Do you Catch and Realse or Keep fish

[Dust1n]

Do you C&R, Keep what you catch, A bit of both?

[Dust1n]

Do you C&R, Keep what you catch, A bit of both
Please give me feedback on your thoughts

[Dust1n]

I choose C&R with the odd shore lunch. 95% C&R fisherman.

[ShhImFishing]

i almost always C&R especially if they're a decent size, let them big genes reproduce :sHa_shakeshout:

Every now and then when i go fishing with my bro, he left town so i hardly see him anymore and hes the one who started me fishing, and we catch one or two thats just over the required length ill keep it for a shore side lunch, mostly for nostalgia, but also for some good eats :D

[redranger15]

I keep what I catch till I get my limit. Fish for walleye mostly, through back all the jack. If i'm going for monster cats they all go back, or what ever else I catch out of the Red River:sick:. Keep the trout till my limit as well, but haven't gone in a long time. Keep the odd perch if we don't have enough pick for shore lunch.

[bloopbloob]

I probably keep only 2 or 3 fish a year, the rest go back. Never keep big ones either (except maybe perch, but can't seem to catch big ones anyways... :thinking-006: ). Approx sizes I'll keep for eating: Pike 3-4lbs, Walleye 2.5-4lbs, trout 2-3lbs, perch 1lb or bigger

[Dust1n]

I probably keep only 2 or 3 fish a year, the rest go back. Never keep big ones either (except maybe perch, but can't seem to catch big ones anyways... :thinking-006: ). Approx sizes I'll keep for eating: Pike 3-4lbs, Walleye 2.5-4lbs, trout 2-3lbs, perch 1lb or bigger

the tiny cutties in the creeks are incredible after a hard day of hiking.

[bloopbloob]

the tiny cutties in the creeks are incredible after a hard day of hiking.

never caught one...... Only trout i've ever caught has been rainbows

[ShhImFishing]

i dont know why but i never could justify keeping monsters :D
I remember when my bro took me out when i was still young, maybe 5-6 years old, he "taught me" how to "properly" use a jig, anyway I hooked a nice pike, my bro had to pull it in lol... he wanted to keep it, i told him i wanted to try holding it and i put it back into the water lol he was ****ed....

[Dust1n]

walk up a small moutain creek throw on a small adams and they readly rise and are very esy to catch easer then bows IMO

[RandyBoBandy]

CNR here...In Alberta I believe there is way too much pressure:)

[ShhImFishing]

never caught one...... Only trout i've ever caught has been rainbows

same here, and ive only ever caught maybe 3 rainbows, my roots were in pike and walleye fishing, got a fly rod over the winter, planning on learning to fly fish this year, should be able to add to the tally on rainbows hehe

[Daceminnow]

90 percent of the waters i fish are c&r only by regulations, the other 10 percent of the time my son won't let me keep what we are permitted to take home. we take a lot of photos.

Dace

[pickrel pat]

mostly catch and release. i love to eat fish. if the fish is from a healthy population i will take one or two. on the other hand, if the fish are overpopulated and stunting i wont hesitate to limit out.

[densa44]

It's not a religion or anything like that it is just that I'd rather eat Cod or the like and I have just let the trout go. I used barb less hooks long before it was the law because I had me, my clothes etc. more than the fish, so I just started squeezing them down.

I you like to eat them, just keep the little ones and let the spawners go.

[Braun]

CnR mostly but i definitely keep a few fish. I have an amazing smoked whitefish recipe. Thanks to stang i have an amazing recipe for perch.

I dont go for perch often(maybe twice a year) but if I do I will keep enough for a meal for me and the GF.
Ill keep a couple trout a year.
maybe one walleye a year but most go back.
But ill keep more whites than any other fish. I loved my smoked white

[Jamie]

When Salmon fishing at Great Pacific Salmon Lodge, if you didn’t practice some catch and release during the Coho season, your day would be done in a hour or 2.

We are leaving that decision up to our guests. Anyone who releases a 50# + Salmon gets a free trip out of it.

It's a very personal thing and one I wouldn’t want to force on our guests.

Jamie

[Speckle55]

yes i do but i will eat some sometimes.. today i released a 5#10 Rainbow and a 6#6 Bull Trout/ 4#2 Bull Trout... took three smaller Rainbow at 19 inches and less to eat nice day on Kootenay Lake miss 5 hits may be one a nice fish although you never know..bed time up early tomorrow:sHa_shakeshout:

[horsetrader]

I keep the odd fish especially if fishing perch most walleye is C&R keep the odd pike in the winter.Don't fish for trout so if I do catch one it's by accident so it's released. And when i start fishing Alberta Small mouth bass that will be C&R also................:)

[JJRND]

During the summer and fall I'll only keep fish caught in mountain lakes and streams. Ice fishing, I'll keep fish from most places. However, I catch and release the monsters. They aren't great for eating, and maybe you'll have (or allow another fellow fisherman) the thrill of catching them again someday.

[lifesaflyin]

During the summer and fall I'll only keep fish caught in mountain lakes and streams. Ice fishing, I'll keep fish from most places. However, I catch and release the monsters. They aren't great for eating, and maybe you'll have (or allow another fellow fisherman) the thrill of catching them again someday.

I am the same. mostly C&R. But I like the occasional fish fry once and a while.

[Sooner]

I prefer to catch and quickly release. My ex bro inlaw keeps every walleye allowed. I didnt tell him to release his fish but he always wanted me to keep one for him. Glad he's not my bro inlaw anymore and no I didnt keep one for him but when I go fishing with my kids, if one wants to keep a fish the rule is they have to eat it with me. We dont keep any fish yet.

[bigcougar]

When ice fishing, I keep most of my fish; they are stocked triploids anyways.
In rivers, the majority of my fish are released with the occasional salmon and trout kept. Sometimes, I may target mountain whitefish in rivers and keep them.

[BBJTKLE&FISHINGADVENTURES]

Out of all the fishing I do in a year which is just a little bit , I keep fish maybe 5 times . I'm not a huge fish fan but love salmon and seafood .

When Salmon fishing at Great Pacific Salmon Lodge, if you didn't practice some catch and release during the Coho season, your day would be done in a hour or 2.

We are leaving that decision up to our guests. Anyone who releases a 50# + Salmon gets a free trip out of it.

It's a very personal thing and one I wouldn't want to force on our guests.

Jamie

Jamie that is a really good incentive for promoting catch and release fishing . I like that .

[Isopod]

I keep 3 whitefish or so each year for the smoker, everything else gets tossed back for me (and others) to catch again!

[grind stone]

If it's legal i keep it other wise it goes back.

[Kokanee9]

If I went fishing to eat fish, I could have saved a bunch of money by just going to Safeway instead of putting the money that I have into fishing. Nothing ever stays in the boat.

[thedonald]

I keep some from a few hike in mountain lakes and a few prairie potholes with good water. I find if the lake smells swampy than that flavors the fish especially the big ones. So at Sparrows Egg, caught lots of keepers this year but let them all go. Might sample one at Police out of the cold water but when I fish for food, I like salmon and other ocean fish. Fishing for trout for me is more of an exercise, scenery, search and technique session and a lot of humble pie eating as I watch others do a lot better. So I always pack a snack when I head out.

[honda450]

Mostly fish for cutties on the ES. Catch and Release, fun to catch but don't really like to eat them.

[Jwood 456]

I usually catch and keep my limit of the legal size walleye and will leave the lake alone for a little while. I usually release any pike under 8lbs even though many 4+lbers are legal keeping size and probably would only keep 1 pike over 10lbs. I generally keep one large fish, relase the small ones so they can get big and mainly keep the medium sized ones. I then usually leave the lake or spot alone for a while.

Also, next time I go perch fishing too, I will probably only keep 5 perch instead of 15 perch. I usually release any perch under 8''.

[Don Andersen]

Folks,

I just plain don't get it.

SRD does a poll when thew Quality angling concept was contemplated and 80%+ were in favor.
We has another "Quality Angling Poll" several weeks ago on this forum and 80+% were in favor
And here we go again with another that says 86% are in favor of releasing nearly off of their catch.

Leaving us with about 10% of anglers who have 95% of the lakes in Alberta managed for them.

Why is SRD so outta step with their client base?



Don

[tbone616]

I don't like eating fish so it is strictly C&R for me. Nothing wrong with keeping some if you do like to eat them but i'm in it for the pure enjoyment of it. I do think that they should have some large size restrictions though so the monsters get to go back and live another day. Picture, measurements and a quick weight and they should go back for others to pursue, but that's just my opinion.

[FishBrain]

mmmmmmmmmmmm, I love eating fish. I keep what I catch to a point.
I love trout, have no problems catching them all day and just keeping the limit. I keep 1 Pike/year from the ice. I LOVE Walleye, but not many water bodies that you can keep them from. Keep whitefish and Burbot.

[jpietrzak1979]

We keep our limits, got 5 ppl in my house who all love to eat fish.

[whitetail Junkie]

Always KEEP what I catch.Fish are a Renewable resource,I like eating them,so I always take what i'm entitled to,most of the Time.

[ishootbambi]

i cant even remember the last time i killed a fish. robin has killed 2 since ive known her. however i dont have any animosity toward those that do eat a few, but a lot of animosity to those who have a hard time counting.......obey the damn laws please.

[FishingForLife]

Since I was a little guy, I don't think i've ever kept a fish...And probably never will. Catch, Measure, Picture, Release, Repeat. :)

[Newspeak]

I love eating fish. Nothing better than fresh caught fish, taste even better when you catch em yourself!

[Braun]

i just fish too often to (legallly) keep everything I catch. If i keep something, i plan on cooking it that night or the next. otherwise it is a waste IMO. That said, and not counting whitefish (rockies) or perch, Ill maybe keep 4/5 fish a year.

the perch come from lakes where they are stunted and the rockies come from the bow which is overpopulated with them in the area where I fish anyways.

