Letting real big pike go

[Dewey Cox]

Use this thread to discuss keeping/releasing really big pike instead of peeing all over someone's angling accomplishment.
I do believe there's value to letting the big ones spawn, and I think people would be more open to hearing your side of the story in a thread that is separate from any specific catch.

[discostew]

I agree that it is a good idea to let the big pike or fish of any species go back to spawn. They have good genetics to produce more big offspring. Also letting the big one go will give another person a chance to catch a fish of a lifetime. Now that being said, that is only my opinion. If you are fishing in a waterbody where you are allowed to keep a large fish, then it is your right to do so and no one else can tell you that you are in the wrong to keep the fish. It is completely up to you to decide to keep or release the fish you are catching as long as you are within the allowable harvest limit and size. I also feel that it is ignorant of another angler to tell you whether you should keep the fish or not. All you should do is congratulate the person that caught the fish and be jealous that it was not you that caught it.

[CK Angler]

Here is a picture to compare lengths of a fish when the tape measure is under the fish vs over the fish. I've seen a few catches posted here that are still very impressive fish! They just aren't as big as claimed to be.

The walleye below, 26 inches or 28 inches? You decide.

In regards to keeping big pike, I just don't do it. Cold water pike is delicious, but keeping those big girls? This is only my opinion, and if your not breaking the law then hey, your not breaking the law so do as you please, and really who cares what the internet thinks. But the way I see it what's big this year is even bigger next, let them go so they can grow.

[NEWB]

I have caught a few big girls. I let them go to catch them another day or let someone else catch them.

Photo's all depend on how long the pike has been out of the water, how deep it was hooked, etc. For me I do not need a photo of every fish I land/Boat. I have seen some people literally throw a fish back into the water with out any sort of rehabilitaion.. these same people wonder why that fish dies quickly...

To date I have had a zero mortality rate on catch and release (That I am aware of). I always rehabilitate them back into the water gently after catching them.

I have no issies with people catching and eating with in their limit. My issues is with the catch and release people who just throw a fish 3-5 feet from the boat or shore and see nothing wrong with it, or handle the fish like they are 3 years old and have it out of the water for longer than necessary..

[aulrich]

I have become less concerned about the odd big fish going on the wall (Though I am a let them go let them grow sort) . I am way more concerned about folks putting the knife to eaters that are 7lb + because by that size you are basically always killing a female and a lot more of those get killed than the really big girls.

[Sharpie]

Here is a picture to compare lengths of a fish when the tape measure is under the fish vs over the fish. I've seen a few catches posted here that are still very impressive fish! They just aren't as big as claimed to be.

The walleye below, 26 inches or 28 inches? You decide.

In regards to keeping big pike, I just don't do it. Cold water pike is delicious, but keeping those big girls? This is only my opinion, and if your not breaking the law then hey, your not breaking the law so do as you please, and really who cares what the internet thinks. But the way I see it what's big this year is even bigger next, let them go so they can grow.

26 1/2" i dont think your tape is quite lined up with the bottom jaw

[Diamondhitch]

A lot of good points made.

While I believe people have the right to keep what they want (within the law) I personally will not keep the big ones. Mount em if you like, get a repro is even better, both quality of mount and conservation wise though.

I personally don't keep them though because it takes so long to replace them, hence there not being many of them. If I were to keep one, that would decrease everyone elses chance of catching a monster which could be caught by several people if returned. I cant see the point of that just for a few extra pounds of meat 1 time, it seems selfish to me.

46" from Lac La Biche

[Chief16]

My opinion is that even if you are keeping little fish compared to these 40"+ fish, you at never giving them the chance to grow and become spawners regardless.

[Supergrit]

Question is there an age that pike will stop producing eggs and being useful to the population. A really big pike has har many years of reproduction. How much grown pike does a big pike consume and could it actually do more damage by eating its own kind.

[Diamondhitch]

Question is there an age that pike will stop producing eggs and being useful to the population. A really big pike has har many years of reproduction. How much grown pike does a big pike consume and could it actually do more damage by eating its own kind.

This is a good question, from a lb/acre production standpoint on a given body of water, but on the other side is that since these behemoths occupy such a small portion of the population their effects on the overall carrying capacity/production is minimal.

Their existence, however, is crucial to a trophy fishery, and lets face it who doesn't want to catch a huge fish? Removing these old fish from a population regardless of productivity definitely has a dramatic effect on the odds of catching a trophy fish in that water body since it not only takes so long to produce them but the keeping of a single fish removes a much larger percentage of the available trophy fish in a lake than keeping a limit of small ones is likely to in an entire season of fishing.

[Talking moose]

Question is there an age that pike will stop producing eggs and being useful to the population. A really big pike has har many years of reproduction. How much grown pike does a big pike consume and could it actually do more damage by eating its own kind.

I believe they reproduce right till the end, but at a certain point near the end of life they start producing less and less eggs.

[Talking moose]

Question is there an age that pike will stop producing eggs and being useful to the population. A really big pike has har many years of reproduction. How much grown pike does a big pike consume and could it actually do more damage by eating its own kind.

This is a good question, from a lb/acre production standpoint on a given body of water, but on the other side is that since these behemoths occupy such a small portion of the population their effects on the overall carrying capacity/production is minimal.

Their existence, however, is crucial to a trophy fishery, and lets face it who doesn't want to catch a huge fish? Removing these old fish from a population regardless of productivity definitely has a dramatic effect on the odds of catching a trophy fish in that water body since it not only takes so long to produce them but the keeping of a single fish removes a much larger percentage of the available trophy fish in a lake than keeping a limit of small ones is likely to in an entire season of fishing.

There are places in the N.w.t, that most of the pike you catch are north of 15lbs. So they are not a small portion of the population. They are the majority.

[RavYak]

I let every large/trophy size fish go unless they are a perch lol.

Even if they are tough to revive/only partially revived I still release them the best I can since then at least there is a chance that fish will go on to continue spawning and hopefully a few other anglers can have the privilege of catching them again.

The only reason I would ever keep a big fish is if I wanted to get it mounted or it was a world record and I didn't want anyone else to catch it after me lol.

Keeping a 15+ year old fish just so you can have a substandard feed of fish is imo selfish and disheartening. The smaller fish always are better eating and it just feels like a waste to kill a fish that has beaten the odds for so long already.

[Talking moose]

If someone gets out every weekend, they might prefer taking home a 2 lb walleye to eat.
If someone has a family that enjoys eating fish and is only able to get out once a year, may want to take home that 8lb walleye and give his family a feed.

[Supergrit]

My opinion would be keeping pike under 63 cm. the lakes that I fish as a kid iosegen and smoke lake the walleye were always right at the legal size limit. Move it to 15 inches walleye were 14.5 move limit to 19 the walleye were 18.5 of course there was smaller ones and as soon as that walleye was legal size by one 16th of a inch it was dead . Seldom any big ones by releasing big ones I would think once the fish made it past the slot size it's home free to reproduce tell death this you have big and small in a lake. ( this is my opinion nothing scientific )

[RavYak]

If someone gets out every weekend, they might prefer taking home a 2 lb walleye to eat.
If someone has a family that enjoys eating fish and is only able to get out once a year, may want to take home that 8lb walleye and give his family a feed.

