Do you Catch and Realse or Keep fish

[Dust1n]

Originally Posted by chubbdarter

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..

[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]

Originally Posted by 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

nope

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by chubbdarter

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

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

"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]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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]

Originally Posted by pickrel pat

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by mulecrazy

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]

Originally Posted by pickrel pat

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]

Originally Posted by Fish Hunter7

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]

Originally Posted by Fish Hunter7

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]

Originally Posted by mulecrazy

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]

Originally Posted by pickrel pat

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]

Originally Posted by mulecrazy

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]

Originally Posted by Bigtoad

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]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

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]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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. Cheaper to just go to a very expensive resturant .