[chubbdarter]

interesting poll results....BUT i believe we need everyones defiition of "odd" in the "odd shore lunch " option
if we go by the math term "even or odd"....that hardly makes you a C an R fisherman

[iliketrout]

interesting poll results....BUT i believe we need everyones defiition of "odd" in the "odd shore lunch " option
if we go by the math term "even or odd"....that hardly makes you a C an R fisherman

Yeah the answer that best describes my habits is not on there. I'd say I'm more of a "keep one or two and put the rest back" type of fisherman.

I rarely keep a limit (can only think of twice when I did), but typically take 1 or 2 home for the smoker or pan fry.

[alodar]

I keep a few perch one or 2 small pike and the odd white or burbot. I would say I caught over 1000 fish this past season kept maybe 10 perch. One white and 3 jack all in separate waters

[J-C]

For me it depends on how I feel a fish population is doing and how many I catch. I don't get out very often but I wouldn't feel bad about keeping a spring or fall pike. Most of the time when I fish perch I try to keep males because my heart sinks when I start to fillet and I see eggs. Pot hole lakes stocked with trout I usually keep a larger one but rarely keep my limit. Love burbot but I only get 1 or 2 an outing in winter. Whitefish are my favorite to keep usless they are pathetically small then they go back in the water. Walleye are C&R unless I have tags.

[Easywean]

The poll is a bit deceiving. I'd keep legal fish if I felt they were big enough for a meal, don't usually keep fish that just measure up. My family loves to eat fish so none goes to waste. So I'd say I'm somewhere in between keep all I catch and keep the odd fish.

[cooper]

I dont eat fish unless it comes in abox its how i was brought up .

[rielbowhunter]

I keep most bookies i catch. i all so keep my limit on perch, I love to eat perch. I keep fish for a nice snack when we are at kootneey lake. and keep the odd laker form spray. that being said I have released and consider my self a catch and release fisher man, I feel this way because I have released so many more fish that I could have kept. my dad will always keep his limit. but I fish way to much to do that. Plus I love the look on some peoples faces when you let a big fish go. lol makes me feel good inside. drives my dad nuts. lol.and some guys on the banks of the Bow. I feel if you are going to take the fish home and eat it that day, plus the body of water can handle it, then its fine to keep some.

[Newspeak]

Plus I love the look on some peoples faces when you let a big fish go. lol makes me feel good inside. drives my dad nuts. lol.and some guys on the banks of the Bow.

It drives some people nuts when you don't poach big fish out of the Bow? :confused:

[WayneChristie]

yes . except the shore lunch, I hate the taste of shore. people walk on it and birds poop on it!

[bigcougar]

It is quite possible that keeping our catch is more environmentally friendly than buying farmed or wild fish in the grocery store. This is going to be a nice topic for a research project.

[Newspeak]

Many grocery fish are threatened species. The same cannot be said for trout.

[Braun]

It drives some people nuts when you don't poach big fish out of the Bow? :confused:

lol i thought the same thing

[Braun]

It is quite possible that keeping our catch is more environmentally friendly than buying farmed or wild fish in the grocery store. This is going to be a nice topic for a research project.

what are you trying to do here? start another fight between sundance, hunterdave, and freedom 55? isnt the bass fight between horsetrader and grinr enough for you?


lol. good point though. fish farms do alot of harm to our oceans. same with all the bycatch resulting from commercial fishing. there was a website posted a while back protesting the bycatch in the uk commercial fishing. something like 50% was tossed overboard because it wasnt what they were after or not in season and in their nets. most fish thrown overboard are dead or dying.

[Bigtoad]

I'm mostly a C&R fishermen but I will keep a few fish over the course of the year.
- For trout streams, I almost always release everything. Can't remember the last time I would have kept one.
- In trout lakes, I might keep one small one but it depends on the fishery.
- When ice fishing, I will keep one or two whitefish or perch but won't keep anywhere near my limit.
- I also have a general rule wherever I fish that the big ones go back. Always!

And Don, I know we think similarly when it comes to SRD and changes they should be making. One of the things I would like to see is a strong advertising campaign aimed at anglers to practice C&R when it comes to big fish. Doesn't need to be expensive either. Put it in the regulations, put some catchy little catch phrase on the license (perhaps something like, "If it's a beast, practice catch and release:sHa_shakeshout:)". Put an article in the regulations with some statistics about how long it takes to grow different types of trophy fish and what a difference catch and releasing those big fish would make to the fishery. Again, not expensive but it might help to get the message out there.

Ask Alberta Outdoorsman to run a similar article showing the positive attributes of catch and release, especially when it comes to catch and releasing of big fish.

Lots of articles on "how to" catch big fish out there but very little on educating people to make responsible decisions once they've landed the big one.

Don, your name has some weight and you've written for lots of magazines. Have you ever written one on the benefits of catching and releasing big fish on a fishery? Have a good story in there, throw in some evidence, make a good case, and see if a SRD will run it in next year's regs, or if some other magazine would run it (oh, I don't know which one... ummmm.... maybe THIS ONE!) I'd love to see something like that. (and forgive me if you've already done something similar and I've missed it).

Sorry FishHunter7 for the hijack, I'll get out of the car now.

Cheers.

[Don Andersen]

Bigtoad,

Never thought of an article. Frankly it would be tough to do. No evidence. All the big fish have been eaten.
Mind you - got to qualify big. If it's over 8 lbs., it's a good 'un. If over 10 it may qualify in some folks books as big.
Still, a 10 lb. fish is only 50% of the Alberta record.
Typical trout lake today is about 0.5 lbs. or a 2.5% fish. Quality Lake bench mark is 20" or 2 lbs or for God's Sake a 10% fish. What a dazzling bench mark to shot for!!!
And with that, I hope to be heading out for some decent trout fishing Saturday.
A decent trout looks like this:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v654/DonAndersen/Trout%2010/Fish1w.jpg

[sheephunter]

Catch and keep some and C&R some. I like eating fish and pretty well always take a meal when legal. I don't feel bad about it.

[duffy4]

I like to eat fish that I have caught. So when it is legal I usually (but not always) will keep a few to eat. I enjoy catching fish so I will fish catch and release waters and will often release fish that I could keep.


Often people believe that C&R fishing means not killing fish and eating all or some of your limit means killing a lot of fish.


Even if you are very careful C&R may result in some mortality. It is possible that one angler could catch his legal limit and go home without releasing any fish. Another angler at the same lake could C&R all day long, releasing over 100 fish. He may have accidentally killed more than his legal limit.

If 85% of the anglers who fish a lake are C&R advocates then what good would it do for SRD to make that lake compulsory C&R ?

[HunterDave]

I just plain don't get it.

SRD does a poll when thew Quality angling concept was contemplated and 80%+ were in favor.
We has another "Quality Angling Poll" several weeks ago on this forum and 80+% were in favor
And here we go again with another that says 86% are in favor of releasing nearly off of their catch.

Leaving us with about 10% of anglers who have 95% of the lakes in Alberta managed for them.

Why is SRD so outta step with their client base?

Maybe SRD is not outta step with their client base considering that the 200 or so people that vote on these AO polls represent what........... +/-.001% of all Alberta anglers. The SRD poll that was quietly posted on their site for a month that almost no one knew about, well, I think that we all know who participated in that one. :)

My catch/keep depends on allot of things including (off hand) how far I drive to catch a fish, the time of year/water quality, regs for the lake and whether or not the fish is likely to die if I release it.

If I drive 3 hours to get to a good trout lake or go for a few days then I am likely going to come home with my limit if I can but if I go to a lake 3 kms away I'll likely only keep what I need for supper that night. Other times I'll just fish for the heck of it, kill time or whatever, and I won't keep anything. If I catch something that is hooked bad then it gets eaten. If I'm fishing a slew in August then I likely won't keep anything. If I'm fishing Lac Ste Anne for walleye then I can't keep any although I'm hoping to get drawn for a couple of tags this year.

My rules are to only keep what you need and leave the rest and keep only the eatin sized ones and let the big and small ones go.

[Don Andersen]

For Duffy4,

There is no question that fishing is a blood sport. Whether or not we kill 'em all or C&R exclusively.

For your info and others here is a post I made to another board that about describes my activity.

Like you, I've pondered my effect on fish due to the numbers of trout I catch. A typical year [from personal angling records for 40 years] shows I landed approx. 1000 fish in the 110>130 days I spend angling. Using a 3% C&R mortality, I killed 30 trout.

From the DFO Recreational Angling survey site below, I found the following quote:


http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/stats/rec/can/2005/section4-eng.htm


In 2005, anglers caught 215 million fish of all species and retained nearly 72 million (Annex A.7). Resident anglers in all provinces and territories caught 157 million of this total harvest. Foreign anglers caught 54 million (25%) while Canadian non-resident anglers caught a relatively small proportion of the total fish harvest (4 million) during the year (Figure 4.5 and Annex A.8).

Resident anglers kept 39% of the fish they caught compared with 22% and 18% share of fish kept by Canadian non-resident and foreign anglers. On average, each resident angler kept 24 fish in 2005. Every Canadian non-resident angler kept an average of 7 fish, while foreign anglers retained an average of 16 fish of various species.

Residents caught 157,000,000
Kept 39% = 61.230,000
C&R - 95,770,000
C&R mortailty = 3% * 95,770,000 = 2,873,100
Total killed by residents = 61,230,000 + 2,873,100 = 64,103,100
Total Residents = 2,456,876
Residents killed 26.09 fish


I must therefore conclude that although I fish a lot, my effect on the fish population is nearly the same as the Average Kill & Keep angler. It must be admitted though that through my C&R practices, the Average Kill & Keep Angler will not catch/kill nearly as many fish.

