7-8-06~A TON (2,000 lbs.) of fun beach report!

Terrapin · Post by **Terrapin** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:21 pm

You just don't get it John. That fish only lives 15 years or so (?). Such a small price to pay for the eternal glory of a photo. Everyone knows that if you don't have a picture of it then it doesn't count.

dunfly · Post by **dunfly** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:10 pm

Just John wrote:I guess I'll be the bad guy, but I find it a little disconcerting to see protected species being beached like that.

I was thinking the same thing, but in keeping with my transition to a kinder, gentler persona, i refrained from pointing it out. At least in the later pictures they got their feet wet.

wadefisher616 · Post by **wadefisher616** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 7:44 pm

Are you guys serious?????

Most of those fish were kept partially in the water and were released after a few snapped photos. I can assure you they were released very lively, I have the battle scars to prove it. I realize now that some of them may have been dragged up on the beach too far and their protective slime may have been partially removed. It wont happen again.

As far as those of you criticizing us for taking photos, thats rediculous. Say whatever you want, but I guarantee if you were in the same position you would have done the same.

Oh, and there is no law against catching protected species. We are not harvesting them and are not hurting them in any way.

prowler13angler · Post by **prowler13angler** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 8:07 pm

Once again, im stickin' with david.

Ray H · Post by **Ray H** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 9:09 pm

wadefisher616 wrote: ... but I guarantee if you were in the same position you would have done the same.

Very nice fish, fellas, very, very nice. But, please don't make assumptions like that. There are lots of very good anglers in this state, and you guys are right there, but I must respectfully (very strongly) disagree with the above quoted statement. Some folks actually put the health of the fish ahead of the pictures, believe it or not.

Uncle Tommy · Post by **Uncle Tommy** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 9:10 pm

wadefisher616 wrote:Are you guys serious?????

We are not harvesting them and are not hurting them in any way.

You are incorrect , Sir and I'll tell you why;

Merely removing a 500 lb. creature from its buoyant environment puts a tremendous amount of pressure on its internal organs, not to mention the removal of protective slime which had to occur whilst dragging a leviathon like her ashore.

Were you within your rights? Certainly.

Can I blame you for the photo-op? Certainly not.

I simply find your protest to be flimsy and unwarrantable.

UT

cubs83 · Post by **cubs83** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 9:44 pm

I'm not going to get into the argument, but here are a few facts...

Jewfish (or Goliath Grouper for you PC people) are protected species. You cannot harvest them. You can target them. You can land them.

Goliath Grouper are a hearty fish that put up a great fight during and after the landing.

We kept the grouper close to the waterline for photo ops.

They swam off quicker than they came in...drenching us with their huge tail swimming through the water after release.

I'm very confident that these large fish swam off only with injury to their pride!

cubs83 · Post by **cubs83** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 9:50 pm

Oh, and I could be comparing watermelon to grapes (but they are both fruits!), but aren't over/under slot snook also protected species and often hung by their jaw (known to tear the isthmus resulting in possible death) and held out of their natural environment for a photo op?

wadefisher616 · Post by **wadefisher616** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 9:52 pm

I respect you guys for your opinions and I apologize for the generalization.

BlueCrab · Post by **BlueCrab** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 9:57 pm

cubs83 wrote:I'm not going to get into the argument

This isn't an argument, it's not even a heated discussion. Just a disagreement.

If you want to start a heated discussion, do that to a Tarpon.

...and if you wouldn't do it to a Tarpon, one might ask, "What is the difference?"

Ray H · Post by **Ray H** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:03 pm

This certainly is not an argument, or a condemnation - it's a discussion. Why is it that "fruits" and "PC" and all the tree-hugger comments come out of the bag when people voice legitimate concerns? Grow up and get over yourself and your perceived fame, dude - we're all on the same page to some extent. We were all young once, Cubs, and I'll say it again, you guys are good fishermen. Real good. That doesn't mean that your facts, like, "I'm very confident that these large fish swam off only with injury to their pride" are indeed facts at all. Rubbing a fish with sandpaper and exerting 400-some lbs of pressure on its internal organs may not be in its best interests if you ask me , but I'm not an icthyologist. That doesn't mean it's going to beat the next redtide or virus that comes its way. Hell ya, it flips its tail at you as it says, "later dude". All the groupers do that - you'll learn that as you catch more different grouper species and actually let them go - it's uncanny how the groupers do that. The snook comment is spot on in my opinion and, more importantly, the experts' opinions. Talk about apples and oranges. What that has to do with this subject is another story, I guess. I don't get it, but whatever... Bottom line - you drag those fish up on the beach and straddle 'em like a cowboy who just lassood a calf and splatter the pics on the internet and you're going to raise some hackles. Not just from tree-huggers and PETA-philes, either. Get used to it. Some of us who lived here for a long time remember that jewfish were almost extinct when the protective regs went into place. Now they're a nuisance according to some. Whatever. As long as they're protected, try to do the right thing man, and learn to accept a bit of constructive criticism w/o calling people fruits and tree-huggers and jealous and all this other stuff - it gets old after awhile.

