Catch and release?

[densa44]

I have been doing this for more than 60 years. I haven't carried a net in at least that long either.

I read that we shouldn't do this if we don't want to eat the fish. I started doing this because I thought that the fish was too small and I put them back so that they could grow bigger.

I put the large ones back so they can be breeders.

I have used barbless hooks for a very long time, I don't touch the fish, when I get the hooked fish close to me and I slack off on the line the fish usually self relases.

I have never thought for a moment that I was hurting the fishery. Is this incorrect?

[Smoky buck]

Originally Posted by densa44

I have been doing this for more than 60 years. I haven't carried a net in at least that long either.

I read that we shouldn't do this if we don't want to eat the fish. I started doing this because I thought that the fish was too small and I put them back so that they could grow bigger.

I put the large ones back so they can be breeders.

I have used barbless hooks for a very long time, I don't touch the fish, when I get the hooked fish close to me and I slack off on the line the fish usually self relases.

I have never thought for a moment that I was hurting the fishery. Is this incorrect?

You point is not really clear

If you are debating using a net or not that is more complicated than yes or no

If you are catching fish of a size where you can land/pop the hook in a timely manner without a net it does save handling. But if you are catching larger fish that cause you to over play them to accomplish this without a net it’s not the best option

A net with appropriate mesh can speed up landing time and hook removal so it has advantages as well

Personally I carry a net but I only use it with larger fish to speed things up landing/release wise. If the fish is more of a manageable size I pop the hook in the water or land with my hand

I own an aquaculture outfit where I raised rainbows for 10 years and lots of fish handling was involved. Keep it quick, remove minimal slim, and don’t use techniques that end in deeply hooked fish and you are going to have good survival rate

[Bushrat]

If we didn't have catch and release regulations our trout streams would have very few fish for the most part as very few if any streams or rivers are stocked. Sure some fish look like pin cushions in their face but most are still swimming and spawning which wouldn't happen if they went into the fry pan first time they were caught..like in the old days

[cranky]

If you google “ethics of catch and release” there’s tons of stuff on the topic. Anywhere from folks who quit fishing cause feeling guilty they say of getting pleasure out of harming a creature,to those who cut their hooks off. They say they still get the tug. Ive talked with a few folks who do the latter, say it works well.

Guess I don’t feel guilty enough to quit or to try hookless. Sometimes I think about trying it but not for long.

[TrollGRG]

Originally Posted by Bushrat

If we didn't have catch and release regulations our trout streams would have very few fish for the most part as very few if any streams or rivers are stocked. Sure some fish look like pin cushions in their face but most are still swimming and spawning which wouldn't happen if they went into the fry pan first time they were caught..like in the old days

So much for the lecture. Now do you have anything to contribute to the OP's question?

[Bushrat]

Originally Posted by TrollGRG

So much for the lecture. Now do you have anything to contribute to the OP's question?

Apparently more than you just did.. lol

I think the OP's post is in relation to posts 44 and 45 on "the Crowsnwst river has run dry" thread where it was mentioned by someone that fisherman are the worst abusers of the fish. He started this new thread so as not to sidetrack that thread looking for input on how catch and release fishermen are damaging the industry. I stated my opinion here that catch and release is the lesser evil than catch and keep for the stream trout fishery.

Seems you don't like catch and release? Not sure what your getting at.

[Mr Flyguy]

Originally Posted by TrollGRG

So much for the lecture. Now do you have anything to contribute to the OP's question?

Kind of hard to figure out what the OP's question was all about!

[Smoky buck]

Originally Posted by Mr Flyguy

Kind of hard to figure out what the OP's question was all about!

It’s definitely not clear

[densa44]

It was mentioned in the thread on the Crowsnest river running dry that fishermen are causing a great deal of the damage to the trout streams, so I started a new thread to try to find out what are we doing wrong.

Is that better?

[Smoky buck]

Originally Posted by densa44

It was mentioned in the thread on the Crowsnest river running dry that fishermen are causing a great deal of the damage to the trout streams, so I started a new thread to try to find out what are we doing wrong.

Is that better?

Have not fished the crow in a long time so can’t speak too much on that

But when it comes to anglers there is good and bad just like any other group. Those who treat things with respect and appreciate what they have have minimal impact. Those who act like slobs are different

All you can do is have respect for what you do and hopefully others follow the example

Anytime there is a conflict of interest people focus on what the worst of any group does

[Sundancefisher]

There is a right way and a wrong to practice catch and release.