You be the judge whether or not this is a good thing.


catch ya'


Don

[sheephunter]

At some point we need to eat fish or there really is no reason for the government to allow fishing.

[aulrich]

C&R mostly but will take a limit here and there.

In a natural reproducing lake the magic size for a keeper is for me (and local rules allowing) big enough to have spawned once is min size and the max size is the max size for a male fish in the lake.

As an example for pike that would be about 24"- 30"

Would like to figure that out for other fish.

[Darren N]

99 percent C&R. Less fish to clean when i get home.

[sir pikealott]

I may keep one or two Pike in the winter (4-5lber's), and usually one nice limit of Perch, also in the winter. I'm actually deep frying the one limit of Perch from this winter tonight. Can't wait! Usually always keep one limit of Lakers if I make it to Spray. Wish I lived closer to the West coast some days, I'd have a few Salmon in the freezer (Halibut too! yum!). If I'm with the kids I may keep more often (everyone knows how hard it its to get a kid to let "Their Fish" go sometimes, LOL!). And one day, I'll start to concentrate on fishing for Walleye. Haven't eaten one in years! Mostly catch.....measure.....picture and release with the odd one for the BBQ or Fryer. Tight lines!

[Bigtoad]

At some point we need to eat fish or there really is no reason for the government to allow fishing.

I'm not suggesting that we limit all fishing to C&R. I'm just suggestion some education on the benefits of more voluntary C&R, especially when it comes to big fish might go a long way. This should apply to all species of fish in the province. I'm not just talking trout here.

And as for what size should go back? It really depends on what waterbody you're fishing, what species you're catching, and your own preference. In Gull, any pike over 8ish lbs is going back for me. Beaver Lake, any rainbow even approaching a modest 18" is going back in the H20. In Pigeon, a 5lb whitie is going back in the drink. In Stauffer, I'd rather shoot and eat my own dog than keep one of these sacred pigs.

What I'd like to see in education is let people know some facts about big fish. Some good stuff out of Barry Mitchell's Forestry Trunk Road showing how rare it is for a trout in a stream to survive to get big, and how long it takes to grow a certain size in certain types of water conditions. The information makes you appreciate those fish much more and want to release those big guys. That information is part of the reason I will seldom, if ever, keep a fish out of stream (unless its stunted brookies that have bread themselves silly). Same goes for pike or walleye, or any species; if it takes 8 years to grow a 10lb pike (pulling this #out of my ass), you might think twice before you bonk 3 of them each. You might keep 3 average sized ones instead... or just 1:)

If you are under the false impression that fishing in Alberta is just a renewable resource and that pike over 10lbs or trout over 20" are everywhere and don't require time, money, resources, the right environment, the right regulations, etc, to grow to even those modest sizes, then you are also more inclined to bonk them when given half a chance.

If however, you believe that it requires quite a few factors to all come together to create a large fish (whatever that means to you) then you might be more inclined to release that fish. No???

Cheers.

[sheephunter]

Lots of good arguements to be made for how C&R improves the trophy quality of a fishery and in many cases it improves the over all health of a water body and I wasn't arguing that but at the end of the day, if people aren't eating fish, there are some pretty strong arguements to stop people from fishing all together.

[Sundancefisher]

At some point we need to eat fish or there really is no reason for the government to allow fishing.

Lots of good arguements to be made for how C&R improves the trophy quality of a fishery and in many cases it improves the over all health of a water body and I wasn't arguing that but at the end of the day, if people aren't eating fish, there are some pretty strong arguements to stop people from fishing all together.


I have to agree and disagree.

I believe there has to be balance and opportunity to harvest fish in Alberta...however I stress that simply defining fishing as a harvesting activity is false.

Many people fish L. Kan for big bull trout because of the recreational aspect of the activity. Others fish southern Alberta for Arctic Grayling because they love fishing even though their is zero harvest.

You can not reasonably define fishing as solely the harvesting of fish. That is not what defines it otherwise people would just go to the grocery store and save a ton of money on gas, lodging, tackle, bait etc. What sells the activity is the recreational benefits and enjoyment. To improve on the recreational enjoyment would impact a larger portion of the population IMHO that improving on the harvest.

Still...I would not vote for a zero harvest throughout the Province. Like I was taught as a kid...moderation is always the key. Never swing too far to either extreme. Keeping balance by providing options and sound management in our sport serves more people than making the whole province catch and release or the whole province a fish harvesting free for all.

[sheephunter]

I have to agree and disagree.

I believe there has to be balance and opportunity to harvest fish in Alberta...however I stress that simply defining fishing as a harvesting activity is false.

Many people fish L. Kan for big bull trout because of the recreational aspect of the activity. Others fish southern Alberta for Arctic Grayling because they love fishing even though their is zero harvest.

You can not reasonably define fishing as solely the harvesting of fish. That is not what defines it otherwise people would just go to the grocery store and save a ton of money on gas, lodging, tackle, bait etc. What sells the activity is the recreational benefits and enjoyment. To improve on the recreational enjoyment would impact a larger portion of the population IMHO that improving on the harvest.

Still...I would not vote for a zero harvest throughout the Province. Like I was taught as a kid...moderation is always the key. Never swing too far to either extreme. Keeping balance by providing options and sound management in our sport serves more people than making the whole province catch and release or the whole province a fish harvesting free for all.

I think you are missing my point. As an angler I agree with everything you say but how do you sell the self gratifying torture of fish to a non-angler? We hunt for a lot of personal reasons but the day we stop eating meat is the day hunting disappears. The same can be said of fish. We fish to eat is pretty easy to justify. We fish because it gives us pleasure even those it causes fish stress and mortality is not so easy to justify. Don't get me wrong, I totally appreciate what C&R means but at the end of the day, C&R would not exist if it were not for the guys that love to eat fish. The fish killers are critical to the future of fishing in modern society. They definitely aren't the bad guys.

[huntfishtrap]

SH, I can't see the the logic to compare hunting to C&R fishing. Maybe if you could explain further.

[sheephunter]

SH, I can't see the the logic to compare hunting to C&R fishing. Maybe if you could explain further.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that fishing and hunting are both traditionally sports that people engaged in to feed themselves and it seems that the general public and even the government can get their heads around that and support it and fund it. But suddenly if that sport becomes nothing but entertainment where fish are caused stressed and die for no other reason than entertainment, it becomes a mighty tough sell to the general public and to the government considering the precarious state of our funding for SRD. As long as people eat fish, fishing is easy to justify.

Can you imagine if we started going out and darting a few dozen whitetails each a day for sheer entertainment and a few died because of stress and mortality?

I'm not against C&R fishing at all. I'm just looking at the big picture and a few of those posters criticizing people that catch and eat fish better do the same. The only reason they can practice C&R is because some people still choose to eat fish.

[chubbdarter]

I think you are missing my point. As an angler I agree with everything you say but how do you sell the self gratifying torture of fish to a non-angler? We hunt for a lot of personal reasons but the day we stop eating meat is the day hunting disappears. The same can be said of fish. We fish to eat is pretty easy to justify. We fish because it gives us pleasure even those it causes fish stress and mortality is not so easy to justify. Don't get me wrong, I totally appreciate what C&R means but at the end of the day, C&R would not exist if it were not for the guys that love to eat fish. The fish killers are critical to the future of fishing in modern society. They definitely aren't the bad guys.

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.... agree x 100

[chubbdarter]

I have to agree and disagree.

I believe there has to be balance and opportunity to harvest fish in Alberta...however I stress that simply defining fishing as a harvesting activity is false.

Many people fish L. Kan for big bull trout because of the recreational aspect of the activity. Others fish southern Alberta for Arctic Grayling because they love fishing even though their is zero harvest.

You can not reasonably define fishing as solely the harvesting of fish. That is not what defines it otherwise people would just go to the grocery store and save a ton of money on gas, lodging, tackle, bait etc. What sells the activity is the recreational benefits and enjoyment. To improve on the recreational enjoyment would impact a larger portion of the population IMHO that improving on the harvest.
Still...I would not vote for a zero harvest throughout the Province. Like I was taught as a kid...moderation is always the key. Never swing too far to either extreme. Keeping balance by providing options and sound management in our sport serves more people than making the whole province catch and release or the whole province a fish harvesting free for all.

thats your opinion Sun.....some fisherman enjoy everything you state and the climax is harvesting a fish for supper. Use Climax in another activity and maybe you'll understand. Stop telling people what they like or should like according to the book of Sun, if a person wants to spend money for gas lodging bait and bonk a fish...thats his business. No where does he need you to show him the directions to the grocery store.
most importantly TJ's points are dead to rights....you cant even present a arguement to his facts......without a harvest there is no fishing

[Sundancefisher]

I think you are missing my point. As an angler I agree with everything you say but how do you sell the self gratifying torture of fish to a non-angler? We hunt for a lot of personal reasons but the day we stop eating meat is the day hunting disappears. The same can be said of fish. We fish to eat is pretty easy to justify. We fish because it gives us pleasure even those it causes fish stress and mortality is not so easy to justify. Don't get me wrong, I totally appreciate what C&R means but at the end of the day, C&R would not exist if it were not for the guys that love to eat fish. The fish killers are critical to the future of fishing in modern society. They definitely aren't the bad guys.

You are stating PETA's position without saying it. Switzerland bought into it...but not only is it wrong...it is unenforceable.

If you buy PETA's argument then you ARE only one step away from living under their rules because you have given credence to animals, birds and fish having more rights than you and I. Vegan here we come. By the very nature of hunting you scare, stress and disturb animals that impacts on their ability to mate and find food before winter sets in. People mortally wound animals that are never found...happens all the time.