If a person wants to fed their family walleye they are better off buying a SK license and going to get a feed...

I gave up on AB walleye a long time ago, it is ridiculous here. In fact I gave up on keeping most of the fish I catch...

[WayneChristie]

My opinion is that even if you are keeping little fish compared to these 40"+ fish, you at never giving them the chance to grow and become spawners regardless.

Exactly..kill a fish that has a couple years left to live with less and lower quality eggs or kill a small fish with better quality eggs and many years of spawning to go which has the biggest impact on the waterbody? Besides who would you want to be the mother of your children, a healthy sweet young thing or someones toothless old gramma?:scared0018:

[Talking moose]

If a person wants to fed their family walleye they are better off buying a SK license and going to get a feed...

I gave up on AB walleye a long time ago, it is ridiculous here. In fact I gave up on keeping most of the fish I catch...

I hear ya.... I just bought some lots from a member in Saskatchewan. 1/2 hour to Tobin, and 10 mins off the Hanson lake road. About 40 lakes within an hour.... :)

[Diamondhitch]

There are places in the N.w.t, that most of the pike you catch are north of 15lbs. So they are not a small portion of the population. They are the majority.

True but most of us are not fishing up there. The heavily fished lakes that we fish are far more sensitive than either the pristine fly in lakes or the vast expanses of the great lakes for that matter either.

Alberta has the least fishable water per angler in Canada and it shows.

[Muckwa]

I hear ya.... I just bought some lots from a member in Saskatchewan. 1/2 hour to Tobin, and 10 mins off the Hanson lake road. About 40 lakes within an hour.... :)

I love living up here...:sHa_shakeshout:

[Diamondhitch]

It would be interesting to see some stats about it. I'm not in the catch and release camp, but do support releasing and slot sizes where it bolsters the population.

Seems that Alberta kind of does it backwards to other places.

So next question. Which has more effect on the population and genetic diversity, keeping pike under 63cm, or keeping pike over 63cm? Anyone have any science
to show it?

Cant speak for Pike but Here are a few things I know about Walleye.

Carrying capacity of a water body is calculated in lb/acre. The more fish you have, the smaller they must be to avoid exceeding this limitation.

Left alone each water body finds its own stasis, a balance of age class and size governed by nuances of its particular ecosystem.

In the 30s the Mink ranchers netted Lesser slave enough to depress the population significantly. During the years that followed the end of this practice the food base (minnow population) was allowed to expand and provided plenty of feed to rapidly grow large fish. As the population grew to the point of good fishable numbers, the fish were large and well fed. Intense fishing pressure due to growing popularity slowly reduced the number of older fish and the average size dropped. Stringent regulations and low limits allowed the population to rapidly grow to the point that there are few large fish left in the stunted population. The huge population of fish eats itself out of house and home so to speak and the minnow populations plummet, stunting the fish. This phenomenon was noted in Sturgeon lake years ago as Walleye numbers rebounded as well, the shiners all but disappeared.

300 fish days do not go hand in hand with large fish production.

[Talking moose]

Cant speak for Pike but Here are a few things I know about Walleye.

Carrying capacity of a water body is calculated in lb/acre. The more fish you have, the smaller they must be to avoid exceeding this limitation.

Left alone each water body finds its own stasis, a balance of age class and size governed by nuances of its particular ecosystem.

In the 30s the Mink ranchers netted Lesser slave enough to depress the population significantly. During the years that followed the end of this practice the food base (minnow population) was allowed to expand and provided plenty of feed to rapidly grow large fish. As the population grew to the point of good fishable numbers, the fish were large and well fed. Intense fishing pressure due to growing popularity slowly reduced the number of older fish and the average size dropped. Stringent regulations and low limits allowed the population to rapidly grow to the point that there are few large fish left in the stunted population. The huge population of fish eats itself out of house and home so to speak and the minnow populations plummet, stunting the fish. This phenomenon was noted in Sturgeon lake years ago as Walleye numbers rebounded as well, the shiners all but disappeared.

300 fish days do not go hand in hand with large fish production.
Yep.

[schmedlap]

I let every large/trophy size fish go unless they are a perch lol.

Even if they are tough to revive/only partially revived I still release them the best I can since then at least there is a chance that fish will go on to continue spawning and hopefully a few other anglers can have the privilege of catching them again.

The only reason I would ever keep a big fish is if I wanted to get it mounted or it was a world record and I didn't want anyone else to catch it after me lol.

Keeping a 15+ year old fish just so you can have a substandard feed of fish is imo selfish and disheartening. The smaller fish always are better eating and it just feels like a waste to kill a fish that has beaten the odds for so long already.
And they are the ones, in our milieu, with the best genes to produce more of their very large kind, are they not?

[Nova]

If a person is angling within the regulations, I don't feel it is right to be harsh on them. Seeing the big ones caught and kept does disappoint me.

In the past rather than chastise, I've shared articles with friends that explain the importance of selective harvest and just how important the big breeding girls are.

I personally can't see much need for keeping them. Catching is all the memory I need, and a quick photo is nice if it is well timed to prevent the delay of returning the fish to the water. But there's no way I'd consider dropping money on getting a dust collector made by the taxidermist. I can spend that money on more fishing. And I've found walleye over 22" and pike over 30" start to taste bad.

[schmedlap]

Exactly..kill a fish that has a couple years left to live with less and lower quality eggs or kill a small fish with better quality eggs and many years of spawning to go which has the biggest impact on the waterbody? Besides who would you want to be the mother of your children, a healthy sweet young thing or someones toothless old gramma?:scared0018:
to that, but I don't agree. "toothless old gramma" hasn't survived 20-25 years in that environment without being the darwinistic king of that environment. The scientific studies of the genetics of different AB pike populations have some indications that water bodies separated in terms of migration for a long time, but relatively close together, and with no other apparent significant environmental differences, can have quite different growth and numbers potentials in the species mixes, due possibly to random genetic circumstances of the historic populations.
And "gramma" is not good eating, and may provide another angler or 2 with the absolute thrill of the catch. Gramma is often not at all easy to "subdue".
For a well-documented example, look at the situation between some of the larger lakes in the "Lakeland" area east of Lac La Biche. Pinehurst always produced larger average Walleye, and while there were some very large Pike, they were no where near the percentage of population as Siebert. Siebert had lots of Walleye, but nothing much over the 3-4 pound bracket, and the Pike were on average much bigger - we considered the 80-90 cm ones as just a "damn it, another little one" even just 10 years back. Spencer had a very thick population of average Walleye, very little in terms of large pike. Since Siebert has become much more easily acessible over the last 20 years, it's "trophy" designation was removed, and people are allowed to keep 1 Pike over 100cm, its fish population has completely changed. Now there are almost no really big pike to be caught (I would guess - well I don't need to, as I have seen lots of it - people can't resist clubbing Gramma, waving her about triumphantly, and then dumping her body, as it really isn't that palatable), much fewer pike at all, and the walleye are on average much bigger and numerous, as to 5-7 pounders (less competition/predation?). Since one's allowance of 1 Walleye over 50 cm per day is ridiculously easy to catch (we just relied on bycatch while seeking big pike, if we wanted to have a fish fry, or took 1/2 hour off to catch them), maybe this is what the proletariat want (?). I think it is sad and misguided mismanagement. I may be wrong, of course, but...?
I would like to see a complete ban on keeping large pike, everywhere. In my view it is pointless to allow this. That's my $.02.