Using heavier tippet, fighting the fish faster, holding it in water while getting the hook out, using a barbless hook, cutting the line if hooked in gills or stomach, not dropping on rocks or boats, not freezing gills in snow and cold air, not squeezing the fish or putting fingers in gills… and more all goes to decreasing catch and release mortality.

[Smoky buck]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

There is a right way and a wrong to practice catch and release.

Using heavier tippet, fighting the fish faster, holding it in water while getting the hook out, using a barbless hook, cutting the line if hooked in gills or stomach, not dropping on rocks or boats, not freezing gills in snow and cold air, not squeezing the fish or putting fingers in gills… and more all goes to decreasing catch and release mortality.

Agree with everything but one you listed. If you have a fish take a hook deep enough to where it can’t be removed survival is low and if you are legal to keep it you should. It doesn’t rust out, it often becomes infected, creates impaction and I am pretty sure you have seen pics of fish with hooks poking out of their side from ingesting them

Really it’s more about using appropriate gear to prevent deeply hooked fish. If they are inhaling small offerings faster than you are setting the hook adjustments should be made. Different tactics or larger presentation

Yes if you can’t keep a fish and it’s deeply hooked cut the line but odds of survival is low. It can also be drawn out and slow.

seine netted enough fish out of private ponds to see a wide range of issues of trout that swallowed hooks.

I know you are only offering advice on good release tactics and not trying to pick on you. I just built a hatred for the often recommended cut the line and release a fish it will survive theory after seeing how it can often end up as a drawn out death

[Bushleague]

While I feel that C&R is a necessity at this point, as a fairly avid practitioner I will agree that the ethics of sticking a hook in an animals face for entertainment purposes are dodgy. If if you did the same thing to a squirrel or a cat you would likely serve jail time.

It its what it is... just another small tidbit of evidence that our species jumped the shark at least 100 years ago.

[Dewey Cox]

Originally Posted by Bushleague

While I feel that C&R is a necessity at this point, as a fairly avid practitioner I will agree that the ethics of sticking a hook in an animals face for entertainment purposes are dodgy. If if you did the same thing to a squirrel or a cat you would likely serve jail time.

It its what it is... just another small tidbit of evidence that our species jumped the shark at least 100 years ago.

This is why it's important to keep some kind of retention possibility in the regs.
It's easier to justify fishing if you're eating one, or at least have the possibility of catching something you're going to eat.
If there is zero retention in a water body, fishing there only hurts the fish population, and the argument can be made it should be closed to fishing.

[thumper]

Originally Posted by Dewey Cox

This is why it's important to keep some kind of retention possibility in the regs.
It's easier to justify fishing if you're eating one, or at least have the possibility of catching something you're going to eat.
If there is zero retention in a water body, fishing there only hurts the fish population, and the argument can be made it should be closed to fishing.

That argument has already been made in some areas of Europe, where ‘catch & kill’ is permitted, while ‘catch & release’ is not.
Even in Canada, there are First Nation traditionalists that believe that ‘catch & release’ is simply playing with your food - and that’s not what the Creator provided fish to man for.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Smoky buck

Agree with everything but one you listed. If you have a fish take a hook deep enough to where it can’t be removed survival is low and if you are legal to keep it you should. It doesn’t rust out, it often becomes infected, creates impaction and I am pretty sure you have seen pics of fish with hooks poking out of their side from ingesting them

Really it’s more about using appropriate gear to prevent deeply hooked fish. If they are inhaling small offerings faster than you are setting the hook adjustments should be made. Different tactics or larger presentation

Yes if you can’t keep a fish and it’s deeply hooked cut the line but odds of survival is low. It can also be drawn out and slow.

seine netted enough fish out of private ponds to see a wide range of issues of trout that swallowed hooks.

I know you are only offering advice on good release tactics and not trying to pick on you. I just built a hatred for the often recommended cut the line and release a fish it will survive theory after seeing how it can often end up as a drawn out death

I agree if you can harvest a deeply hooked fish then that is best.

I have seen rusted out hooks and the fish was doing fine. Can’t say it happens all the time but in a catch and release fishery… it is the best option in my opinion.

[Smoky buck]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

I agree if you can harvest a deeply hooked fish then that is best.