cubs83 · Post by **cubs83** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:15 pm

Whoa RayH, you are taking things out of context.

I didn't call anyone a fruit or call anyone politically correct.

I didn't mean argument, I guess I was for-seeing the possible leading up to an argument.

I don't know where this is coming from. Never did I think or say anything of perceieved fame or jealousy. This is getting rediculous...

I realized when I posted this post that there were going to be a few disgruntled posts. I have heard about the internal organ deal before and have thought to myself to make it a point to keep them farther in the water, but we are still going to get a picture...if you have a problem with me personally please PM me. I didn't mean for things to get this out of hand.

To those congratulating us, Thank you. I just posted another report from last night. We are going back for an all nighter tommorow night...hopefully we land the big one.

-Shane

John · Post by **John** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:22 am

Cubs83 read my post again

guess I'll be the bad guy, but I find it a little disconcerting to see protected species being beached like that.

They are a protected species and they were dragged up on the beach, and I found it disconcerting that this was done, not once but multiple times. I did not make assumptions about those fish being killed, i merely stated the facts.

As for the holding a Snook vertical, you've never seen a picture of me doing that. I grew up fishing in the UK, targetting big Pike, and we knew about the damage done by vertical holding of fish, way back in the 80's. Our fish over there are a very finite and limited resource, catch and release has been the standard practice for decades, due to wanting to preserve what fish we have over there.

For not wanting to get into an argument you certainly made an inflammatory post, and comparing your deeds to holding an over slot snook vertically is nonsensical, as two wrongs do not make a right.

You are great fisherman your reports clearly show you and your friends have the skill and temerity to target and catch some amazing fish. I am not arguing that point. However to make your post bragging of your 2000lb haul, and then not be able to take any criticism, that you admitted you were expecting to recieve shows a complete lack in maturity on your part.

Grow up

Hornetbear · Post by **Hornetbear** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 8:06 am

Who didnt see this coming.

I, for one, am in the cubs/wadefisher camp. You gotta pull a fish that big onto shore (although maybe not that far inland) from a safety standpoint. You could break a leg in waist deep water. Or get bit. Or hooked. I also think the goliath grouper is one tough mother. Nobody says to release a shark in the water.

It reminds me of the immortal wisdom of snoop doggy dogg. "Hate the game, don't hate the playa'" Technique discussion is fine but personal attacks are a drag. I think we treat fish nicer than we treat people sometimes.

Also, last night, alone and without a camera, I caught 4000 pounds of fish and released them in a much more ethical manner. The largest was almost 800 pounds. I also caught a 1200 lb tiger shark and a 48" snook.

Norm · Post by **Norm** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 8:28 am

Hornetbear wrote:
Also, last night, alone and without a camera, I caught 4000 pounds of fish and released them in a much more ethical manner. The largest was almost 800 pounds. I also caught a 1200 lb tiger shark and a 48" snook.

yeah? (twilight zone music playing in the background) I had that same dream Steve

Norm

wadefisher616 · Post by **wadefisher616** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:03 am

Ray and John,
Like I said before I respect you guys for your opinions. I will admit that I do not have alot of experience with handling big goliath grouper and did not think about the slime/weight issue. I guess I was just used to the same old shark routine and got caught up in the moment. You guys have stated some very legitimate points/facts and I have given them alot of thought.
Believe it or not, we also care alot about the state of our fishery and try to do our best to preserve it. But those that have taken the time to get to know us already know that. In the future we will not drag them up on the beach but will keep them partially submerged. Will we still take pictures, you bet. We have to get them close enough to get the hook out, might as well snap some photos.
Oh and Ray, nobody said anything about percieved fame or jealousy. Looks like you are also making some unnecessary assumtions. Just trying to hold a brother accountable, as you are with us.
No hard feelings at all guys, we/I appreciate your legitimate concerns and like I said before, they will not be overlooked.