Banning C&R

[MathewsArcher]

Originally Posted by waterninja

I agree with the OP on his stance of C&R being legal. I'm sure some C&R fish do die from stress or injury, but i think most anglers try to release as quickly and properly as they can.
I think wild missed some of the point. OP did not suggest keeping fish for food if you want to and it is legal. He is arguing about having to stop fishing completly once you have caught your legal limit. He would prefer to keep fishing C&R.
I disagree with Wild about how some laws can be changed. If enough threads and posts on this forum coupled with a few phone calls about a regulation that makes no logical sense (like the Burbot reg), then regs or policies can sometimes be changed.

A quick viewing of some of the facebook fishing boards and watching anglers on the water and I would totally disagree with this. Some pretty poor practices seem common place, it is really a shame and in many cases just a lack of education as many have good intentions but don't realize the impact.

[Bushleague]

Originally Posted by SNAPFisher

Much better said than the other thread
I think most sportsmen / person would be doing this or changing it up. There may be some that keep catching, barb on, and stop at sun down. Certainly not as ethical or as fun as changing it up after catching enough.

For me, my usual move now is to quit earlier than I planned if I'm really doing well and feel that I've caught what I came for. Last trip to Jasper was only half days after doing really well on the lake. After that I went back and picked up the wife and tooled around the lake just to sit back and enjoy.

But that was my choice too. It is good to have the choice to continue or to quit and do something else. Certainly a total ban on C&R is a move in the wrong direction and would kill the sport imho,

Thanks, though I'm a little confused as to what particular thread you speak of... I've worded so many posts very poorly

A couple other factors while I'm at it... good C&R imo starts right at the planning stage. In early summer I do more lake fishing, as the lake fish move deeper I tend to hit rivers more, by mid august if I'm planning a weekend trip its usually fishing mountain streams. IMO by late august with the warm water and the depths that many lake fish are hanging out at mortality is getting higher and if you want to spend a weekend catching and releasing fish a prairie lake isn't the place to do it.

The other thing is even when switching to artificials I think its important to consider things carefully. Spoons are my favorite lure, their so versatile and a good fisherman can really work those things and make them do just about anything, but with the aggressive strikes and relatively compact size there is a high tendency for fish to take these lures deep in my experience. So once I've had my fun and caught a few fish I usually try to pick a lure that isn't so prone to deep hooking. A jig or a spinner bait rarely gets taken deep, often upsizing the lure might result in less strikes but also makes it harder for a fish to suck it back into their gills.

Hope that was well said.

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by MathewsArcher

https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/75a9...se-Dec1996.pdf
This is a better link and provides some excellent data - page 9 provide a summary of mortality of 4.5 - 67.5% and illustrates how handling and environmental conditions can drastically impact survival


Some results from 1991

4 tournaments; Moose Lake (June 1 and 2, 1991); Fawcett Lake (June 15
and 16, 1991); Beaver Lake (July 6 and 7, 1991) and Lesser Slave Lake
(Aug 23 and 24, 1991).
Min size 16". Lesser Slave was a tagging tournament vs culling in other
3.
Walleye held 5 days; control made up of pre-tournament angled fish;
Immediate Mortality - Moose 1.0%, Fawcett 1.1%, Beaver 1.7% and Lesser Slave 8.1%
Delayed Mortality - Moose 13.6%, Fawcett 23.2%, Beaver 41.6% and Lesser Slave 64.8%.
Total Mortality - Moose 14.7%, Fawcett 23.6%, Beaver 42.4% and Lesser Slave 67.7%.
Delayed mortality increased as the summer progressed.
High winds and waves increase mortalities.

These fish are handled more than those caught recreationally but I also guarantee that many are handled much better as well given the consequences of having a dead fish at weigh in. It does illustrate how C&R can effect survival.

Your stats in no way reflect catch and release. Keeping a fish in a live well and releasing it immediately are worlds apart. If done properly I doubt 10% die.

[waterninja]

Originally Posted by MathewsArcher

A quick viewing of some of the facebook fishing boards and watching anglers on the water and I would totally disagree with this. Some pretty poor practices seem common place, it is really a shame and in many cases just a lack of education as many have good intentions but don't realize the impact.