[Gboe8]

I've keep big ones small ones, and I honestly find the smaller ones taste better. But I have no problem with some one keeping a big one because they are not breaking any laws. I went to a lake north of Edmonton on the weekend where the legal size is over 50cm which I think is big and we couldn't catch any walleye under 60cm. So we ended up keeping one for dinner we'll camping. But at the end of the day I guess it's a matter of opinion and who knows what's right and what's wrong.

[58thecat]

I've keep big ones small ones, and I honestly find the smaller ones taste better. But I have no problem with some one keeping a big one because they are not breaking any laws. I went to a lake north of Edmonton on the weekend where the legal size is over 50cm which I think is big and we couldn't catch any walleye under 60cm. So we ended up keeping one for dinner we'll camping. But at the end of the day I guess it's a matter of opinion and who knows what's right and what's wrong.

Well said and I agree. If you legally keep a fish than so be it. We as anglers should be more concerned about the poachers.

[SamSteele]

I have read about the many stages a hunter goes through as they gain experience (shooter, limiting out, trophy, method, sportsman) and I think that the same theory applies to fisherman. We all have our perspectives on what success is as fisherman. I admit to catching and keeping a 17 lb pike 20 years ago, but released a 17 this year. It's not because of any change in biology for the fish, but rather a change in philosophy that came with experience (which doesn't always follow with age) for me. I see this with my kids now all the time. They want to keep everything. With time they will move through the stages. I do whT I can to speed that process by talking about my experiences and views.

Would I rather see the big ones released now? Sure. But I also understand that excited feeling when you got the big one.

SS

[Lefty-Canuck]

I have read about the many stages a hunter goes through as they gain experience (shooter, limiting out, trophy, method, sportsman) and I think that the same theory applies to fisherman. We all have our perspectives on what success is as fisherman. I admit to catching and keeping a 17 lb pike 20 years ago, but released a 17 this year. It's not because of any change in biology for the fish, but rather a change in philosophy that came with experience (which doesn't always follow with age) for me. I see this with my kids now all the time. They want to keep everything. With time they will move through the stages. I do whT I can to speed that process by talking about my experiences and views.

Would I rather see the big ones released now? Sure. But I also understand that excited feeling when you got the big one.

SS

Well said, there is a lot of merit to those stages and that order....we have to remember we are all at different stages and we may not go through all of them in our lifetime.

LC

[Chief16]

I have read about the many stages a hunter goes through as they gain experience (shooter, limiting out, trophy, method, sportsman) and I think that the same theory applies to fisherman. We all have our perspectives on what success is as fisherman. I admit to catching and keeping a 17 lb pike 20 years ago, but released a 17 this year. It's not because of any change in biology for the fish, but rather a change in philosophy that came with experience (which doesn't always follow with age) for me. I see this with my kids now all the time. They want to keep everything. With time they will move through the stages. I do whT I can to speed that process by talking about my experiences and views.

Would I rather see the big ones released now? Sure. But I also understand that excited feeling when you got the big one.

SS

I believe the last statement you made is very important. Although you may be a catch and release angler, catching a trophy sized fish such as a 40"+ pike will send your adrenaline through the roof. People may very well be caught up in the moment and not be thinking about future fish generations, spawning, lb/acre etc but rather holy crap, I just caught a fish that could eat my dog and want to show their trophy off.

[Winch101]

There's only a couple of lakes in the south I would eat a spring
Pike out of . You have to accept that people will ,if legal,keep fish
Out of the few waters that allow this .
In the New Alberta ....most anglers now are all about eating fish
The bigger the better .
There's a wide gap between sportsman and fisherman .
Releasing big fish is a worthy ideal ,I'm not sure it's reality .

[SCHOOCH]

I have read about the many stages a hunter goes through as they gain experience (shooter, limiting out, trophy, method, sportsman) and I think that the same theory applies to fisherman. We all have our perspectives on what success is as fisherman. I admit to catching and keeping a 17 lb pike 20 years ago, but released a 17 this year. It's not because of any change in biology for the fish, but rather a change in philosophy that came with experience (which doesn't always follow with age) for me. I see this with my kids now all the time. They want to keep everything. With time they will move through the stages. I do whT I can to speed that process by talking about my experiences and views.

Would I rather see the big ones released now? Sure. But I also understand that excited feeling when you got the big one.

SS

I agree with this ^^^^^^, 25 yrs ago i might have kept something that i would never even think about keeping today. I will never slam someone for keeping a fish that was legally caught but i do like to see the big girl spawners go back in........can't see them tasting very good and reproduction mounts are fantastic nowadays.

[calgarygringo]

I do like the odd pike fry but not the big girls. I have read many studies basically saying the same thing on size vs reproduction. Most all say that they do not have as many eggs as they get older but what they do are bigger and healthier and tend to have more that survive than the young ones. Take it how you wish but many studies all agree.

Pasted from one of the articles.

The larger that female Walleye and Northern Pike become, the better spawners they are. Although egg production per pound decreases slightly as female Walleye and Northern Pike age, egg size, health and viability increase significantly with age. It is not known if female Walleye and Northern Pike ever do reach a size and age where they become over-mature and unable to spawn.
-Larger Walleye and Northern Pike become so partially because of age, and partially because they are genetically larger. If larger fish are released they continue to pass their larger genes into the gene pool.

[SamSteele]

Forgot to mention that I also have the benefit of a cabin in Saskatchewan, so I catch a lot of fish. Here's a sample of one that was caught and released this spring.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5331/17261367293_f041a8482f_k.jpg

SS

[waterninja]

I agree that it is a good idea to let the big pike or fish of any species go back to spawn. They have good genetics to produce more big offspring. Also letting the big one go will give another person a chance to catch a fish of a lifetime. Now that being said, that is only my opinion. If you are fishing in a waterbody where you are allowed to keep a large fish, then it is your right to do so and no one else can tell you that you are in the wrong to keep the fish. It is completely up to you to decide to keep or release the fish you are catching as long as you are within the allowable harvest limit and size. I also feel that it is ignorant of another angler to tell you whether you should keep the fish or not. All you should do is congratulate the person that caught the fish and be jealous that it was not you that caught it.
X2 and I would add that sometimes fish might be injured and would die anyways. Also I'm never jealous of someone catching a big fish, unless it costs me an ice cream.

[J D]

Not a big fish keeper maybe a few a year and for pike around 1 28 incher is dinner for the family so that is the size I go for. Anything bigger is because I think there is a poor chance of survival. I don't eat frozen so if I keep pike it is 1 for dinner not my limit.

In my opinion if all those who decide to keep fish just did so in moderation size would be less of an issue. No need to bonk everything legal and fill the freezer. Respect the waters you fish and the fish will be there.