I have seen rusted out hooks and the fish was doing fine. Can’t say it happens all the time but in a catch and release fishery… it is the best option in my opinion.

I could get into a long list of examples of what I have seen where it goes wrong and long before hooks rust but there is no point. I could even list all kinds of crazy injuries that I have seen fish survive. There’re is no absolutes

When you have no option for retention it’s one of the better options. I do the same if I have to. I only really have an issue when someone is repetitively releasing deeply hooked fish and doesn’t adjust tactics because the figure “it’s ok it will survive” even when odds a dramatically lower

Too many guys out there who don’t realize just because they swim away doesn’t mean everything is well

[Groundhogger]

In my opinion, it's not really fair to call it an "ethical" question, as I believe that's reserved for how people treat one another. Just my opinion.

I've been C&R fly fishing pretty seriously for most of the last 35 years, and we can't love trout, love the outdoors and love fly fishing without the question crossing your mind-can't be fun for the fish?

For me, the drive to fish (and hunt) are primal and for allot of us, that call just has to be answered. However, if we consider the advantages a modern angler has and how proficient at the sport some of us are, fish don't really stand a chance do they? Before C&R, fishing=harvest, but there were fewer anglers are arguably more water/opportunities in allot of places. Now=lots of anglers, lots of anglers who can use the internet to help them find spots and pinpoint the best techniques/timing etc. Too capable/too fast and too many of us.

Unleash a bunch of capable anglers onto a trout stream with no regulations over a period of time and we know what the outcome is likely to be.

Ban fishing altogether and then see whether or not these rivers get all the attention and protection they're getting now? I'm a firm believer that rivers need the attention of anglers for their own survival, and the better we get at fooling these fish=the more protection against harvest they need.

I think the best way to describe my take on it might be this-I raised my kids to be very curious about nature, and that adventure is where you make it. A rock in a river IS worth flipping over just to see what's under it. A fish IS worth holding and possibly even killing inadvertently if there is even a 1/10 chance it will foster a life-long love of fish and fishing. The fish, in that instance, died for the future of the river and the generations of fish that follow.

And if all of that^ didn't move you, science has proven that fish don't have pain receptors in their mouths like people do. lol

[58thecat]

No absolutes is right more so along the lines of probabilities when it comes to fish handling.

Catch and release is great but a hook down deep or a bleeder would be better off catch and cook.

[CNP]

I'm pretty much catch and eat but. I love fishing and all that it has to offer, which includes food for the table. I'll release fish that are small and/or record setting, or do not have any retention. If all fishing was catch and release I wouldn't participate in an activity that became purely all about the pursuit and nothing about the result. Just like many long established "traditions", that were hand down by our forefathers...catching fish and keeping them is now looked down upon by some. It's like you have to hang your head down when talking to catch and release only elitists. I used to fish the Crow/Castle regularly when there was some retention but I can't bring myself to fish the rivers now that there is zero retention even on non-native fish such as Browns and Rainbows. I'm on board with zero retention on endangered species such as Cutties and Bullys but to release a legal fish that appears to have life threatening injuries is just not ethical in my opinion.

[SNAPFisher]

Originally Posted by Groundhogger

In my opinion, it's not really fair to call it an "ethical" question, as I believe that's reserved for how people treat one another. Just my opinion.

I've been C&R fly fishing pretty seriously for most of the last 35 years, and we can't love trout, love the outdoors and love fly fishing without the question crossing your mind-can't be fun for the fish?

For me, the drive to fish (and hunt) are primal and for allot of us, that call just has to be answered. However, if we consider the advantages a modern angler has and how proficient at the sport some of us are, fish don't really stand a chance do they? Before C&R, fishing=harvest, but there were fewer anglers are arguably more water/opportunities in allot of places. Now=lots of anglers, lots of anglers who can use the internet to help them find spots and pinpoint the best techniques/timing etc. Too capable/too fast and too many of us.

Unleash a bunch of capable anglers onto a trout stream with no regulations over a period of time and we know what the outcome is likely to be.

Ban fishing altogether and then see whether or not these rivers get all the attention and protection they're getting now? I'm a firm believer that rivers need the attention of anglers for their own survival, and the better we get at fooling these fish=the more protection against harvest they need.