I have to admit that I am not on Facebook. As a matter of fact this is the only forum that i have ever been on. I tried Ice Shanty, but found it too hard to navigate.
I suppose the knee jerk reaction (like you see on the hunting section all the time) is to say those people are not anglers, they are poachers. Thats would it comes down to if they are killing/wasting fish that they are not legally allowed to keep.

[MathewsArcher]

Originally Posted by pikergolf

Your stats in no way reflect catch and release. Keeping a fish in a live well and releasing it immediately are worlds apart. If done properly I doubt 10% die.

Agreed the numbers can vary significantly but even outside of tournaments and fish held for a minimum amount of time to facilitate tagging etc. as part of the study fish can and do perish. The info I was presenting was from Alberta. Other Alberta studies have found greatly varying results, but assuming 10% mortality seems reasonable.

SULLIVAN, M.G. 1992. Use of a special-interest angler group to obtain biological and catch rate data
for a walleye fishery. Northeast Region, Fish Wild\. Div., Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife.,
July 27 and 28, 1991; Touchwood Lake; 177 walleye caught; all boats
with live wells, max density of live wells 3 or 5 depending on winds, and
held max 2 hrs.
2 X 2 X 1.5 meter; anchored in 4 m water; max density 13/m3
mortality appeared to increase as density increased
Delayed mortality - 50% dead
81% mortality of fish with visible damage
55% mortality with baited lures
38% mortality with artificial lures
Baited vs unbaited difference not significant
Large sized walleye had higher mortality rates than smaller walleye (not
statistically significant)

and

WALTY, D. 1992. Walleye hooking mortality. Peace River Region, Alberta Fish Wild\. Div. 4 p.
(June 20, July 18 and August 15, 1992; Sturgeon Lake; Volunteer anglers;
any gear; put into cages within 20 min. of capture; held in cages for 5
days; 171 walleye.
2 X1.5X1m at4mdepth
June 1.6%, July 0% and August 0% (Total 0.6%)
Only fish to die was deeply hooked in roof of mouth.

I think its safe to assume that if a fish is immediately released and properly handled survival is likely close to 100%. Unfortunately this is often not the case. Interestingly fish released on windy days suffer much higher rates of mortality even those properly handled.

[Pikebreath]

Originally Posted by waterninja

I agree with the OP on his stance of C&R being legal. I'm sure some C&R fish do die from stress or injury, but i think most anglers try to release as quickly and properly as they can.
I think wild missed some of the point. OP did not suggest keeping fish for food if you want to and it is legal. He is arguing about having to stop fishing completly once you have caught your legal limit. He would prefer to keep fishing C&R.

In some European fisheries,,, Germany comes to mind,,, you are not allowed to catch and release fish that you can keep legally,,, and then you must quit fishing once you have you have retained your limit.

That is a ban on C&R fishing... Having the choice to release a fish or keep it is another issue altogether.

[MathewsArcher]

Originally Posted by waterninja

I have to admit that I am not on Facebook. As a matter of fact this is the only forum that i have ever been on. I tried Ice Shanty, but found it too hard to navigate.
I suppose the knee jerk reaction (like you see on the hunting section all the time) is to say those people are not anglers, they are poachers. Thats would it comes down to if they are killing/wasting fish that they are not legally allowed to keep.

I don't think they are poachers, in fact the opposite. I think most care quite strongly about the resource and want to do their best to ensure it is protected. I think there is a lack of knowledge about proper handling, the stress it induces on fish and delayed mortality. The common perception is that if the fish swims away it survives, in some instances this is not the case. The province could likely do a better job on education but it takes money and resources which are in short supply.

[Swede]

You cant ban C&R fishing. What are you going to do have rules like you can keep 5 fish any size. No tags no slot limit no anything its just go catch and keep the first fish you catch till you hit your limit good luck with managing any body of water without some C&R.

If C&R mortality rates are as high as they say me and my wife would kill every fish in our local C&R lake by the end of the summer every summer without ever keeping one fish.

[waterninja]

Originally Posted by MathewsArcher

I don't think they are poachers, in fact the opposite. I think most care quite strongly about the resource and want to do their best to ensure it is protected. I think there is a lack of knowledge about proper handling, the stress it induces on fish and delayed mortality. The common perception is that if the fish swims away it survives, in some instances this is not the case. The province could likely do a better job on education but it takes money and resources which are in short supply.

