-threatened species that inhabit the same waters. I was only concerned that species with threatened status were being killed, not that non-threatened species living in the same waters were being killed.

Apparently, I was not 100% correct. There are a few waters where Golden Trout can be legally kept. But despite these three exceptions, shouldn’t a threatened species be completely protected unless absolutely necessary, or should we be as lax as our current President Bush (the worst president environmentally that this nation has ever had) about our environmental policies? When does environmental ethics and morals and common sense play a more important role than finding loopholes in the law? For instance, it is illegal to use DDT in this country, for obvious human and environmental health reasons, and yet our government sells it to the third world for them to use on their agricultural crops. Oh yes, and at one time in this country it was legal to hunt the last buffalo, and it was even legal to scalp Mexicans and Indians, and even to keep slaves. We need to look past the law and into our hearts. The law is simply not good enough!:

DESIGNATED WILD TROUT / HERITAGE TROUT
& CATCH AND RELEASE WATERS

Golden Trout Creek, South Fork Kern River Drainage: Golden Trout bag limit 5

Cottonwood Creek & Tributaries: Golden Trout bag limit 5 (but see one below)

Cottonwood Creek: Golden Trout bag limit 0 (I’m going with this one!)

Laurel Lakes: Golden Trout bag limit 2, size minimum 14” (ahem, so apparently there is a size limit after all, and quite a lot bigger than the maximum 7” length for Golden Trout quoted previously by R.H.)

Cottonwood Lakes: Golden Trout bag limit 0

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/fishing/html/WildAndHeritageTrout/regulations/Regulations_0.htm

In light of what I have found, and considering that everybody can learn something from each other, hopefully, I think it is safe to agree that the facts are the facts, and the more aware of them we are, the better we can morally exercise our environmental ethics and self-discipline, instead of finding legal loopholes and performing shadow magic.

"shouldn’t a threatened species be completely protected unless absolutely necessary"

This is not always true in nature. To most, including myself until I worked with the Michigan DNR, it would seem that predidation would hurt a population. However in nature this is not always true. You can look at studies all over the US and Canada and see where hunting and fish are allowed that the wildlife acually thrives there. You can see this in many states with ducks, geese, and deer. In rivers once you get a line going if you don't fish it and harvest the water becomes overpopulated. This does two things 1# reduces the nutrition for the fish to feed 2# it can acually raise the water temps. enough to kill off the species. There are a lot of fly fish books that are published about this but one of the best resources is Trouts Unlimited.

If you would like to look at the rest of the issues that you raised I would be happy to but in the correct forum.

Junky

Thanks <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> I have learned alot over the time that I have been lurking. A lot of us from Fire, EMS, and SAR hang out here. It's been a great place to pick up new ideas!