I find that as a lesser evil in the eyes of PETA they should support catch and release versus catch and kill as one can appreciate more the fish and become more of a protector and custodian of their habitat.

As mentioned however...I am not saying 100% C&R but if we did as you are suggesting then the second you catch a fish and your limit is filled you leave. As more and more fishermen decide to catch their fish before the next guy gets it first...fewer and fewer fish are around. When fishing, many fish get off the hook before they are brought in. That is no different than catch and release. If you catch an undersized or oversized fish or a breeder...it must die because to release it would be cruel.

You get into the Kentucky Fried Chicken arguement as well. I do not believe in giving PETA power by justifying them in any context but since you have here goes.

All trout and walleye stocking in Alberta should be banned. The conditions to raise trout in is crowded...disease riddled and full of stresses. Not fair to the trout. Their fins are worn and the breeders are run ragged.

Again...I would never stoop to use what they think as an excuse or argument against fishing. I simply don't believe in their philosophy or premise and so what you seem to suggest...that they have some power is false...because only you are giving them that power.

I said a balance between catch and release and catch and kill with sound management is critical. Your argument suggesting you are against any catch and release regulations is fraught with dangers...as stated above.

If anyone studies what you and I are saying...we are in fact saying the same thing. You can't have one without the other in a sound management of Alberta fisheries. That does not mean a harvest at every water body however. There is no harvest of sturgeon and people still fish for them for instance. I also say I harvest fish every year...so I am not a 100% C&R guy either. Without C&R...harvest to the degree some enjoy would be lost.

[Sundancefisher]

thats your opinion Sun.....some fisherman enjoy everything you state and the climax is harvesting a fish for supper. Use Climax in another activity and maybe you'll understand. Stop telling people what they like or should like according to the book of Sun, if a person wants to spend money for gas lodging bait and bonk a fish...thats his business. No where does he need you to show him the directions to the grocery store.
most importantly TJ's points are dead to rights....you cant even present a arguement to his facts......without a harvest there is no fishing

I present a fact...simple fact if you think about it. Kind of a what comes first a chicken or the egg.

If simply the harvesting of fish is what is most enjoyable...then just gaining possession of a fish is no different than going to the grocery store.

If the recreational fun of the activity of fishing which you hope leads to a harvest is the fun...then that supercedes the harvesting.

As an individual you have to think about it and what it means to you.

If you go fishing all day and catch lots of fish but don't take anything home...are you heart broken, distraught, upset or mad?

If you go fishing...catch a fish in the first minute and drive all the way back home...are you happy?

I would say 95% of the people enjoy the activity first and foremost and keeping something to eat is just icing on the cake...not the cake itself.

[sheephunter]

Again sundance you aren't reading what I'm writing. You are so anxious to put me on the other side of the issue that you aren't comprehending what I'm saying. Where did I once say I was against C&R fishing. I actually participate in the practice often....as I stated.

I'm not buying anything. I'm looking at the big picture and what could be if we quit fishing for food. Peta is no more happy that we catch and kill than catch and release. I think the fact that several European countries have bought into the anti C&R philosophy should be a wake up call.

I totally agree that a balance of C&R is a good thing and I've never said it wasn't. I just said those that are anti killing better wake up and smell the coffee or there won't be any coffee to smell soon. Please read what I've written and don't tell me what I've written....k?

You are right, we are pretty much saying the same thing so I'm not certain why you are arguing with me?

[Sundancefisher]

Again sundance you aren't reading what I'm writing. You are so anxious to put me on the other side of the issue that you aren't comprehending what I'm saying. Where did I once say I was against C&R fishing. I actually participate in the practice often....as I stated.

I'm not buying anything. I'm looking at the big picture and what could be if we quit fishing for food. Peta is no more happy that we catch and kill than catch and release. I think the fact that several European countries have bought into the anti C&R philosophy should be a wake up call.

I totally agree that a balance of C&R is a good thing and I've never said it wasn'[t. I just said those that are antim killing better wake up and smell the coffee or there won't be any coffee to smell soon. Please read what I've written and don't tell me what I've written....k?

No I read it...I was just commenting against the PETA argument you were using to justify harvest. I am not against harvest and I am sure you noted that. I just don't give value or power to PETA like you are doing is all. They are flawed...period.

I just don't buy that big picture you are saying...for the reasons you give.

[sheephunter]

No I read it...I was just commenting against the PETA argument you were using to justify harvest. I am not against harvest and I am sure you noted that. I just don't give value or power to PETA like you are doing is all. They are flawed...period.

Where did I even mention Peta let alone give power or value to what they are saying? Are you saying that C&R fishing doesn't cause stress or mortality? Are you saying C&R fishing isn't strictly for enjoyment?

[Gust]

I present a fact...simple fact if you think about it. Kind of a what comes first a chicken or the egg.

If simply the harvesting of fish is what is most enjoyable...then just gaining possession of a fish is no different than going to the grocery store.

If the recreational fun of the activity of fishing which you hope leads to a harvest is the fun...then that supercedes the harvesting.

As an individual you have to think about it and what it means to you.

If you go fishing all day and catch lots of fish but don't take anything home...are you heart broken, distraught, upset or mad?

If you go fishing...catch a fish in the first minute and drive all the way back home...are you happy?

I would say 95% of the people enjoy the activity first and foremost and keeping something to eat is just icing on the cake...not the cake itself.

They are both mutual. You could apply primal too,, chopping wood all day to keep you warm for winter, hauling water a mile a day for cowboy coffee and basin washing, tending a garden, even stoking a Hibatchi with coals. There isn't anything quite like the right to enjoy the "hunt" to self-sustain even if it means spending 6 fold the gas than buying a five dollar tray of fillets from Superstore.

[chubbdarter]

I present a fact...simple fact if you think about it. Kind of a what comes first a chicken or the egg.

If simply the harvesting of fish is what is most enjoyable...then just gaining possession of a fish is no different than going to the grocery store.

why cant others enjoy the whole 9 yards...without you sending them to the grocery store....Sun here's a simple question....why is it so important to you that others find enjoyment in recreation only by your rules

If the recreational fun of the activity of fishing which you hope leads to a harvest is the fun...then that supercedes the harvesting.

As an individual you have to think about it and what it means to you.

If you go fishing all day and catch lots of fish but don't take anything home...are you heart broken, distraught, upset or mad?

i rarely kill fish....if i dont do well im definetly not heart broken but the competitive nature in me is alittle upset i couldnt figure the fish out

If you go fishing...catch a fish in the first minute and drive all the way back home...are you happy?

sure i love catching fish

I would say 95% of the people enjoy the activity first and foremost and keeping something to eat is just icing on the cake...not the cake itself.

well that may be true......but you best appreciate what TJ is saying or there is going to be a heart broken 95%

[Sundancefisher]

Where did I even mention Peta let alone give power or value to what they are saying? Are you saying that C&R fishing doesn't cause stress or mortality? Are you saying C&R fishing isn't strictly for enjoyment?

The example of C&R is mean to fish is a classic PETA argument is all. It is an argument that encompasses hunting as well as mentioned. I don't buy their arguments and will always argue against them. I know you are not arguing for PETA but just arguing that C&R supports the same theories.

[sheephunter]

The example of C&R is mean to fish is a classic PETA argument is all. It is an argument that encompasses hunting as well as mentioned. I don't buy their arguments and will always argue against them. I know you are not arguing for PETA but just arguing that C&R supports the same theories.

Regardless of who makes the arguement, I ask again......

Are you saying that C&R fishing doesn't cause stress or mortality? Are you saying C&R fishing isn't strictly for enjoyment?

[Sundancefisher]

well that may be true......but you best appreciate what TJ is saying or there is going to be a heart broken 95%

Again...while I disagree strongly with arguments based in PETA logic... I have agreed harvest is fine when managed properly. I also say C&R is fine when managed properly. I also said balance between them is required in a sustainable fisheries management program.

what is wrong with that?

I do argue strongly against saying fishing for the sake of fishing is fun in itself. Harvesting from time to time is fine and is icing on the cake...not the cake for most people. If you believe the most important reason to fish is to kill something...while yes it is primal...it is also your perogative. I don't think the majority of people on this board would agree. I also know lots of hunters whose say the most enjoyment of hunting is going out...communing with nature...hanging with buddies and getting away from it all. Getting a moose or elk is just icing on the cake for them...but they are not crushed if the could not go.

Here is a test.

1) If you can't go fishing...are you sad? YES/NO

2) If you go fishing catch some and don't kill a fish are you crushed? YES/NO

[Sundancefisher]

Regardless of who makes the arguement, I ask again......

Are you saying that C&R fishing doesn't cause stress or mortality? Are you saying C&R fishing isn't strictly for enjoyment?

There was a thread about this a while ago. Simple facts are without bait mortality is about 2%...handling, style, all plays a part. Generally you know when they are having trouble. Those are the ones I would eat. Flyfishing has less mortality by a huge margin over bait fishing.

Still...the survival rate is way better than harvesting them when caught.

I also thought I was clear. C&R is strictly for the recreational enjoyment. In some circumstances it works better from a management perspective. southern Grayling, Sturgeon, Bull Trout etc. If guys are catching Lower Kan bulls and not freezing their gills, bashing their heads on rocks or keeping them out of the water for longer than 30 seconds to take photo after photo...then sure...catch and release like crazy. The low expected mortality is simply factored into the management plan. A totally different plan would be required if a harvest was happening. In fact a harvest of 1 a day would destroy the population in less than 5 years...so is C&R bad? I don't think so...in the right situation it is required.

[chubbdarter]

There was a thread about this a while ago. Simple facts are without bait mortality is about 2%...handling, style, all plays a part. Generally you know when they are having trouble. Those are the ones I would eat. Flyfishing has less mortality by a huge margin over bait fishing.