I agree with you. I was responding to a post that suggested some people are not even trying to release fish properly, which was a rebuttal to my post which said most anglers do try and release them properly.

[AK47]

Just to clarify. I never suggested to ban C&R. My problem is 0 limit lakes with overpopulation of small walleye or pike where people catch and release 100's fish per fishing trip. It makes no sense to have 0 limits there as approximately 3-10% ( depending of fishing method, temperature, depth, etc) fish get killed by hooking mortality anyway. Lift the 0 limits, introduce bait ban and size limits and let people keep fish or two. It will make fishing more challenging and it will result in healthier population of fish and most likely more trophy size fish. Yes, you may not catch 100 fish a day, but I would much rather have 1-2 trophy size walleye caught in a day vs 100 40-45 cm size.

[AK47]

Originally Posted by SNAPFisher

To the original derailer of the other thread, leave fishing alone because you certainly do not understand the "sport". Stick to hunting.

I do not hunt. And for somebody not understanding a fishing sport I won quite a few fishing tournaments back in Europe. And couple perch fishing derbies here... and it was not even close for second place BTW.

[MathewsArcher]

Originally Posted by AK47

Just to clarify. I never suggested to ban C&R. My problem is 0 limit lakes with overpopulation of small walleye or pike where people catch and release 100's fish per fishing trip. It makes no sense to have 0 limits there as approximately 3-10% ( depending of fishing method, temperature, depth, etc) fish get killed by hooking mortality anyway. Lift the 0 limits, introduce bait ban and size limits and let people keep fish or two. It will make fishing more challenging and it will result in healthier population of fish and most likely more trophy size fish. Yes, you may not catch 100 fish a day, but I would much rather have 1-2 trophy size walleye caught in a day vs 100 40-45 cm size.

The problem with what your proposing is that the mortality will be incremental. You will still have the mortality associated with C&R along with then fish kept. Most people are not going to quite fishing when they have their keep limit and will C&R after that point.

Given FWIN results on most of the southern reservoirs still show them as being threatened or vulnerable they probably they probably cant handle the increase mortality. While they are showing signs of recovery it is appears to be very slow and any increase in mortality could set them back again. If you look at the FWIN reports conducted since the implementation of C&R they seem to show only slight improvements in numbers.

[AK47]

Originally Posted by MathewsArcher

If you look at the FWIN reports conducted since the implementation of C&R they seem to show only slight improvements in numbers.

Total numbers or size of the fish? Again what do we want from the fishery? Pine Coulee situation with tons of undersized walleye or lesser total numbers but much more % of larger fish?

[MathewsArcher]

A well structured age class is what is required. PCR is an anomaly with little to no natural reproduction and no forage. You do realize all those fish are the same year class and have stunted do to limited food supply. Those fish would be trophy's at their age in almost all the other southern Alberta reservoirs.

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by MathewsArcher

Just because a fish seemingly swims away in a healthy manner does not mean it survives. Delayed mortality can occur days or even weeks later due to stress.

I've heard that claim many times and I don't believe it for a second.

For one, there is no way anyone could say for certain that a fish who was caught and released and died days later, died as a result of that C&R.

Moreover, it would be next to impossible to identify released fish days after capture unless it was tagged and the tag recorded at the time of capture.

I'd have to see credible studies supporting that claim before I accepted any part of it. So far all I've seen are claims being made.


I've seen fish take a terrible beating jumping falls, or in run in's with predators, or from spawning activity, I've never seen evidence that those fish succumbed to their injuries.

It's not as if all fish that die in the water disappear instantly. I've seen dead fish in the water. Not many but some, and in places few anglers ever go, so not angling mortality.

I have no doubt that there is mortality from C&R I have no issues with the claims of up to 20 percent mortality, but the claims that there is delayed mortality simply isn't supported by evidence so far as I know.

[AK47]

Originally Posted by MathewsArcher

A well structured age class is what is required. PCR is an anomaly with little to no natural reproduction and no forage. You do realize all those fish are the same year class and have stunted do to limited food supply. Those fish would be trophy's at their age in almost all the other southern Alberta reservoirs.