I think the best way to describe my take on it might be this-I raised my kids to be very curious about nature, and that adventure is where you make it. A rock in a river IS worth flipping over just to see what's under it. A fish IS worth holding and possibly even killing inadvertently if there is even a 1/10 chance it will foster a life-long love of fish and fishing. The fish, in that instance, died for the future of the river and the generations of fish that follow.

And if all of that^ didn't move you, science has proven that fish don't have pain receptors in their mouths like people do. lol

This resonates with me. Thanks for the post!

[smitty9]

Jim McLennan said it best a few years ago in one of his books or the AFG. Can't remember which one.

Catch and release is not a religion, it's simply a management tool. There zealots who are deeply rooted in 100% C&R, along the lines of Lee Wulf ("A trout is simply too valuable to kill) to the European / Indigenous perspective that "playing with your food" is unethical. I am neither; I am 99% C&R because where I fish, that's the regs. One location I fish, I legally take my limit whenever I can (it's a lake).

We have catch and release because when you look at the archived photos of fishing around Banff 120+ years ago at the Glenbow museum, you quickly realize that keeping 50 trout a day, many between 16 and 26 inches, is simply unsustainable. Keeping apex predators like bull trout, and treating them like trash fish because "they eat everything", was unsustainable.

There is very, very little wiggle room in this province in managing fisheries, fish, and fishermen/people. Not that I don't have criticism for plenty of SRD /AEP policies, but, being a fisheries bio in this province is fairly challenging on most days and enormously difficult on other days. I digress.

In other words, bottom line, catch and release has become the defacto "must have" regulation in this province. Especially in the South Sask river basin, where the angling pressure is sky high, especially on the "three rivers". (Or walleye / pike lakes, for that matter) It's why I rarely fish the Oldman / Livingstone in the summer anymore. Nothing more than a personal choice of course.

But if we had catch and keep on some of our rivers, there really would be very little fish left. And it's also why I have been advocating for Classified Waters in some areas. It's just unreal to see the number of anglers on the Liv, for example, in July and August. Smh. In this day and age, I advocate a far more aggressive approach to managing anglers, imo.

Exact same reasons apply to our lakes; what happens when people are allowed 30 perch, 10 pike, 10 walleye out of our lakes, like they were allowed to, back when I was a kid in the 70's. Collapsed populations are the inevitable. Not rocket science, lol. Tag system and slot sizes become THE inevitable compromises and solutions.

Same old, same old in Alberta. Most of our water is north of Edmonton. Most of our anglers are Edmonton and south. We have variety, but not much else. Many anglers, little water, only so many fish. What are you going to do, except use C&R as a widely implemented catch and release instrument. Catch and release isn't ethically superior to catch and keep, that's simply a distracting, "meaty" and enjoyable(?) debate. Catch and release is (or should be) borne out of necessity.

Enough tangents from me?? lol. I'll be more straightforward to answer the original question; for lakes, anglers can be / are an enormous factor on fish populations. But cottage owners, drought, agriculture, and water tables are factors as well.

Rivers? Don't make me laugh. Yeah, okay, sure...goes without saying....of course anglers have an impact, why else would someone like me think Classified Waters are the way to go for a select few streams??

But.

But damage and abuse? By anglers on our trout rivers? Many have had C&R since 1998. Instead, how about:

How about exploratory roads in the Oldman headwaters that go unmitigated or repaired?
How about an ill-advised dam that was built when off-storage solutions were available?
How about mining and it's adverse effects? Teck, Fording R, Elk R., and selenium anyone?
How about other pollutants: fish consumption (I'm talking other than natural mercury) advisories in my lifetime started on every river in Alberta that had a pulp mill; dioxins and furans.
How about logging companies removing clearcuts in headwaters, not always observing riparian setbacks, and turning spawning streams like Hidden Creek into a coffee coloured erosion delivery system?
How about irrigation? The South Sask., Milk, & St, Mary's river basins, whose waters are over-allocated to irrigation districts all across southern Alberta?
How about linear disturbances and rampant, unchecked off road abuse (some jokers driving the OHV's even ignore the bridges they built for themselves over creeks)?

On and on it goes.

Right now, trout stream anglers, relatively speaking, are doing comparatively little damage with respect to how a trout's habitat and environment is getting hammered on a yearly basis. Don't make laugh, indeed.