Honestly would like to see more care taken by anglers doing c&r as well. Just because it swims away does not me all is well. Not all fish float right away when they die either and some never do. Take the best care possible and don't assume what you do has no impact.

Respect and moderation by fishermen can go along ways. Just because something is legal does not always mean it is has no impact. It just a bio's best guess to minimize impact from fishing.

If you enjoy the fishing you experience respect it and encourage others to do so and it will continue to be there for you to enjoy if that means some fish on your table or a day of c&r.

[Pycnotic]

I am a catch and release fisherman, I hate the taste of fish so that would be the main reason for it, second would be that I want the fish to grow bigger so I can catch them again. That being said I have over the years kept a few fish (under 10 in 20+ years of fishing) to give to others who aren't able to or can't go fishing. I've lived and fished in Alberta for 3 years now and kept my first fish last weekend to give to the guy who lent me his boat for the weekend. I don't like to see people taking big fish out of the eco system, from what I have been told is that the meat in a big fish isn't as good any way. I think people shouldn't be selfish and release that 40"+ beauty and let someone else enjoy the feeling of catching a monster fish. It should be about the sport, not making our lakes your fresh water supermarket, if we don't take care of it, we will only be able to reminisce about being able to fish "back in the day" when we get older and have grand children.

[Jamie Black R/T]

I love to eat fish. but...

Any walleye over 5 lbs and pike over 10 lbs gets released.

My boat my rules. My friends and family all know and respect that. If they go out on their own and choose to legally harvest a big fish it doesnt bother me. I just dont want to have a part in it.

For me a picture tells the story. Its all in the experience. Not the fillets.

No need to kill those big girls who made it to that age against all odds.

[aulrich]

I run a similar way, when we are keeping pike, my boat rule is 24”-30” big enough to have spawned at least once but not so big that it is guaranteed to be a female fish . The theory is Sub 5lb the gender split is pretty much 50/50, between 7-9ish it’s swings to 100% female.

There is one other side to this, and that is, how close that big fish is to end of life, just because you safely release a 45” pike it does not mean it won’t die of old age before the next spawn, they don’t live forever.

[pinelakeperch]

I catch and release 90% of the fish I catch, and 100% of the "trophies". I've always done that, and I always will. That said, I don't look down on anyone who keeps "trophies", I just wish that they'd release them. I like to think those of us who release them are in the majority.

I once caught a 31.5in Walleye on an outpost lake near Kenora, Ontario but didn't have a camera to document the catch. I had to decide whether or not to risk the life of the fish to drive 2 km back to the cabin (in a 9.9hp boat) to grab the camera. I decided that I didn't need a picture and that my old man as a witness was good enough for me. We released the big girl and went back to the cabin to grab the camera and take a break. The fish Gods must've been smiling upon me, 45 minutes later when we returned to the same spot, I hooked into a 30in Walter. Luckily I had the camera with me that time :sHa_shakeshout:

[MoFugger21]

To be honest, it's nobody's damned business if and why I decide to keep a bigger fish.

[Pikebreath]

If we thought of trophy whitetails like trophy pike, who would advocate shooting a 3 - 4 year old buck instead a of 7-9 year old mature buck?

To reach true trophy proportions of 45 inches plus, that fish is likely 15 - 20 years old and will likely live only another year or two at best. It has already made significant contributions to the population and the gene pool. Consider also with pike being cannibalistic, a trophy pike that size can eat a lot of smaller pike.

A 5 year old female potentially has 10 years of reproduction ahead of it if allowed live to age 15 before harvest. If concern for the long term health of fishery is the guiding principle, which fish is better to release? The 28 inch pike or the 45" plus pike? The fish with 10 years of reproductive potential? Or the "cannibal" one with 0 to 2 years left of reproduction?

Removing (culling) the very largest pike from the population is very much like trophy hunting. There is very little if any negative effect to the health of the population and in the case the pike, it may actually be beneficial to the overall fishery. I cannot say the same for removing a younger individual with it's prime breeding years ahead.

[Kings]

If we thought of trophy whitetails like trophy pike, who would advocate shooting a 3 - 4 year old buck instead a of 7-9 year old mature buck?

To reach true trophy proportions of 45 inches plus, that fish is likely 15 - 20 years old and will likely live only another year or two at best. It has already made significant contributions to the population and the gene pool. Consider also with pike being cannibalistic, a trophy pike that size can eat a lot of smaller pike.

A 5 year old female potentially has 10 years of reproduction ahead of it if allowed live to age 15 before harvest. If concern for the long term health of fishery is the guiding principle, which fish is better to release? The 28 inch pike or the 45" plus pike? The fish with 10 years of reproductive potential? Or the "cannibal" one with 0 to 2 years left of reproduction?

Removing (culling) the very largest pike from the population is very much like trophy hunting. There is very little if any negative effect to the health of the population and in the case the pike, it may actually be beneficial to the overall fishery. I cannot say the same for removing a younger individual with it's prime breeding years ahead.

I agree with this

[Kurt505]

I've never kept a pike over 56", and I've never kept a walleye over 36".

[CK Angler]

If we thought of trophy whitetails like trophy pike, who would advocate shooting a 3 - 4 year old buck instead a of 7-9 year old mature buck?

To reach true trophy proportions of 45 inches plus, that fish is likely 15 - 20 years old and will likely live only another year or two at best. It has already made significant contributions to the population and the gene pool. Consider also with pike being cannibalistic, a trophy pike that size can eat a lot of smaller pike.

A 5 year old female potentially has 10 years of reproduction ahead of it if allowed live to age 15 before harvest. If concern for the long term health of fishery is the guiding principle, which fish is better to release? The 28 inch pike or the 45" plus pike? The fish with 10 years of reproductive potential? Or the "cannibal" one with 0 to 2 years left of reproduction?

Removing (culling) the very largest pike from the population is very much like trophy hunting. There is very little if any negative effect to the health of the population and in the case the pike, it may actually be beneficial to the overall fishery. I cannot say the same for removing a younger individual with it's prime breeding years ahead.


Take away the 45" and she'll never see 48"

Comparing hunting to fishing is like apples to oranges.

I consider myself a trophy angler, and I spend countless hours cycling throw these smaller fisher looking for the big girl. I cringe when I seem the killed... It just isn't right. It took that fish 15-20+ years to get that big, respect that fish, don't kill it.

[Jamie Black R/T]

Comparing hunting to fishing is like apples to oranges.

agreed.

comparing a male on the downturn of his breeding career to a female nearing the downturn in hers doesnt make a lick of sense.

Not even touching on the difference between mammals and fish :scared0018:

[Nova]

This post just brought back a memory for me. I was shore fishing at our local reservoir a few years back. Old fella pulls up and unloads his boat, starts telling me about this monster walleye he caught the week before. 29.5", 9.5 pounds he said. Eyes the size of loonies. Well, he "had" to take it home because he forgot to take his camera. He proceeds to dig his digital camera out and show me pictures of it on his filleting board. Says it tasted like "battered garbage", go figure.