Still...the survival rate is way better than harvesting them when caught.

I also thought I was clear. C&R is strictly for the recreational enjoyment. In some circumstances it works better from a management perspective. southern Grayling, Sturgeon, Bull Trout etc. If guys are catching Lower Kan bulls and not freezing their gills, bashing their heads on rocks or keeping them out of the water for longer than 30 seconds to take photo after photo...then sure...catch and release like crazy. The low expected mortality is simply factored into the management plan. A totally different plan would be required if a harvest was happening. In fact a harvest of 1 a day would destroy the population in less than 5 years...so is C&R bad? I don't think so...in the right situation it is required.


Sun ive always respected you and your opinions.......
TJ made a huge mistake when he didnt ask you to answer....with ust YES or NO answers..lol

[sheephunter]

TJ made a huge mistake when he didnt ask you to answer....with ust YES or NO answers..lol

LOL....I'm starting to see that.

[sheephunter]

Sundance, I fear you've missed the complete point of my posts and direct questions. I am in no way opposed to C&R fishing but I am opposed to those that belittle the fish killers and I am opposed to management that is single serving. Fisherman represent a wide variety of interests and those need to be represented in our management. From what I read in your posts we are on the same page in that regard so I'm not sure why you are trying to paint me on the side of Peta.

But, at the end of the day, C&R anglers have some hard questions to answer. I still say that without the meat fishermen, C&R angling would quickly disappear along with them. That's not Peta rhetoric but looking at the big picture with clear glasses. Hard questions like those are scary and typically illecit the response you gave. Meat fishermen don't have to spend so much time justifying what they do. For a C&R angler not to respect and even encourage meat fishing in a sustainable way is suicidal. From your posts I think you respect meat anglers so not really sure how we got here.

Asking hard questions about what you are passionate about is a useful excercise. It typically ensures you have the answers when they are asked. :)

[chubbdarter]

Sundance, I fear you've missed the complete point of my posts and direct questions. I am in no way opposed to C&R fishing but I am opposed to those that belittle the fish killers and I am opposed to management that is single serving. Fisherman represent a wide variety of interests and those need to be represented in our management. From what I read in your posts we are on the same page in that regard so I'm not sure why you are trying to paint me on the side of Peta.

But, at the end of the day, C&R anglers have some hard questions to answer. I still say that without the meat fishermen, C&R angling would quickly disappear along with them. That's not Peta rhetoric but looking at the big picture with clear glasses. Hard questions like those are scary and typically illecit the response you gave. Meat fishermen don't have to spend so much time justifying what they do. For a C&R angler not to respect and even encourage meat fishing in a sustainable way is suicidal. From your posts I think you respect meat anglers so not really sure how we got here.

Asking hard questions about what you are passionate about is a useful excercise. It typically ensures you have the answers when they are asked. :)


booyaah...i wish i could write like that....nice work

[Sundancefisher]

Sundance, I fear you've missed the complete point of my posts and direct questions. I am in no way opposed to C&R fishing but I am opposed to those that belittle the fish killers and I am opposed to management that is single serving. Fisherman represent a wide variety of interests and those need to be represented in our management. From what I read in your posts we are on the same page in that regard so I'm not sure why you are trying to paint me on the side of Peta.

But, at the end of the day, C&R anglers have some hard questions to answer. I still say that without the meat fishermen, C&R angling would quickly disappear along with them. That's not Peta rhetoric but looking at the big picture with clear glasses. Hard questions like those are scary and typically illecit the response you gave. Meat fishermen don't have to spend so much time justifying what they do. For a C&R angler not to respect and even encourage meat fishing in a sustainable way is suicidal. From your posts I think you respect meat anglers so not really sure how we got here.

Asking hard questions about what you are passionate about is a useful excercise. It typically ensures you have the answers when they are asked. :)

No sorry. I am not trying to paint you on side with PETA. Sorry...it was not my intent. However I don't think fishing would disappear if people don't kill fish. There are many fisheries that are catch and release that are thriving and doing well. If you did a poll and said do you agree that harvesting is not a problem when balance with other options like C&R...you would probably get 99% agreement. I don't see where a large number of people are saying they believe all harvest in the province should be stopped. C&R people just say they want a percentage of C&R lakes where average sized stocked rainbows are present and over harvest or over stocking is not a problem. It is strictly focused on stocked trout lakes versus natural lakes and does not seem to ever mention walleye or pike etc.

How many have belittled people that want to harvest fish from time to time?

[Dust1n]

i agrree with sundace about how C&R dosent hurt the fishery.
for example Sylvan lake walleye and Ram river cuttys. theve been both C&R for certain species and there doing well with 10lb walleye and massive cuttys with the population to back it up without over crowding.its ok to take a fish once inawhile but too take alot of fish home everyday can whip out a bunch of the river for years. I did this to blindman river when i was younger...dont repeat it.
and for the fish ill say over half C&R but if i go and catch about 125 eyes and keep a white for shore lunch ill say im about a 99% C&R fisherman and im sure other people do the same. but i only keep fish in spring and winter when there good to eat IMO.

[Sundancefisher]

i agrree with sundace about how C&R dosent hurt the fishery.
for example Sylvan lake walleye and Ram river cuttys. theve been both C&R for certain species and there doing well with 10lb walleye and massive cuttys with the population to back it up without over crowding.its ok to take a fish once inawhile but too take alot of fish home everyday can whip out a bunch of the river for years. I did this to blindman river when i was younger...dont repeat it.
and for the fish ill say over half C&R but if i go and catch about 125 eyes and keep a white for shore lunch ill say im about a 99% C&R fisherman and im sure other people do the same. but i only keep fish in spring and winter when there good to eat IMO.

Correct me if I am wrong but is the Sylvan Lake walleye C&R for management reasons to build a population back up? This is different than the cutts in Ram, Grayling in Bear or Bulls in Lower K. Those are managed as C&R to maintain a fishery that would be gone otherwise or seriously damaged.

So far in every thread the predominant theme from people that want some C&R fisheries and enjoy them also say they have no problem with none C&R fisheries and those that want a harvest.

Therefore when I see the debate seemingly swinging against C&R...it makes me wonder what is up...

[chubbdarter]

Correct me if I am wrong but is the Sylvan Lake walleye C&R for management reasons to build a population back up? This is different than the cutts in Ram, Grayling in Bear or Bulls in Lower K. Those are managed as C&R to maintain a fishery that would be gone otherwise or seriously damaged.

So far in every thread the predominant theme from people that want some C&R fisheries and enjoy them also say they have no problem with none C&R fisheries and those that want a harvest.
Therefore when I see the debate seemingly swinging against C&R...it makes me wonder what is up...

Dustin please translate....im assuming you understand....lol

[Dust1n]

Correct me if I am wrong but is the Sylvan Lake walleye C&R for management reasons to build a population back up? This is different than the cutts in Ram, Grayling in Bear or Bulls in Lower K. Those are managed as C&R to maintain a fishery that would be gone otherwise or seriously damaged.

So far in every thread the predominant theme from people that want some C&R fisheries and enjoy them also say they have no problem with none C&R fisheries and those that want a harvest.

Therefore when I see the debate seemingly swinging against C&R...it makes me wonder what is up...

sylvan lake has stocked the walleye there and kept it C&R to buid a self sustaning population and it was succeful lots of 2-3lbers some 6 inchers and some 6lber with the odd bigg guy. i also think its C&R for the tourism on the amazing walleye fishery.sylvann has never had walleye and sylvan is one of the best lakes for a walleye population IMo because of the rocks, sand flats, humps ,drop offs and alot of differnt structures some lakes lack.

[Dust1n]

Dustin please translate....im assuming you understand....lol

i think he means they want some lakes to be C&R so when they go out they bhave a realy good chance of getting lotsand bigger fish and if they want something to eat they go to the harvest lakes. correct me...

[Speckle55]

Released a 8#1 BullTrout 27 inches and a 5# Rainbow Yesterday on Kootenay Lake .. caught all fish in chop waters ..calmed up got none rest of day we got 3 other small bows..
:sHa_shakeshout:

[fishstalker]

do the lake a favour

keep the big one let the small one go
after all its better to have 10 3 lbers spawn than 3 10 lber

[pickrel pat]

do the lake a favour

keep the big one let the small one go
after all its better to have 10 3 lbers spawn than 3 10 lbernope

[Sundancefisher]

Dustin please translate....im assuming you understand....lol

"So far in every thread the predominant theme from people that want some C&R fisheries and enjoy them also say they have no problem with non C&R fisheries and those that want a harvest."

Simply put... People that want some C&R fisheries have no problem with having other fisheries with a harvest. On the other hand... there are certain people that seem to be totally anti C&R. It is sad that they can't play nice and share the lakes in the province.

The argument that having some C&R fishing in the province will lead to a fishing ban is bogus.

Cheers

Sun

[sheephunter]

"So far in every thread the predominant theme from people that want some C&R fisheries and enjoy them also say they have no problem with non C&R fisheries and those that want a harvest."

Simply put... People that want some C&R fisheries have no problem with having other fisheries with a harvest. On the other hand... there are certain people that seem to be totally anti C&R. It is sad that they can't play nice and share the lakes in the province.

The argument that having some C&R fishing in the province will lead to a fishing ban is bogus.

Cheers

Sun

And how did you come to that conclusion. I havn't seen a single anti C&R post in this thread.

And where on earth did you hear the arguement that some C&R will lead to a total fishing ban. I'd agree that is totally bogus.

[Sundancefisher]

And how did you come to that conclusion. I havn't seen a single anti C&R post in this thread.

And where on earth did you hear the arguement that some C&R will lead to a total fishing ban. I'd agree that is totally bogus.

