C&R Illegal!!

[Jamie]

Guys I read a news post today that said Swiss athouritys are banning Catch and release fishing.

I think it was on a ESPN website, but I am not sure.

Jamie

[packhuntr]

Hmmmm. Be interesting to read more on that.

[FisherPotch]

???!!! That place must be POLLUTED with fish!!!

[Jamie]

http://fishing.about.com/od/fishingo...wiss_Catch.htm

Here is the link.

[Redfrog]

Does anyone have any figures for the survival rates of fish released in C&R.?

[packhuntr]

Doesnt make any sence to me?? Why on earth would they make it manadatory to kill all caught fish? Would suck to have to quit fishing,,,, only to watch your beloved fisheries being raped till nothing remained. Id say its time they over throw their government and shoot the whole of the bunch.... Our govt better not come up with something like that. Thats embarrasing.

[Jamie]

We always thought the Antis would come get our guns, then get the Rods...
Turns out it is the other way around.
Thats one of the reasons I hate Fisherman who slag hunters...

Jamie

[packhuntr]

RedFrog. I read musky hunter and esox angler magazines with regularity. On more than one occasion have there been documented and photographed cases of catching the same same predatory fish multiple times, as well as year after year, on the same location and structure. The bottom line is that when fish are handled properly, they absolutely do survive. They swim away to see another day, and they contribute to the spawn like any other fish in the system. C&R works. For the skeptics, there is no way to get around this fact.

[The Elkster]

I'm not surprised to see this come out somewhere. From comments I've heard from some non-fishers it is clear they just don't get the idea of C&R fishing and why it is necessary. Just look at the optics of C&R fishing when it's viewed by non-fishers. Its one thing to go out and harvest fish for a meal which most people think is acceptable as long as fish is dispatched quickly etc. BUT some people just don't get why we have to go out and catch and release fish over and over again just for pure pleasure...and inflict damage in doing so (arguable how much but I mean its hard to claim that a hook does no damage - we won't go into the pain issue but obviously some think that is a big issue too and like it or not we have to deal with that perception).

IMO its similar to the general publics view on hunting. The large majority I talk to support hunting if the #1 priority is the meat but start to talk about "trophy" hunting and focus on mainly the pleasure side of the activity and ya quickly lose support. All of a sudden they see humans just out doing damage for kicks and giggles.

Yup we can say "stuff it" to the non-outdoors greeny people but unfortunately they make up a majority in a voting democracy. Ultimately what they decide will dictate policy.

[Okotokian]

I don't understand. Why would it be illegal to have a barbed hook if they are also outlawing catch and release? I thought the whole point of having barbless hooks was to make catch and release easier and more effective. If you have to kill and take every fish you catch, what would be the problem with barbs?

This sounds like the antis got hold of the agenda. They ban barbs because it's "cruel" and ban catch and release for the same reason. Then when fish stocks start to fall they just ban fishing, period. OK, maybe I'm a bit paranoid LOL.

[CNP]

The story doesn't make much sense to me either............maybe the story doesn't reflect what the legislation actually says.........for instance...and this is weak law "The new legislation states that fish caught should be killed immediately following their capture". The use of the word should does not imply a mandatory requirement........and then the story goes on to say "And demanding that people kill the fish they catch gives no thought to the conservation benefits from releasing them." and "EFTTA does not believe that forcing anglers to kill their catches is either good for nature or for recreational sport fishing" and “Making the killing of fish obligatory will simply reduce fish population and, at the same time, run the risk of having a negative impact on sport fishing". ........so the story and the legislation are not saying the same thing. I could see this making a lot more sense if you caught a fish that was over/under a certain size or a fish that was not in season that you could release it............and that you couldn't go fishing with the sole intent of c&r. That would make some sense to me....................maybe something lost in translation?

"The new Swiss law makes it obligatory for anglers to take lessons before being granted a fishing license."..............ahhhhhhhhhh when times were simpler.......no gun registration no fishing licenses...............now we need lessons to fish! Europe is so European

[cliffjumper]

So they insist you kill your catch... Hmmm! Goes against the grain of the popular C&R conservation movement eh?

But, if you think about it, they probably have bag limits of 1-3 fish. Whoops!!!

Think about the times we all spend a day C&R, maybe 5 fish... Maybe 30. A great day with nature, on the water for sunrise, gone at 3 pm... Great fishing.

Incidental kills incurred, according to the scientific community, which I tend to largely take with a pound of salt... would approx 3-8 fish. Then we may yet take one home, add another.

So, is killing to your limit good for the environment, or not?

Just a thought.

Cheers!

[Unregistered user]

It's all food for the other fishes.

Swiss athouritys are banning Catch and release fishing.

Just when you think you have heard everything . intresting read

[Walleyes]

Well it ain't a far cry from some of the attitudes we see on here.. How many times do we get preached to on here about how to treat fish because we are causing them pain and distress.. Many on hear beleive the same crap that is being spued by these zelots !!!!!