Two weeks later he had this letter to the editor in our local paper:

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8760/18213054381_7b243802a2_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/tKqEwZ)2013-10-16 15.26.27 (https://flic.kr/p/tKqEwZ) by bman32_320 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/17118323@N04/), on Flickr

I found it at least slightly ironic. On one hand he is clearly unhappy with the quality of our local walleye fisheries, on the other, a mere picture was more important than letting a big girl go back.

[pinelakeperch]

A healthy fishery should be able to sustain appropriate harvest.

The story was particularly interesting though....

If you keep a pike and it contains a walleye (where it's 0 limit for walleye). Is that poaching or not?

Serious question?

[snowman160]

I remember a fishin derby at pigeon yrs ago,we were puttin the boat in an a couple guys came screamin in with a 14' boat.out they jump with an easy 20 lb pike,the thing had been in a tote fulla water,tail hangin out one end..measured an weighed then back to the boat,oops slipped outa their hands hit the dirt an grass,then let go off the shore...came back at the end of the day to load the boat an that pike floatin t$ts up bout 150 yrds off shore.sad to see.i also remeber the day after a tourney at slave at norms walleye camp.the river had literally 300 dead eyes of various sizes all over the water an shore..discusting..ravens an sh$t hawks were enjoying it though..

[Diamondhitch]

...I have no problem with some one keeping a big one because they are not breaking any laws...

As a sidebar, it seems a lot keep making this statement and, with respect to this discussion, I agree to a point but consider this: it is also not illegal for me to stand with my nose 2" from yours and scream at the top of my lungs (unless I am showering you with spit of course LOL). That still does not make it the right thing or even an acceptable thing to do so that argument alone holds less weight.

Strictly by the legal argument, all you can do about it is walk away or scream back, you cannot touch me or force me to stop or you are the one who is doing something illegal. If you do walk away and I follow and harass you then I am the one who is doing something illegal, but not before that. The law should not always be considered the minimum standard of our actions.

[Diamondhitch]

...just because you safely release a 45” pike it does not mean it won’t die of old age before the next spawn, they don’t live forever.

No, but keeping it does guarantee that no one else will ever have the opportunity to catch it and that it will certainly never spawn again.

[Carson13]

A few years back at a stocked trout lake we caught a beauty 8 pounder, not 15 seconds after getting it on the ice (with our excitement it attracted a crowd) an older gentleman bent down and smacked it over the head with his bat saying "if you don't keep it I will" being with a group of kids all of us under 15 we were not in any position to argue with the guy. We were gunna keep the fish for a fry that after noon but we have caught caught many in that range and let them go just so hopefully we can catch that elusive 10 pounder... I guess he was thinking "these kids are too young to know you always keep a fish that size" thinking back on it now I would have went off on this guy!

Carson

[huntsfurfish]

Not a big fish keeper maybe a few a year and for pike around 1 28 incher is dinner for the family so that is the size I go for. Anything bigger is because I think there is a poor chance of survival. I don't eat frozen so if I keep pike it is 1 for dinner not my limit.

In my opinion if all those who decide to keep fish just did so in moderation size would be less of an issue. No need to bonk everything legal and fill the freezer. Respect the waters you fish and the fish will be there.

Honestly would like to see more care taken by anglers doing c&r as well. Just because it swims away does not me all is well. Not all fish float right away when they die either and some never do. Take the best care possible and don't assume what you do has no impact.

Respect and moderation by fishermen can go along ways. Just because something is legal does not always mean it is has no impact. It just a bio's best guess to minimize impact from fishing.

If you enjoy the fishing you experience respect it and encourage others to do so and it will continue to be there for you to enjoy if that means some fish on your table or a day of c&r.

I aree, very well said.

[Dewey Cox]

As a sidebar, it seems a lot keep making this statement and, with respect to this discussion, I agree to a point but consider this: it is also not illegal for me to stand with my nose 2" from yours and scream at the top of my lungs (unless I am showering you with spit of course LOL). That still does not make it the right thing or even an acceptable thing to do so that argument alone holds less weight.

Strictly by the legal argument, all you can do about it is walk away or scream back, you cannot touch me or force me to stop or you are the one who is doing something illegal. If you do walk away and I follow and harass you then I am the one who is doing something illegal, but not before that. The law should not always be considered the minimum standard of our actions.
You make a lot of valid points, and then this one^...

The law says you can keep big fish, because its something some people want to do, and the powers that be have decided that the fishery can handle it.

Anytime you hook into a fish and haul it in, you are increasing its chances of dying. If you take it home and eat it, at least you're not fooling yourself into thinking the fishery is in the exact same shape as it was the day before.

[Kim473]

The only time I will keep a pike is if it was caught in the winter and I typicaly might keep only one a year if any. Walleye, I might keep 3 to 5 per year. Fill tags and keep a couple from other lakes. Perch, I tend to keep about 30 per year. Some years are slim pickens / no time to fish, and those keepers would be cut in half. This year the walleye will be limited to tags only, if I can find my slot size.

I would support that all lakes be C&R or closed for a year or two. Maybe just close the season 1 month earlier, that would make a large impact on the spawners. A lot of fish with eggs get caught/kept in March. It wouldn't hurt my feelings to not keep a fish for a year or two.

Just a thought:

Close the season 1 month sooner
1000 more spawner fish in the lakes
X 1000 eggs each
= 1 million more fish in the lakes per year.
:thinking-006::thinking-006:
Compounding Over 10 years
= 20 million or more fish in the lakes after 10 years.

I was at Utikama one day in early march, probably 200 people on the lake. if half of those people caught 1 walleye, = 100 walleye. The one that I caught had eggs. You do the math for a 30 day period and see how many more possible walleye fry could have been hatched in that lake. And do the math for a 10 year period. Just by closing the season 1 month sooner.
Slave lake too.

Just my opinion.

[Pikebreath]

The only time I will keep a pike is if it was caught in the winter and I typicaly might keep only one a year if any. Walleye, I might keep 3 to 5 per year. Fill tags and keep a couple from other lakes. Perch, I tend to keep about 30 per year. Some years are slim pickens / no time to fish, and those keepers would be cut in half. This year the walleye will be limited to tags only, if I can find my slot size.

I would support that all lakes be C&R or closed for a year or two. Maybe just close the season 1 month earlier, that would make a large impact on the spawners. A lot of fish with eggs get caught/kept in March. It wouldn't hurt my feelings to not keep a fish for a year or two.

Just a thought:

Close the season 1 month sooner
1000 more spawner fish in the lakes
X 1000 eggs each
= 1 million more fish in the lakes per year.
:thinking-006::thinking-006:
Compounding Over 10 years
= 20 million or more fish in the lakes after 10 years.

I was at Utikama one day in early march, probably 200 people on the lake. if half of those people caught 1 walleye, = 100 walleye. The one that I caught had eggs. You do the math for a 30 day period and see how many more possible walleye fry could have been hatched in that lake. And do the math for a 10 year period. Just by closing the season 1 month sooner.
Slave lake too.

Just my opinion.

Your point is well taken and valid,,,, but there are so many variables when it comes to wildlife population dynamics that a simple mathematical progression seldom works that cleanly.