But how a well structured age class will happen if there is no harvest ( except hooking mortality)? They eventually will get stunted. Plus now we have 0 limit for Pike in CW, Travers and McGregor as well - why? Even more competition for food for all that walleye which nobody can harvest. I just do not understand the reasoning for this or what we are trying to achieve here. Travers was just fine, all you needed to do is to protect spawning grounds and introduce bait ban to deter shore fishing meatheads.
Pigeon lake used to be just skinny small walleye as well, now at least you have tags so people can keep few if they do not mind paying extra. I remember 8-10 years ago people complaining how difficult it is to catch decent size walleye in Pigeon.

[ETOWNCANUCK]

Didn't the walleye population nearly collapse because too many were taken out of these lakes?

[MathewsArcher]

Originally Posted by AK47

But how a well structured age class will happen if there is no harvest ( except hooking mortality)? They eventually will get stunted. Plus now we have 0 limit for Pike in CW, Travers and McGregor as well - why? Even more competition for food for all that walleye which nobody can harvest. I just do not understand the reasoning for this or what we are trying to achieve here. Travers was just fine, all you needed to do is to protect spawning grounds and introduce bait ban to deter shore fishing meatheads.
Pigeon lake used to be just skinny small walleye as well, now at least you have tags so people can keep few if they do not mind paying extra. I remember 8-10 years ago people complaining how difficult it is to catch decent size walleye in Pigeon.

They are not stunting in the waterbodies you mentioned as they are still under populated according to the sampling that has been done. Take a look at the test net data that is available on line. Spawning aged fish are seriously under represented, that's why those water bodies are still considered collapsed or vulnerable. I have had those hundred fish days on those water bodies and thought why cant they support more harvest, but I was also out at Crawling Valley and saw how few spawning aged fish were caught during sampling in the nets. FWIN sampling is used across north America to set harvest levels and the numbers just are not there in Southern AB reservoir's yet to be sustainable.

[MathewsArcher]

Originally Posted by ETOWNCANUCK

Didn't the walleye population nearly collapse because too many were taken out of these lakes?

100% correct

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by MathewsArcher

I think its safe to assume that if a fish is immediately released and properly handled survival is likely close to 100%. Unfortunately this is often not the case. Interestingly fish released on windy days suffer much higher rates of mortality even those properly handled.

Originally Posted by MathewsArcher

I don't think they are poachers, in fact the opposite. I think most care quite strongly about the resource and want to do their best to ensure it is protected. I think there is a lack of knowledge about proper handling, the stress it induces on fish and delayed mortality. The common perception is that if the fish swims away it survives, in some instances this is not the case. The province could likely do a better job on education but it takes money and resources which are in short supply.

This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I agree.

[AK47]

Originally Posted by ETOWNCANUCK

Didn't the walleye population nearly collapse because too many were taken out of these lakes?

What lakes are we talking about? Plus again, why a zero limit for a pike in those lakes if all we care is walleye population? Pike is even more susceptible to hooking mortality than walleye btw.

[ETOWNCANUCK]

Originally Posted by AK47

What lakes are we talking about? Plus again, why a zero limit for a pike in those lakes if all we care is walleye population? Pike is even more susceptible to hooking mortality than walleye btw.

All of them

But walleye are better eating.

[MathewsArcher]

Crawling Valley, Travers.

Pike numbers have collapsed in them as well, the number of fish caught in test netting was shockingly low. Take a few minutes and read the FWIN summaries

[Sooner]

99 % C & R here. When I feel like fresh, I keep one where I can. When the kids wanted to keep one, we did and we/they had to eat it, so we did, always fresh

I was fishing barbless for years before they made it a law, still do. Only so I can get a hook out with the least amount of damage. I don't care if I lose extra minnows or a few fish during the fight.

I have fished the same lake for years since I was a kid, it's not a known Walleye lake and it actually had to be re stocked way back when. I have seen it go from a good catch & keep lake, to wiped out, to a very good lake to catch Walleyes again. No limit though now. Each year the weights are increasing making it even more fun. I have had many 60 + walleye days when the bite is on between 2 of us in the boat or a boat full of kids. I do all the releasing and I know how to handle a fish. Most of the unhooking is done in a rubber net and the fish is not touched. Then it gets all the time it needs to recover in the water before we let it swim out of the net. This lake is doing real well and there is no sign that being a mostly C & R lake( pike had to be 63 cm before so not many kept, pike are closed now) that it is hurting in any way.