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by CNP

I'm pretty much catch and eat but. I love fishing and all that it has to offer, which includes food for the table. I'll release fish that are small and/or record setting, or do not have any retention. If all fishing was catch and release I wouldn't participate in an activity that became purely all about the pursuit and nothing about the result. Just like many long established "traditions", that were hand down by our forefathers...catching fish and keeping them is now looked down upon by some. It's like you have to hang your head down when talking to catch and release only elitists. I used to fish the Crow/Castle regularly when there was some retention but I can't bring myself to fish the rivers now that there is zero retention even on non-native fish such as Browns and Rainbows. I'm on board with zero retention on endangered species such as Cutties and Bullys but to release a legal fish that appears to have life threatening injuries is just not ethical in my opinion.

And if the option was given to keep them folks would be injuring them just to keep them.

[smitty9]

Originally Posted by pikergolf

And if the option was given to keep them folks would be injuring them just to keep them.

One billion percent correct.

[Don Andersen]

The first year C & R was instituted on the N. Ram the creel census gal registered 8 fish caught by all anglers.
The frying pans had denuded the place. Thankfully, the S Ram was untouched and provided some trout.

Don

[densa44]

There have been some great posts, thats you Smitty, but the news is not good at all.

The rivers won't take much pressure that's for sure, in New Brunswick you used to have to apply for a time on the river (Marimichi) and they only allowed a fixed number of rods per section. It didn't really work according to my grandfather, they sprayed the area for spruce bud worm and killed all the fish.

The province now has committees looking into how they are going to allocate the water, who is speaking for us?

[Smoky buck]

Originally Posted by Don Andersen

The first year C & R was instituted on the N. Ram the creel census gal registered 8 fish caught by all anglers.
The frying pans had denuded the place. Thankfully, the S Ram was untouched and provided some trout.

Don

That would be an example of poor fisheries management and abuse. In a healthy body of water with solid fish recruitment C&K in moderation is a good thing. This will keep populations at a moderate level so forage and oxygen levels are not taxed to hard during lean times. This can also improve the overall size and growth rate do to more forage around

Pretty sure you have been around long enough to experience a remote body of water with stunted fish with big heads do to over population

The reality is C&R has its place and can be beneficial but well managed limited harvest can also be beneficial used correctly. The right answer is depending on the population/resources available in each body of water. Sometimes full on C&R is the right answer and other times a body of water benefits from some fish being kept

[Bushleague]

Originally Posted by CNP

I'm pretty much catch and eat but. I love fishing and all that it has to offer, which includes food for the table. I'll release fish that are small and/or record setting, or do not have any retention. If all fishing was catch and release I wouldn't participate in an activity that became purely all about the pursuit and nothing about the result. Just like many long established "traditions", that were hand down by our forefathers...catching fish and keeping them is now looked down upon by some. It's like you have to hang your head down when talking to catch and release only elitists. I used to fish the Crow/Castle regularly when there was some retention but I can't bring myself to fish the rivers now that there is zero retention even on non-native fish such as Browns and Rainbows. I'm on board with zero retention on endangered species such as Cutties and Bullys but to release a legal fish that appears to have life threatening injuries is just not ethical in my opinion.

IMO the number that really needs to get tweaked and enforced is posession limits. I think most of the healthy fisheries in AB can support a modest retention limit. What they have never been able to support is locals attempting to fill entire freezers with fish, people showing up for a week of camping and attempting to take home a month's worth of fish frys.

At the previously standard pike limit of 3 fish per person... I've got a family of four that likes eating fish, three legal-to-5lbish pike makes for two meals, which is about as much pike as anyone I know really cares to eat in a week anyways. Yet still I see familys limiting out all members day after day, and the fishing suffers as a result.

Determining and effectively enforcing sustainable posession limits would admittedly be tricky, but I think it would go a long ways towards preserving the angling tradition. My own policy has always been: dont freeze fish, dont lent them spoil, and dont eat them to the point you are tired of fish. I'm not holding myself up as some moral authority, but I think if anglers in general had adopted such a policy when they first started telling us to "Limit our Catch", we wouldnt currently be forced into implementing C&R regs on so much of Alberta's waters.

[Don Andersen]

Please help me find a river which has more fish than 30 years ago that is not C&R. I need a fish feed!

Don

[Smoky buck]

Originally Posted by Don Andersen

Please help me find a river which has more fish than 30 years ago that is not C&R. I need a fish feed!

Don

No fish for you