But yes,,, the practice of protecting fish and wildlife stocks at vulnerable times certainly can produce positive effects.

[

[Pikebreath]

Take away the 45" and she'll never see 48"

Comparing hunting to fishing is like apples to oranges.

I consider myself a trophy angler, and I spend countless hours cycling throw these smaller fisher looking for the big girl. I cringe when I seem the killed... It just isn't right. It took that fish 15-20+ years to get that big, respect that fish, don't kill it.

Whether it has fur, feathers or fins, "balanced" population structures tend to be pyramidal in shape. The key to maintaining a balanced population is to ensure adequate recruitment through progressive year classes. To this end, angler induced mortality should be compensatory as opposed to additive

Nothing lives forever including pike and walleye. At the top of the pyramid are a few old mature individuals who will soon perish naturally even if they are not harvested. Harvesting the oldest mature individuals is compensatory mortality.

Harvesting 25- 28 inch pike just entering their prime breeding years is far more likely to be additive mortality skewering the shape of the population pyramid towards smaller younger fish.

Bottomline, is I don't begrudge the angler who keeps a really big old mature pike, but I do worry about the what we are doing to the population structure of many lakes when I see anglers keep their legal limit of 63 cm plus pike every chance they get.

[Diamondhitch]

You make a lot of valid points, and then this one^...

The law says you can keep big fish, because its something some people want to do, and the powers that be have decided that the fishery can handle it.

Anytime you hook into a fish and haul it in, you are increasing its chances of dying. If you take it home and eat it, at least you're not fooling yourself into thinking the fishery is in the exact same shape as it was the day before.

This wasnt actually meant as a point about this topic directly, simply as a reminder that the argument that "it is legal" does not automatically make something right, as has been suggested.

To clarify here is another unrelated example: in SK it is not a requirement to get landowner permission to hunt so long as the land is not posted. It is perfectly legal on land that you have not secured permission to be on to drive your truck out into his field while it is wet, make a bunch of ruts, shoot a deer, leave the gut pile in the middle of one of his swaths that you just drove over, take a crap on another swath then drive back to the road making some more ruts as you go. Yes it is legal but I would hope all know that simply being legal definitely does not justify it. I am not equating keeping a large fish to this act, simply making the point that being within the law is not always a relevant justification.

[Diamondhitch]

The only time I will keep a pike is if it was caught in the winter and I typicaly might keep only one a year if any. Walleye, I might keep 3 to 5 per year. Fill tags and keep a couple from other lakes. Perch, I tend to keep about 30 per year. Some years are slim pickens / no time to fish, and those keepers would be cut in half. This year the walleye will be limited to tags only, if I can find my slot size.

I would support that all lakes be C&R or closed for a year or two. Maybe just close the season 1 month earlier, that would make a large impact on the spawners. A lot of fish with eggs get caught/kept in March. It wouldn't hurt my feelings to not keep a fish for a year or two.

Just a thought:

Close the season 1 month sooner
1000 more spawner fish in the lakes
X 1000 eggs each
= 1 million more fish in the lakes per year.
:thinking-006::thinking-006:
Compounding Over 10 years
= 20 million or more fish in the lakes after 10 years.

I was at Utikama one day in early march, probably 200 people on the lake. if half of those people caught 1 walleye, = 100 walleye. The one that I caught had eggs. You do the math for a 30 day period and see how many more possible walleye fry could have been hatched in that lake. And do the math for a 10 year period. Just by closing the season 1 month sooner.
Slave lake too.

Just my opinion.

How about this, rather than restricting angling opportunities, simply have a catch and release only season during the time that you would have shut it down instead? That way you get the best of both worlds.

[Speckle55]

here is my Big Northern Pike I kept and story
http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=124556&highlight=World+record+papers

I will be donating it to the Alberta Provincial Museum

also my Brook Trout too

I believe that the Law is correct

and here is a quote on ethics

"I, however, view ethics as an individual decision. My ethics are mine - and I won't explain or justify them to anyone else. I seek nobody's approval, just that of my own conscience. "


David:)
http://i1280.photobucket.com/albums/a488/Speckle55/Picture669_zps20b2ad3c.jpg

[last minute]

I, however, view ethics as an individual decision. My ethics are mine - and I won't explain or justify them to anyone else. I seek nobody's approval, just that of my own conscience. "Very well said :)amen

with that said Keep a fish don’t keep a fish shoot a deer don’t shoot a deer ect.:thinking-006: the cycle of life will continue no matter what.Enjoy life :)

[Talking moose]

The only time I will keep a pike is if it was caught in the winter and I typicaly might keep only one a year if any. Walleye, I might keep 3 to 5 per year. Fill tags and keep a couple from other lakes. Perch, I tend to keep about 30 per year. Some years are slim pickens / no time to fish, and those keepers would be cut in half. This year the walleye will be limited to tags only, if I can find my slot size.

I would support that all lakes be C&R or closed for a year or two. Maybe just close the season 1 month earlier, that would make a large impact on the spawners. A lot of fish with eggs get caught/kept in March. It wouldn't hurt my feelings to not keep a fish for a year or two.

Just a thought:

Close the season 1 month sooner
1000 more spawner fish in the lakes
X 1000 eggs each
= 1 million more fish in the lakes per year.
:thinking-006::thinking-006:
Compounding Over 10 years
= 20 million or more fish in the lakes after 10 years.

I was at Utikama one day in early march, probably 200 people on the lake. if half of those people caught 1 walleye, = 100 walleye. The one that I caught had eggs. You do the math for a 30 day period and see how many more possible walleye fry could have been hatched in that lake. And do the math for a 10 year period. Just by closing the season 1 month sooner.
Slave lake too.

Just my opinion.
1000 more fish to spawn does not equal a million more catchable fish later on. Survival rate is very very low from egg to adulthood. Between suckers and whitefish alone, most eggs won't even make it to hatching let alone the fry making it to adulthood.

[Gboe8]

As a sidebar, it seems a lot keep making this statement and, with respect to this discussion, I agree to a point but consider this: it is also not illegal for me to stand with my nose 2" from yours and scream at the top of my lungs (unless I am showering you with spit of course LOL). That still does not make it the right thing or even an acceptable thing to do so that argument alone holds less weight.

Strictly by the legal argument, all you can do about it is walk away or scream back, you cannot touch me or force me to stop or you are the one who is doing something illegal. If you do walk away and I follow and harass you then I am the one who is doing something illegal, but not before that. The law should not always be considered the minimum standard of our actions.

I totally agree but I don't have a answer for what is right and what is wrong. A lot of good points in this thread supporting both sides. Ever one has there own opinion of what's right and what's wrong.

[Kim473]

How about this, rather than restricting angling opportunities, simply have a catch and release only season during the time that you would have shut it down instead? That way you get the best of both worlds.

This is a good point. I like it.

1000 more fish to spawn does not equal a million more catchable fish later on. Survival rate is very very low from egg to adulthood. Between suckers and whitefish alone, most eggs won't even make it to hatching let alone the fry making it to adulthood.