Lots of good arguements to be made for how C&R improves the trophy quality of a fishery and in many cases it improves the over all health of a water body and I wasn't arguing that but at the end of the day, if people aren't eating fish, there are some pretty strong arguements to stop people from fishing all together.

You state that there is a pretty strong argument to stop people from fishing altogether if we are into C&R. While I agree whole heartedly with your first part of your sentence... but then not so much on the last half.

You also commented about C&R being cruel and leading to a ban as a result. You also compared C&R fishing to darting game and resulting mortality. I mentioned that hunters maim and kill game without harvesting it all the time. Missed shots that don't kill right away. Shots at the end of a day and it is too dark to follow the blood trail. Disturbing animals trying to mate or ready for winter.

Chubby agreed with you. Again...this same logic is the PETA opinion. Again...I strongly disagree with this logic. I know you are probably trying to present both sides...

What the thread is not clear on is that some are thinking strictly catch and release but the topic is just asking do you by practice rarely take any home.

I agree with everything you say except the PETA argument.

Sun

[sheephunter]

Sundance, you are one of those truly frustrating people to have a conversation with as you read what you want things to say, not what they actually say. If you are more interested in telling me what I said than actually reading what I said, I don't really see the point of continuing. I'm not really interested in having any more words put in my mouth that I never said nor intended. I'm done.

[Alberta Bigbore]

keep what im legally entitled to.

[mulecrazy]

nope

why is it then that brood stocked trout in that 6lb range are released. It is my understanding that the hens have pretty much been worn out by that time and they are of no use to the hatcheries. If these big fish are such great spawners why would they not keep them then? explain that would you...

[NUK SOO KOW]

I do keep the odd fish, pike and walleye around the legal size limit. Fot trout I will keep from stocked lakes only, and always let the bigger ones go. For streams and rivers, and the higher alpine lakes I am a strong advocate of catch and release, as there is a ton of pressure these days.

[Dust1n]

do the lake a favour

keep the big one let the small one go
after all its better to have 10 3 lbers spawn than 3 10 lber

in the short term effect yes but in the long term no....let the big fish gens multiply.
its not quanity its qaulity

[Steven Noel]

99% CnR. Keep a few Walleye a year on our annual fly-in-fishing trips, but all the small stream and alpine lake trout we catch and release (100%) balances it out.

IMO, every lake over 5000 feet should be C&R, save special circumstances such as if a lake becomes stunted with 4 and 5 inch cutts.

[-JR-]

I always throw back pike that are over 10 pounds, as i see them more like grandparents and meat is not firm.
But if the lake allows I will bring in some just for shore lunch.

[Fishfinder]

Wowsers, gonna have to read this later I reckon. Good thread though boss. I voted numero 3. Rare shore lunch with mostly CnR. I usually only munch on them if I am camping or starving, otherwise I toss em back. Love the ocean delicasies, not a huge fan of AB fishies tastewise. As a chef of 17 yrs though, if cooked proper, my boot could taste nummy haha.

[pickrel pat]

why is it then that brood stocked trout in that 6lb range are released. It is my understanding that the hens have pretty much been worn out by that time and they are of no use to the hatcheries. If these big fish are such great spawners why would they not keep them then? explain that would you...bigger fish generate alot more eggs than a small one. simple as that.

[Dust1n]

better bigger genes to

[mulecrazy]

bigger fish generate alot more eggs than a small one. simple as that.

LOL. you missed my point. Why is it that the BIGGER brood stock hens are released as part of the trout stocking program? It is because once a female has reached a certain age they are no longer as fertile. Lots of eggs, but not many good ones. Same can be said for most fish species I would imagine. By your logic the fish hatcheries should be keeping all those 6-10lb rainbows for their eggs instead of releasing them. maybe 3 ten pounders create less viable eggs than 10 three pounders.

[mulecrazy]

better bigger genes to

fish will grow according to their surroundings not their genetics. If perch are left to multiply without predator fish or adequate food they will be numerous with small size. Check out Cow lake by RMH. SRD released pike into that lake a few years back, that is bringing the perch numbers down, but their size back up. Pigeon lake is another prime example IMO, tons of walleye, but nothing much for decent size.

[HunterDave]

better bigger genes to

Why would a big fish have better genes than a smaller one? It had to be small at one time or another. Maybe a fish smaller would have better genes but just hasn't gotten big yet. I dunno but it makes sense to me..........anyway, yeah, put the big ones back and keep the smaller ones.

[pickrel pat]

LOL. you missed my point. Why is it that the BIGGER brood stock hens are released as part of the trout stocking program? It is because once a female has reached a certain age they are no longer as fertile. Lots of eggs, but not many good ones. Same can be said for most fish species I would imagine. By your logic the fish hatcheries should be keeping all those 6-10lb rainbows for their eggs instead of releasing them. maybe 3 ten pounders create less viable eggs than 10 three pounders.not sure... you could be right...... i was always taught to keep smaller fish and return the big ones because they are the best breeders.... maybe your right......

[mulecrazy]

not sure... you could be right...... i was always taught to keep smaller fish and return the big ones because they are the best breeders.... maybe your right......

I am kind of in the same boat as you. There are a lot of old thinking that is just wrong. I was taught the same as you. Same as a lot of folks on here obviously. I would actually like to talk to a fish biologist, but don't know one. Maybe someone on here could input some professional expertise. I put this type of thinking in the same boat as the 'ole corn will kill fish if you use it as bait, or don't shoot does if you want bigger deer kind of thing. Popular old opinion that is just wrong.

[Bigtoad]

LOL. you missed my point. Why is it that the BIGGER brood stock hens are released as part of the trout stocking program? It is because once a female has reached a certain age they are no longer as fertile. Lots of eggs, but not many good ones. Same can be said for most fish species I would imagine. By your logic the fish hatcheries should be keeping all those 6-10lb rainbows for their eggs instead of releasing them. maybe 3 ten pounders create less viable eggs than 10 three pounders.

My guess is that the bigger ones that have been in the hatcheries for more than a few years aren't in the greatest shape. Have a look at the fish in the Bass Pro aquarium and tell me what they'll look like in another 6 years? I would guess they release the big hens because they are getting unhealthy and are having trouble swimming anymore because their fins are getting rubbed off. Not sure if it has to do with egg viability.

Also, when it comes to trout, if we're talking about a stocked pond/lake, it doesn't matter what age they are, they won't breed successfully. There are only a handful of lakes in AB where natural reproduction of trout exists. I release the big ones here not for making sure that the population is strong, but for the next fishermen that comes along, so that they have the opportunity to catch that fish as well.

In a fishery where there is natural reproduction, theoretically, if we want the population to thrive, we should be releasing most mature, healthy fish and only keeping a few small/medium sized fish. The small/medium fish may not be spawners yet but the big boys should be until they get too old and die. (Perch might be the exception, only because they seem to do more than just thrive, and need angling and/or predation to keep their numbers in check.) If you catch a big fish and its healthy, it's more than likely going to be a spawning fish. Put it back so that it can spawn again and put it back so that the next guy coming along might have a chance at that pig instead of only leaving small, little fish for everyone else.

Oh, and genetics would play a role HunterDave. A big healthy fish shows that it has good genetics. It has beaten the odds and made it through many years of life. Part of it might be luck but much of that is that natural selection has not weeded it out and it should be genetically superior to the other 2 million (or whatever#) of fertilized eggs that didn't make it. By passing on that superior genetics, makes sure that the future population of fish will be healthy, strong, and more should survive.

We have big, strong deer in Alberta because if you're not big and strong and we have a winter like this one, you're coyote food. This fall, only the strongest, healthiest individuals will be left to breed, ensuring the future deer population will also be healthy and strong. It's part of the reason why a 400 lb buck is not uncommon here but would be in Texas. Same goes for fish. Bigger fish (I'm talking wild here), show that they have gotten big for a reason.

Cheers.

[HunterDave]

Oh, and genetics would play a role HunterDave. A big healthy fish shows that it has good genetics. It has beaten the odds and made it through many years of life. Part of it might be luck but much of that is that natural selection has not weeded it out and it should be genetically superior to the other 2 million (or whatever#) of fertilized eggs that didn't make it. By passing on that superior genetics, makes sure that the future population of fish will be healthy, strong, and more should survive.

I'm all for leaving the biggest fish in the lake, I just don't understand where genetics has anything to do with it. There could be thousands of smaller fish in the lake that have his genes that are just as healthy, etc as the big one except they just haven't grown to his size yet. There might even be smaller fish that have genes superior to the bigger fish but they just haven't gotten as big as him yet.

I don't buy into the theory that just because a fish is big it's genes are superior to the smaller fish in the lake. Now, if his genes made him grow bigger faster than the other fish in the lake, then that would be a different story.

[Sundancefisher]

I'm all for leaving the biggest fish in the lake, I just don't understand where genetics has anything to do with it. There could be thousands of smaller fish in the lake that have his genes that are just as healthy, etc as the big one except they just haven't grown to his size yet. There might even be smaller fish that have genes superior to the bigger fish but they just haven't gotten as big as him yet.

I don't buy into the theory that just because a fish is big it's genes are superior to the smaller fish in the lake. Now, if his genes made him grow bigger faster than the other fish in the lake, then that would be a different story.

Natural selection says that if a creature is successful...it is because of it's genes. If a fish in a naturally reproducing population gets to be bigger than the other fish it could be because it's genetics say so. It is genetically superior to faster growth or maximum attainable size.