I have a hard time believing any of those fish I handled died a few days later. For sure it does happen when one gets hooked deep or the gills get damaged and you wish you could keep it as you know it "may" not make it but fish get caught with evidence of predatory attacks all the time and they survive.

I know and see some peoples handling/releasing technics and those i can see harm the fish. But to ban C & R is silly Imo.

[ETOWNCANUCK]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that those with the appropriate scientific degrees relating to fish and wildlife are in better positions to make informed decisions on what should happen with regards to C&R and other problems thN the armchair experts trolling an outdoors forum,

But then again what do I know.

[SNAPFisher]

Originally Posted by AK47

Just to clarify. I never suggested to ban C&R. My problem is 0 limit lakes with overpopulation of small walleye or pike where people catch and release 100's fish per fishing trip. It makes no sense to have 0 limits there as approximately 3-10% ( depending of fishing method, temperature, depth, etc) fish get killed by hooking mortality anyway. Lift the 0 limits, introduce bait ban and size limits and let people keep fish or two. It will make fishing more challenging and it will result in healthier population of fish and most likely more trophy size fish. Yes, you may not catch 100 fish a day, but I would much rather have 1-2 trophy size walleye caught in a day vs 100 40-45 cm size.

Thanks for chiming back in. I reread your original posts and this post helps as well to clarify. Looks like what you were saying got a bit distorted. Sorry if I jumped on you a bit.

I don't agree with the harvest approach that you are talking about. AB has been there, done that, and collapsed the fisheries...at least the ones in more populated areas. Opening it back up is just re-starting an already failed strategy.

I see you do not like the tag system either. I'm not sure why people still insist on it being a cash grab ...there has already been so many posts on this to disprove this part of the subject. I can dig those up if you like or use the search function if you want. The tag system is going to get to the point that you are getting to. Reduction of certain sizes and more challenging fishing. Maybe it is not happening at the rate that some would like to see, which I understand as well, but it will get there. So what would you do about setting limits and only allowing a certain number of harvest a year? How would you accomplish this if not through something like tags?

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by ETOWNCANUCK

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that those with the appropriate scientific degrees relating to fish and wildlife are in better positions to make informed decisions on what should happen with regards to C&R and other problems thN the armchair experts trolling an outdoors forum,

But then again what do I know.

Agree.

[THERICARDO]

Originally Posted by ETOWNCANUCK

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that those with the appropriate scientific degrees relating to fish and wildlife are in better positions to make informed decisions on what should happen with regards to C&R and other problems thN the armchair experts trolling an outdoors forum,

But then again what do I know.

BINGO!


Lived in Sask before moving to Edmonton, remember back in the day when they introduced CR! and CR2 limits, pretty much over 20 years ago now. affects lots of lakes where they are close to large centres and had most pressure. Most weren't very happy but we have had many 100 fish days in last 20 years and if anything the fishing has only improved in my experience

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

Can't see myself getting up at 4am, driving 4 hours, unloading the boat, driving across the lake to my spot, make one cast and be forced to go home. I would rather take up knitting.

My thought exactly. Banning catch and release is effectively banning fishing. I would hazard to guess that any jurisdiction that has such a rule also has relatively few fisherman. Then it's simply an exercise to go out to get a fish for dinner.

Also, quite frankly, it's pretty unenforceable. How do you catch someone NOT keeping a fish? Pretty hard. Would require officers on every lake, filming people at a distance.

[AK47]

Originally Posted by SNAPFisher

I don't agree with the harvest approach that you are talking about. AB has been there, done that, and collapsed the fisheries...at least the ones in more populated areas. Opening it back up is just re-starting an already failed strategy.

How about bait ban? Nobody seems to like talking about it. I think using artificial bait is way more sporty way of fishing and helps with reducing fishing mortality a lot. You may catch less, but will have way more fun. Again, back to European fishing derby examples, nobody would let you use bait in any spinning fishing derbies. It is all about lures, lines, rods and different techniques.