I think 1000 eggs per fish is on the very low side. probably closer to a 100,000 per fish. That was just a number I picked.

[Diamondhitch]

Great idea, more human death, vehicle destruction and pollution in our waters...

Not quite following you here?

[Snap Shot]

Not quite following you here?

He is getting at C&R mortality during spawning season, ppl disturbing spawning ground (shallow water,streams,rivers), stress implied etc etc...

Let them procreate in peace... They get enough pressure from a 9-10 month season.

[Diamondhitch]

He is getting at C&R mortality during spawning season, ppl disturbing spawning ground (shallow water,streams,rivers), stress implied etc etc...

Let them procreate in peace... They get enough pressure from a 9-10 month season.

I have no problem with closures during spawning, the proposal I was addressing was for longer closures. (unless I read it wrong)

The human death and pollution still baffles me though?

[Diamondhitch]

...more people will attempt to fish, attempting to "push it" and end up as Darwin Awards: http://www.darwinawards.com

Yep weed out the weak and stupid just like Darwin intended :) LOL Always a good plan ;)

[Talking moose]

http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/05/30/bf2fabd6094dcde0e8c286d101853daa.jpg

[Diamondhitch]

I think you may have posted to the wrong thread Moose?

[kevinhits]

Ok...Need to speak up...

1. Fish and wildlife are MAYBE spread too thin....There is officers that can drive and hit all lakes within there district within the day...I maybe wrong ..How much office and paper work do they need to do if they are not out catching Poachers...lol

2. Poaching will increase regardless of regulations...Limit any lake, pond, or resovoir...to 0 limit...Fisherman are ****ed that they cannot keep one fish and they will steal(poach) there fish anyways....

No enforcement equals you can do what you want......

I have been fishing now 15 years and seen maybe 8 officers checking on me

[Talking moose]

I think you may have posted to the wrong thread Moose?

Lol...yuppers!!!

[huntsfurfish]

Cool, your suggestion gives us natural selection on the Catch and Release anglers only, that should solve the problem ;-) (sorry, couldn't miss that one)

Seriously though, I think your suggestion has merit in places where it's not around ice breakup and when they're spawning. The problem however is that there's more fishing pressure. If you put fish in a tank and stress them constantly, then they die. I.E. Catch and Release does not have zero effect on a fishery.

Also, let me put forward this example. Lets assume an average 19% mortality rate for rainbow trout that are released (it can be as high as 87% and as low as 0 depending on what tackle you're using, bait and water temp ).

Reference:
http://www.gofishbc.com/how-to-fish/fishing-articles/catch-and-release.aspx

At 87% C&R is definitely more destructive to a fishery than catch and keep.

Fisherman A fishes until he gets a legal fish and then goes home. Fisherman B fishes all day catch and release.

A catches 3 fish until he gets one he can keep = 1 fish dead and 19% mortality on the 2 fish he couldn't keep is 0.38 fish. Net effect on fishery is 1.38 fish down.
He goes home early, fillets his catch and has a slap up meal with his family.

B catches 15 fish, fishing all day. He goes home thinking that everything is peachy because every fish swam away and that he's a good guy because he had zero impact on the resources and is saving fish for himself and the next guy.
He also tells every person he sees on the water that they shouldn't keep fish
because it impacts his fishing and everybody's elses. "Those Catch and Keep
guys are really selfish you know"

However catching and releasing he's killed 2.85 fish which is over double the impact on the fishery than the catch and keep angler.

And to boot, he hasn't had a stellar meal out of it either.

Catch and Release doesn't make anybody a more honorable or considerate angler than someone who isn't, it's a different set of reasoning / ethics which sometimes results in less impact and often does not.

I will catch and release until I catch a fish I can keep or want to keep and at that point I'm out. Will I release the big ones, mostly yes, but it depends on it also
depends on it's chances of survival. I'm not gonna release a fish that is unlikely
to survive.

Frankly, I'm p**sed off with C&R fisherman telling me what I "shouldn't" do with my fish despite being perfectly within my rights and it being ethical to do so. I don't tell them to stop Catch and Releasing all day, and they're not as "holyier than thou" as they think, more often they have more impact on a fishery (particular if they're good at it), but unfortunately they don't do the math and figure out the impact of their actions. Many of the fish they release, die, it's pretty simple and there's plenty of studies that prove it.

The only thing that has zero impact on a fishery is to hang up your rod and go golfing.

Interesting.:)

While I see the point you are trying to make. It is pretty broad. From what I have observed, few meat fishermen go home as soon as they have a keeper or even there limit.
I could use a broad net and say the vast majority of C&R fishermen are more apt to be better at fish handling etc.
Meat fishermen tend to use bait more as well(in general) and also from what I have observed people tend to gravitate towards catch and release with experience rather than the other way around.:)
Using trout as an example of high mortality rates(to make your point:)) is kind of a bad example or at least over the top. That 87% deals with bait and more meat numbers:sHa_sarcasticlol:.

All said and done though, all methods have mortality rates. A fish that is left in the water has a chance. A fish taken home has no chance.:)
It is up to you(fishermen) to try and make it easier for the fishes survival.

I dont keep many fish, but I still want to see that ability for those that do!

[Diamondhitch]

...Also, let me put forward this example. Lets assume an average 19% mortality rate for rainbow trout that are released (it can be as high as 87% and as low as 0 depending on what tackle you're using, bait and water temp )...

Im not saying no one should be allowed to keep fish. I enjoy a fish fry as much as the next guy.

The above statement brings up a whole other subject and to avoid thread poaching I wont dwell too much on it. The barbless hook law, as conservation minded as it may appear, is simply another example of the ineffectiveness of our F&W.

When pressured by angling groups, our biologists did a study. This study, as well as studies done elsewhere, show that barbed single hooks do not cause an increase in mortality in released fish. It also showed that treble hooks, multi hook lures and bait all caused the mortality rate to skyrocket. Despite the scientific conclusion of these numerous studies, the barbless hook rule was legislated because some very vocal anglers were demanding it. It is a political decision where science should always prevail.

Whew, now I can climb down off my soapbox :) lol

[Freedom55]

[QUOTE=Speckle55;2849462]here is my Big Northern Pike I kept and story
http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=124556&highlight=World+record+papers

I will be donating it to the Alberta Provincial Museum

also my Brook Trout too

I believe that the Law is correct

and here is a quote on ethics

"I, however, view ethics as an individual decision. My ethics are mine - and I won't explain or justify them to anyone else. I seek nobody's approval, just that of my own conscience. "



Is it at all within the realm of possibilities that when a friend shows up with a near record fish that said friend is seeking the approval of the friend, who happens to have a world record pike hanging on the wall - and is an ethical, documented trophy taker?

Probably not. Not very ethical, but it is "food for thought."

BTW. Who is the author of your quote? Sounds like something Richard Nixon might have said in 1972.

Free

[J D]

Cool, your suggestion gives us natural selection on the Catch and Release anglers only, that should solve the problem ;-) (sorry, couldn't miss that one)

Seriously though, I think your suggestion has merit in places where it's not around ice breakup and when they're spawning. The problem however is that there's more fishing pressure. If you put fish in a tank and stress them constantly, then they die. I.E. Catch and Release does not have zero effect on a fishery.