However I agree with HD...that other factors can come into play like did the fish select a different food early on or was it part of a small year class making for food available for it. If all fish are big...then size can not be a major determining factor in the gene quality. In some cases natural selection favors smaller also. There were once 100+ pound chinooks in BC but they were all but wiped out by over fishing. These monsters evolved to spawning the the larger cobble runs in faster rivers. Other chinook stayed smaller to better compete with spawning areas with smaller gravels. The smaller chinook are not any worse than the bigger ones...just evolved for a different habitat.

To err on the side of facts at hand...if you gave me a large fish to pass genes on with or a small fish...since the large fish has the genes to grow large...it is also able to compete with the other fish and their fore is a stronger fitter individual. This would be simplest when referring to domestic culture...as mother nature knows best in the wild.

[Bigtoad]

I know other factors are involved as well but you're going to find that generally, in the wild, bigger individuals (of almost anything) are genetically superior. The inferior ones have died in one form or another because of natural selection. The ones left, on average, should have the best genes in the pool.

You don't see whitetail does sneaking small spiker bucks out back to get silly with. You don't see a big female brown trying to mate with the smallest male they can find. They instinctively know that the best chance at the survival of their offspring is to mate with the strongest, and often biggest individual.

Of course, when we move this model to humans, it often falls short, considering a woman's best chance at the survival of her offspring is to start dating the captain of the chess or debate teams.

Cheers.

[fishpro]

I'm all for leaving the biggest fish in the lake, I just don't understand where genetics has anything to do with it. There could be thousands of smaller fish in the lake that have his genes that are just as healthy, etc as the big one except they just haven't grown to his size yet. There might even be smaller fish that have genes superior to the bigger fish but they just haven't gotten as big as him yet.

I don't buy into the theory that just because a fish is big it's genes are superior to the smaller fish in the lake. Now, if his genes made him grow bigger faster than the other fish in the lake, then that would be a different story.

You're absolutely right Dave, the small fish can have the same genes as the larger fish, they just haven't had the chance to grow yet. The main factor that needs to be considered is genetic diversity. In any naturally reproducing population, there will always beo some genetic diversity. This includes within the genetics that affect growth rates and in turn size. There will always be some genes that allow some fish to grow larger.

Here's a simplified example to what can happen to the genetics of a population if only large fish are kept. Say we have a lake with a large population of pike, and within this population we have two categories of fish based on growth rates. One is slow growing and reaches sexual maturity around 24 inches and maxes out around 36 inches by the end of its lifespan. The other grows quickly and reaches maturity around 36 inches and maxes out around 50 inches.

Now say that fishermen keep the fish around 25-30 inches most of the time, they are going to end up taking some fish with the "slow growth" genes, and some with the "fast growth" genes. So absolutely some of the fish in that size range are going to have the stronger genes, and in turn some of them will get killed, but overall the proportion of the two gene types will remain about the same since both are being harvested. Hence the population will maintain are similar size-class distribution.

Now on the other hand, if only the 36 inch plus fish were being harvested, then the fish with genes for faster growth would be the only ones harvested, and that would affect the genetic balance of the lake.

Sorry I just read through your post again and did notice that you commented on genes that affect growth rates. What it boils down to is that genetics will affect growth rates so an extent, sometimes more than others. So a large fish won't necessarily have better genetics than some of the small fish, but chances are it will have better genetics than the overall average of the fish in the population.

[SnidleyWhiplash]

If someone is trying to force a 1/2 meter trout down your throat by the river then you might be pro release. If someone wants to take your catch your catch and release it then you might be pro keep.

If you decide yourself what to do then you are probably right about it; more right than anyone trying to decide for you; more right than anyone telling you what to do about it; more right than anyone telling you that you are wrong in what you do.

[waterninja]

If someone is trying to force a 1/2 meter trout down your throat by the river then you might be pro release. If someone wants to take your catch your catch and release it then you might be pro keep.

If you decide yourself what to do then you are probably right about it; more right than anyone trying to decide for you; more right than anyone telling you what to do about it; more right than anyone telling you that you are wrong in what you do.
I could not have said it better myself whip.
I foresee a very short life span for you here on AO. Party on.

[Kim473]

I keep most of what I catch but that is decieving. I come home 2/3rds of the time with nothing cause the fish are either not biteing or too small / not enough to feed 3 people. Perch for example, if they are not over 8" and I'm only catching 2 or three, I won't keep any. Pike, I allways put back. Walleye, I will keep acording to what the regs will allow me to. Vurtually none ! This past year I have had only 2 meals that were kept. 2 Walleye from Utikama, 2 trips worth. No perch and no pike.

Over a $ 1000.00 spent for 2 meals of fish. :thinking-006: Cheaper to just go to a very expensive resturant .

[Landlocked_Newfie]

Over a $ 1000.00 spent for 2 meals of fish. :thinking-006: Cheaper to just go to a very expensive resturant .



Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

[Landlocked_Newfie]

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk
With the amount I spend on gear and travel for fishing, I could own an expensive restaurant let alone eat at one. I C&R 95% of the time.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

[SNAPFisher]

I could not have said it better myself whip.
I foresee a very short life span for you here on AO. Party on.

:happy0180:

[Marmite]

Catch and Release them, I am still young and my dad doesn't want me to kill them due to religious reasons, but I guess when I get a bit older around 17-18 I would try to catch one and eat it at home, maybe make some fish curry.

[waterninja]

Catch and Release them, I am still young and my dad doesn't want me to kill them due to religious reasons, but I guess when I get a bit older around 17-18 I would try to catch one and eat it at home, maybe make some fish curry.
Out of curiosity, and because you brought religion into this thread, what religion does not allow you to kill and eat a fish? Fish curry you say?


This thread was dead for more then 5 years, but I see it has been trolled back to life.

[Attilathecanuk]

Always catch&release stream fishing. Always. When I am at the in laws on lesser slave I will sometimes keep the allowed walleye. The vast majority of my fishing is c&r.

[Marmite]

Out of curiosity, and because you brought religion into this thread, what religion does not allow you to kill and eat a fish? Fish curry you say?


This thread was dead for more then 5 years, but I see it has been trolled back to life.

Wait, 5 years? I am new to this forum, well I am a Sikh I guess, but I don't want bring out religion, I don't know why I brought it, I mean you can eat fish and others meat like I do. Just that we can't harm animals like that, but when I get older and get a hang with fishing I want to cook homemade fish.

[millsboy79]

I would never keep a trophy, just photos and memories.
I want those big ladies to reproduce as much as possible!

[Brandonkop]

I catch, release and keep fish to eat. The way I look at it is if I'm going to be eating fish there is no better way to get it than to catch it yourself! Got to love the salt water for filling the coolers and keeping you eating till next summer!

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/Brandonkop3/20160824_150936.jpg (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/Brandonkop3/media/20160824_150936.jpg.html)
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/Brandonkop3/20160825_190530.jpg (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/Brandonkop3/media/20160825_190530.jpg.html)
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/Brandonkop3/20160826_181209.jpg (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/Brandonkop3/media/20160826_181209.jpg.html)

[Adwittoutdoors]

I'll bonk a white fish in the winter and a laker annnnd a perch annnnnd a walleye if I have tags. 😜

[masonjames]

Catch and release only. For one I don't like fish, and two most the streams I fish are designated catch and release only.

[fish99]

having lake trout for supper tonight, most waters fished are catch and release 99% of fish released.

[wags]

Catch and release only. For one I don't like fish, and two most the streams I fish are designated catch and release only.

X2 - word for word :)

[Casper1]

I love to eat fish so I keep a lot of what I catch, leaving good spawners.

[FlyTheory]

Wait, 5 years? I am new to this forum, well I am a Sikh I guess, but I don't want bring out religion, I don't know why I brought it, I mean you can eat fish and others meat like I do. Just that we can't harm animals like that, but when I get older and get a hang with fishing I want to cook homemade fish.

Sat Shri akaal yaar. Machi bohat swatha ah he, hunna? Very respectable to respect that you do what you do. Fish you catch and cook is great, I've had a rainbow trout made into fish pakoras and it was so good. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with C&R (I usually release, only keep fish maybe 2/50 trips per year). Keep doing your own thing :)

[chimpac]

I think you are missing my point. As an angler I agree with everything you say but how do you sell the self gratifying torture of fish to a non-angler? We hunt for a lot of personal reasons but the day we stop eating meat is the day hunting disappears. The same can be said of fish. We fish to eat is pretty easy to justify. We fish because it gives us pleasure even those it causes fish stress and mortality is not so easy to justify. Don't get me wrong, I totally appreciate what C&R means but at the end of the day, C&R would not exist if it were not for the guys that love to eat fish. The fish killers are critical to the future of fishing in modern society. They definitely aren't the bad guys.

My underlining in the above quote

[last minute]

I keep what i catch if legal size :) It’s my right as a license holder:sHa_shakeshout:

[graybeard]

Catch and release 100% in Alberta as there it too much pressure already.

In BC I may eat one or two a year; less than 1%.....MAYBE.

[shakeyleg02]

100% C&R on streams and will keep a meal worth when i go ice fishing

[crb]

Both

[sns2]

I keep whatever I can cuz in Alberta that ain't much:)

[huntsfurfish]

Just a heads up, 6 year old post.:)

Not that it matters.;)

Read through the first page before I noticed.:)

[The Spank]

I throw back more than I ever keep. Some species I don't retain any some I often retain a few. Being a bachelor I don't need alot for a meal and I much prefer fresh caught over frozen so I tend to keep a smaller fish now and again. Last year I kept 3 small walleye about 1 pound apiece. I only fished twice and the first evening caught 5 and released them all. The next evening I caught three of the size I like best for eating so I kept all three. I don't think I made a noticeable dent in the population!

[Rainbowpike]

I catch and release, unless the fish is harmed and won't survive a release. For lakes with stocked fish, I keep 1 or 2.
C&R is important, but it's nice to enjoy a tasty trout once in a while:).