Also, let me put forward this example. Lets assume an average 19% mortality rate for rainbow trout that are released (it can be as high as 87% and as low as 0 depending on what tackle you're using, bait and water temp ).

Reference:
http://www.gofishbc.com/how-to-fish/fishing-articles/catch-and-release.aspx

At 87% C&R is definitely more destructive to a fishery than catch and keep.

Fisherman A fishes until he gets a legal fish and then goes home. Fisherman B fishes all day catch and release.

A catches 3 fish until he gets one he can keep = 1 fish dead and 19% mortality on the 2 fish he couldn't keep is 0.38 fish. Net effect on fishery is 1.38 fish down.
He goes home early, fillets his catch and has a slap up meal with his family.

B catches 15 fish, fishing all day. He goes home thinking that everything is peachy because every fish swam away and that he's a good guy because he had zero impact on the resources and is saving fish for himself and the next guy.
He also tells every person he sees on the water that they shouldn't keep fish
because it impacts his fishing and everybody's elses. "Those Catch and Keep
guys are really selfish you know"

However catching and releasing he's killed 2.85 fish which is over double the impact on the fishery than the catch and keep angler.

And to boot, he hasn't had a stellar meal out of it either.

Catch and Release doesn't make anybody a more honorable or considerate angler than someone who isn't, it's a different set of reasoning / ethics which sometimes results in less impact and often does not.

I will catch and release until I catch a fish I can keep or want to keep and at that point I'm out. Will I release the big ones, mostly yes, but it depends on it also
depends on it's chances of survival. I'm not gonna release a fish that is unlikely
to survive.

Frankly, I'm p**sed off with C&R fisherman telling me what I "shouldn't" do with my fish despite being perfectly within my rights and it being ethical to do so. I don't tell them to stop Catch and Releasing all day, and they're not as "holyier than thou" as they think, more often they have more impact on a fishery (particular if they're good at it), but unfortunately they don't do the math and figure out the impact of their actions. Many of the fish they release, die, it's pretty simple and there's plenty of studies that prove it.

The only thing that has zero impact on a fishery is to hang up your rod and go golfing.


For starters I have no issue with those that choose to keep some fish for the table. Only ones I have issue with doing this is when they are gluttons about it or poaching. Like I stated before moderation is all I like to see with those who catch and keep. I like to put the odd fish on the table my self.

I agree 100% c&r has a greater mortality than many c&r anglers think. This is something that can vary a lot depending on angling method, handling, species, water conditions, weather and many other factors. Because of this it is almost impossible to set a mortality % in my opinion. The example of trout in your link is using a very weak species that can be easily effected compared to many others.

In reality all anglers have an impact debating on who has a greater impact is truly a waste in my opinion. Again the impact changes depending on the day and angler. There are many who c&r and keep in the same outing if it is because of size or just want to continue enjoying the day fishing after reaching the limit they intend to keep.

Like I stated earlier respect for the fishery and trying to limit your personal impact is something that all fishermen keep in mind. All should learn and practice good c&r methods even if they are only used for fish that don't reach legal size limit.

Really the ethical debate on who is better c&r or c&k angler yields little results. If this should be put to rest and focus should be towards educating fishermen on respecting the waters and fish the pursue.

[Lowrance Fishburn]

Keeping large pike over 100 cm is wrong and its selfish and you are an ignorant , selfish person , naive person if you do so. That is how I feel about it. There are several reasons mentioned about why it is a good idea to release these spawning mothers and I don't care about what the regulations are, these regulations are hurting our fisheries and should be changed.

Reasons not to keep large pike :

1) Spawner - keeps lake healthy with hundreds and hundreds of eggs each spring

2) Good genetics - survived a lot and gets to pass on strong genetics to other fish

3) Old age - This lady has been alive a good long while and for most of that time as lived 1-3 feet off the bottom of the lake and now tasted like dirt. The meat is often discolored (almost greyish) by this point

4) Future generations - Taking these fish out means they cannot be caught in years to come by other anglers and experience the same thrill ( selfish)

5) Lake quality - As mentioned, removing as many big pike (or other fish) as can be caught only serves to diminish the quality of big fish in that lake. Therefore, the lake that gave you so much joy and excitement when you caught and killed your big pike may not be the same lake 5 years from now when everyone has pulled out as many lunkers as possible for a sub-par meal. Watching a trophy lake get turned into a non-trophy and average at best lake is one of the saddest things I can think of.

Reasons to keep large pike:

1) Ego


Thats all I have got to say about that and I feel very strongly that those who do keep these amazing fish are selfish and could care less about anyone or anything else but themselves and that moment. Just my opinion.

[waterninja]

Keeping large pike over 100 cm is wrong and its selfish and you are an ignorant , selfish person , naive person if you do so. That is how I feel about it. There are several reasons mentioned about why it is a good idea to release these spawning mothers and I don't care about what the regulations are, these regulations are hurting our fisheries and should be changed.

Reasons not to keep large pike :

1) Spawner - keeps lake healthy with hundreds and hundreds of eggs each spring

2) Good genetics - survived a lot and gets to pass on strong genetics to other fish

3) Old age - This lady has been alive a good long while and for most of that time as lived 1-3 feet off the bottom of the lake and now tasted like dirt. The meat is often discolored (almost greyish) by this point

4) Future generations - Taking these fish out means they cannot be caught in years to come by other anglers and experience the same thrill ( selfish)

5) Lake quality - As mentioned, removing as many big pike (or other fish) as can be caught only serves to diminish the quality of big fish in that lake. Therefore, the lake that gave you so much joy and excitement when you caught and killed your big pike may not be the same lake 5 years from now when everyone has pulled out as many lunkers as possible for a sub-par meal. Watching a trophy lake get turned into a non-trophy and average at best lake is one of the saddest things I can think of.

Reasons to keep large pike:

1) Ego


Thats all I have got to say about that and I feel very strongly that those who do keep these amazing fish are selfish and could care less about anyone or anything else but themselves and that moment. Just my opinion.
While I don't keep any very large pike myself, There is nothing unethical or illegal in doing so when the regs. allow.
Lowrance, thats quite the rant. Take a breath, life is too short.

[Lowrance Fishburn]

While I don't keep any very large pike myself, There is nothing unethical or illegal in doing so when the regs. allow.
Lowrance, thats quite the rant. Take a breath, life is too short.

Ya, i guess I get kinda worked up lol. I just hate seeing it and I hate seeing lake quality for fishing diminish as a result and I have seen this in several lakes. As far as it being illegal, you are right, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Ethically, well thats another story. While not breaking any laws and staying within the regulations, ethically, at least in my opinion, it is still wrong and is as illogical as it is immoral. Maybe im wrong but its how I feel.

And finally, again maybe this is just me but after catching a big fish and fighting with it on your line and finally getting it into the boat and getting the hook out and holding it up and taking a picture, there is something reassuring and almost therapeutic about putting it back in the water and feeling it kick from out of your hands and swim away. Thats the feeling right there and to me is eternally more gratifying than the alternative.