[Lowrance Fishburn]

I always practice CPR -Catch, Picture, Release. That is of course if the catch is even worthy of pulling the camera out. Generally speaking I throw em all back as quickly as possible. If I happen to be with a group who really wants to eat some fresh caught fish, I will oblige but only within slot limit size and knowing that there are thousands of fish in that size range in that water body. It is my opinion, and it is only my opinion that the truly great, genetically gifted fish should be left alone as to help populate the lake with other genetically superior fish - as all the big big fish are females and perfect spawners. It always seems like a real shame to me when I see those big hogs being kept. Truth is they don't even taste as good as the smallies. So when I see that, I won't lie, I get a little ****ed off.

[bigskinner]

I always keep my limit , why fish ,if your going to throw them back , l love fish , that's why l go.
Fish kissers spread disease.

[Lowrance Fishburn]

I always keep my limit , why fish ,if your going to throw them back , l love fish , that's why l go.
Fish kissers spread disease.

For sport.

[catnthehat]

I catch my limit but limit my catch
I don't always bring fish home unles I intend to eat them within the next few days
Cat

[EZM]

I don't think anyone can logically argue that retaining fish from a healthy lake/river where the population is stable (and capable of supporting some retention) is wrong/unethical.

I have no issue keeping/eating fish in these cases, and it's maybe a few trips a year at most.

For most of the waters I fish, and the overwhelming majority of the fish I catch, go right back in the water. Unfortunately, in Alberta, that lines up with the pressure our waters face here. We simply can't keep our limits every time we go out (even if the regulations allow us to do so).

[huntsfurfish]

I don't think anyone can logically argue that retaining fish from a healthy lake/river where the population is stable (and capable of supporting some retention) is wrong/unethical.

I have no issue keeping/eating fish in these cases, and it's maybe a few trips a year at most.

For most of the waters I fish, and the overwhelming majority of the fish I catch, go right back in the water. Unfortunately, in Alberta, that lines up with the pressure our waters face here. We simply can't keep our limits every time we go out (even if the regulations allow us to do so).

I agree.:)

[bigskinner]

I present a fact...simple fact if you think about it. Kind of a what comes first a chicken or the egg.

If simply the harvesting of fish is what is most enjoyable...then just gaining possession of a fish is no different than going to the grocery store.

If the recreational fun of the activity of fishing which you hope leads to a harvest is the fun...then that supercedes the harvesting.

As an individual you have to think about it and what it means to you.

If you go fishing all day and catch lots of fish but don't take anything home...are you heart broken, distraught, upset or mad?

If you go fishing...catch a fish in the first minute and drive all the way back home...are you happy?

I would say 95% of the people enjoy the activity first and foremost and keeping something to eat is just icing on the cake...not the cake itself.




Think about this , if you fish all day and catch a hundred or more fish then you release them all , you are unknowingly contaminating a hundred fish just by handling them , and it don't matter if you wear gloves , gloves pick up bacteria too, now if you kiss your fish , and say thank you fish , that's even worse, your mouth and breath is not good for them either.
SO , if the limit in that body of water is 5 , then l catch 5 and go home , lve only contaminated 5 fish , and l take them home to eat , so the likely hood of me contaminating the body of water is nil , compared to you handling a hundred or more fish, and putting them back.

C&R , is actually doing more harm to a fishery then keeping because of the multi times thease fish are handled , and some are also caught many times by the same fisherman , not good.
You could almost call it fish Harassment.

[Swede]

Think about this , if you fish all day and catch a hundred or more fish then you release them all , you are unknowingly contaminating a hundred fish just by handling them , and it don't matter if you wear gloves , gloves pick up bacteria too, now if you kiss your fish , and say thank you fish , that's even worse, your mouth and breath is not good for them either.
SO , if the limit in that body of water is 5 , then l catch 5 and go home , lve only contaminated 5 fish , and l take them home to eat , so the likely hood of me contaminating the body of water is nil , compared to you handling a hundred or more fish, and putting them back.

C&R , is actually doing more harm to a fishery then keeping because of the multi times thease fish are handled , and some are also caught many times by the same fisherman , not good.
You could almost call it fish Harassment.

Don't be silly. Stupidest statement ive ever read.

[Wet Lines]

C&R with the odd shore lunch, and only on stocked lakes. Everything caught on a river goes back.

[Lowrance Fishburn]

Think about this , if you fish all day and catch a hundred or more fish then you release them all , you are unknowingly contaminating a hundred fish just by handling them , and it don't matter if you wear gloves , gloves pick up bacteria too, now if you kiss your fish , and say thank you fish , that's even worse, your mouth and breath is not good for them either.
SO , if the limit in that body of water is 5 , then l catch 5 and go home , lve only contaminated 5 fish , and l take them home to eat , so the likely hood of me contaminating the body of water is nil , compared to you handling a hundred or more fish, and putting them back.

C&R , is actually doing more harm to a fishery then keeping because of the multi times thease fish are handled , and some are also caught many times by the same fisherman , not good.
You could almost call it fish Harassment.


LOL, Im not sure where you heard that about contamination but i'm sorry to tell you that that is false. Mishandling fish is another story and can certainly increase mortality rates but proper handing and hook removal does not contaminate anything lol. Somebody call Al Linder and let him know how many walleye he's contaminated over the years:sHa_sarcasticlol:

[bigskinner]

LOL, Im not sure where you heard that about contamination but i'm sorry to tell you that that is false. Mishandling fish is another story and can certainly increase mortality rates but proper handing and hook removal does not contaminate anything lol. Somebody call Al Linder and let him know how many walleye he's contaminated over the years:sHa_sarcasticlol:






LOTS , he don't know:thinking-006:

[catnthehat]

LOTS , he don't know:thinking-006:

You need Quit while you are ahead .

I am not sure where you got your information from but i would bet on here is NO unbiased data to support it .
Cat

[rmatei]

Our governments hire people to gather data on our ecosystems to establish regulations that set limits on what is appropriate to manage the ecosystem. We the hunters and fisherman are what the governments use to manage these resources in the field. If they make huge mistakes by listening to special interest groups, such as the walleye council we all are effected. It is obvious to everyone who spends time fishing that trying to protect one species creates a negative effect on others. Example, Calling Lake, reduced walleye limits led to unhealthy walleye, (skinny) and a collapse of the perch fishing. It is hard to fathom that a huge lake like Calling can not support a jackfish population that would allow a single fish to be taken out. I have fished this lake for over 50 years and have watched it's slow demise by mismanagement. I don't believe it is the fault of sport fishermen who took out limits of fish, this lake was netted for years as a commercial fishery as well.

In my opinion stocked trout lakes that will over winter fish year after year without aeration should be protected to create quality fisheries, let the pothole fishermen take limits, the fish are going to croak anyway.

I throw back 90% of what the government says I can take but if you want fish, take what the government says you can. Do we NOT trust their judgement. If not we need to come down hard on them for mismanaging our resources. Just my rant for today.

[Bushleague]

LOL, Im not sure where you heard that about contamination but i'm sorry to tell you that that is false. Mishandling fish is another story and can certainly increase mortality rates but proper handing and hook removal does not contaminate anything lol. Somebody call Al Linder and let him know how many walleye he's contaminated over the years:sHa_sarcasticlol:

I think the contamination thing was pretty poorly worded, but the guy has a point that everyone wants to ignore. If you catch and release 100 fish in a day, you potentially killed as many or more fish than the guy who kept 3 and went home.

Sure you can minimise the risk by using artificial lures rather than bait, barbless hooks and careful fish handling, avoid fishing deep water... But I've heard that a fish's chance of survival if it is bleeding from its gills is pretty low, think of how many fish you've let go with bleeding gills. I keep some fish and I let lots go, but thinking of the many fish I've let swim with bleeding gills.. despite my best efforts I've probably killed as many fish as my grandfather, who only caught what he was allowed to keep.

On the subject of keeping fish, I think picking your location is a good idea. I think anyone who's fished Slave Lake the last few years can agree that thinning the current bumper crop of skinny-tailed, big headed walleye cant hurt. I also think that anyone who's pulled skinny hammer handle pike out of Utikima by the 100's can agree that its a fishery that might benefit from having fewer pike and more feed... these are the types of locations I fish when I'm after a fish fry.

[catnthehat]

" Potentially " is a pretty big "if"
I fish barbless to begin rarely pick up the fish I release, as do many of the people I know.
I match the tackle to the fish - I don't go after big pike with an ultralight trout rod for example.
I have only had a few days since 1962 where I have caught 100 fish in a day as well, that is a big number.
Never kissed a fish either now that I think of it.
Cat

[Bushleague]

" Potentially " is a pretty big "if"
I fish barbless to begin rarely pick up the fish I release, as do many of the people I know.
I match the tackle to the fish - I don't go after big pike with an ultralight trout rod for example.
I have only had a few days since 1962 where I have caught 100 fish in a day as well, that is a big number.
Never kissed a fish either now that I think of it.
Cat

I don't pick them out of the water if I don't have to either. But if the fish has the hook in his mouth rather than in the lips, doesn't even have to be that deep in his throat, you have to pick the fish up. If you are ice fishing you need to pick the fish up. If the fish gets flopping around and gets away from you time is wasted, if its a pike he will undoubtedly clamp his mouth shut and then you need to get out the jaw spreaders... and on it goes.

I fish 2-3 times a week most of the year, except for hunting season. I let hundreds of fish go a year and I know how to do it gently, but being honest with myself and everyone else, the next fish you catch is always a crap shoot. If he takes the hook deep, or in the wrong spot, or the release doesn't go well... chances are he might not survive. It all depends on the species and the method, but I'd hazard an honest guess that on average I probably kill 1 in 20 fish at least. If you do a lot of fishing that adds up.