Catch and release - Methodology

[0liver]

Sundance, I am wondering as a little bit less experienced fisherman, that if my catch swims away very quickly, almost shooting away, dose that mean there okay? or will the poor thing still die! I have released many walleye from the NSR and they almost jet away like a torpedo, and are not bleeding at all [I use jigs and almost always get them threw the lip] its just I believe what you say about some seeming okay when they swim away but then later die.

i guess what i'm asking is, how do I judge a "good swim away" from a "slow death" because the NSR is usually really warm and now you have me feeling sick to my stomach with how many fish I have may have unintentionally harmed!

[i never remove my catch from the water though, I use barbless jigs and reach down with my needle nose and simply pop the jig out, and they jet away pretty quickly]

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Alex K

Good post Sundance,

Now no respect intended here as I always appreciate education as the best tool available to reduce mortality in released fish. However a few points here are scewed.

One slime removal is not as critical as proper handling. When we started filming I was hammered by arm chair biologists. One complaint was handling fish with a tailing glove and the fear I was removing slime. Well after a sit down with 2 biologists it was noted that removal of slime is not as critical as some would have you believe. Yes it is there protective coating but it also reproduces faster than your body produces siliva. One biologist said to me go ahead and try to spit out all your siliva. Rather odd comparison, but point was you never run out. As a matter of fact I ended up participating a Grayling egg take on quarry pond and I was shocked to see they actually took all the male fish and before they squeezed out their milt they would take a terry towel and dry them off completely. It was explained to me they had to do this so the eggs would not contact water until they were mixed with the eggs. Otherwise the milt was already useless in fertilizing the eggs. Water gets the cycle started on the sperm and they need to buy time so to speak. Then all the fish were released safe and sound.
Now keep in mind they don't want average joe doing this to fish. But point was is it is much less harmful to handle a fish with a glove and never mind worrying about the slime. More important not to drop the fish which you are much more likely to do with a wet bare hand. So careful how much emphasis is put on that. Lets focus more on proper handling techniques.

Second point is the barbless versus barbed, and single versus treble. There is no science that solidly suuports any of this. The first study that was done did show a higher mortality on fish caught with single barbless versus barbed trebles. Now since then another group found that study to be flawed. But by then states like Idaho jumped on this study and implemented a single barbless law. Since then other studies have shown a higher mortality in fish caught with single barbless than trebles. The way the biologist I spoke with that dug up all these studies explained his thoughts to me was that any good scientist knows that you can never base anything on just one study. You need a large number of studies then you can start to establish consistencies.
So really this is just a feel good law and yes it does make it easier for some to release fish easier. But it also creates a problem in another way that I continue to witness. I see alot of anglers take way more time trying to dig out a hook that is way to deep to remove killing the fish trying. It needs to be expressed barb or no barb cut the line as close to the mouth if it is hooked deep and let it go sooner with less handling.
Can you imagine if laws were passed on the later studies and only trebles were allowed. There would be some pretty ****ed off fly fishers.

Anyway just my thoughts

Alex Kreis

Hi Alex.

I believe the jist of the points I listed is not so much that necessarily any given one will kill a trout outright...but while some factors will kill outright...immediately...others cummulatively are bad and some kill later on. I have seen fish with back infections swimming around. They were not going to survive.

While I trust I understand you are not advocating it being safe to strip all the slime off a trout before release...trust what I am saying it to err on the safe side of careful handling by removing as little slime as possible.

Likewise as per previous posts...I agree with you on the premise that for you or I...barbed versus barbless is not materially different on mortality. Studies have shown this. The bias you and I and the studies have is that for the average person...they are not as knowledgeable, careful and experienced to release properly. Therefore this rule (while I hate it personally) does two things...1) it makes it more sporting for the fish...as you lose more and 2) for those less careful catch and releasers...there is less damage to the fish. Case in point is Quarry Lake. When hooks where barbed...most grayling had no maxilla (mouth part). After barbless...grayling retain maxilla.

So in the end...once again...what I am advocating is being aware of the factors impacting fish and their survival after release so that we retain more. Promoting this especially to beginners to have them develop these skills at the start of their life's fishing adventure...there will be that many more fish around to catch.

Cheers

Sun

[lannie]

Sun- You do profess to have "seen it all " and are a self proclaimed expert. Be careful, some people on here might know a lot more than you but do not grandstand.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by 0liver

Sundance, I am wondering as a little bit less experienced fisherman, that if my catch swims away very quickly, almost shooting away, dose that mean there okay? or will the poor thing still die! I have released many walleye from the NSR and they almost jet away like a torpedo, and are not bleeding at all [I use jigs and almost always get them threw the lip] its just I believe what you say about some seeming okay when they swim away but then later die.

i guess what i'm asking is, how do I judge a "good swim away" from a "slow death" because the NSR is usually really warm and now you have me feeling sick to my stomach with how many fish I have may have unintentionally harmed!

[i never remove my catch from the water though, I use barbless jigs and reach down with my needle nose and simply pop the jig out, and they jet away pretty quickly]

My rule of thumb is that if a fish darts away like your example that is the best example of a good release...most times. For a fish to have that energy is good. A slow wobbly swim away or a gentle glide to the bottom is the opposite of what we don't want to see.

If you keep the walleye in the water as much as possible...and limit handling and flopping around on the shore...by the sounds of it you are leading an excellent example of what to do correctly.

Taking into account all the points as you release fish will only ensure you do the best you can to have that walleye grow bigger to catch next year.

Cheers

Sun

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by lannie

Sun- You do profess to have "seen it all " and are a self proclaimed expert. Be careful, some people on here might know a lot more than you but do not grandstand.

It is an open discussion. If you read my posts you would of read where I state I am not perfect myself...but I try my best. I have met many, many members from AOF...and I would be very surprised if anyone thought I was a grandstander...maybe a bit nuts...maybe a bit excentic, maybe just a big jokester.

As for "seen it all"...as a fishermen of many years...I learn something new every day...so take this statement as you like. I have my share of stalkers that feel I give my opinion too much. I say don't read it if you so chose. I also speak from experience as both an avid angler of 35 years but also with a degree and work experience as a fisheries biologist.

Sometimes to some people putting yourself out there and expressing constructive opinions and trying to help is seen as grandstanding. To others...lurking and never giving your opinion is seen as free loading. To each their own...I careless either way...but in the end if the information makes common sense...use it. Otherwise just ignore the posters you don't like.

Cheers

Sun

P.S. As for people that know more...if they have good information to help the AOF community...I welcome it. We can always use more of it.

[Jayhad]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

It is common sense IMHO.

So not factual.......

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Jayhad

So not factual.......

If you feel you can lose a lot of your blood or most of your blood and not have it affect you...you are way more evolved that every other animal on the planet.

Or are you from this planet?

Ask a health care professional if you need proof it is dangerous before you try and lose a bunch of blood yourself.

No...seroiusly now...please don't try to convince new fishermen or old for that matter that tossing a significantly bleeding trout back into a lake or river is a wise move if you can legally keep it under your limit.

[Jayhad]

I'm not the one trying to convince anyone about the proper way of releasing trout based on your laymans understanding and what you state is common sense. I asked you to support your claims that you are stating as fact, you came back with your opinion.... your opinion. An opinion which means nothing if it has no backing, that's why I asked for factual, scientific proof. You responded with more keyboard crap... good one you convinced me.

[Alex K]

Hi Sundancer,

As you pointed out with the maxillas missing on the Grayiling that is true I saw that but as you also noticed the fish were alive and healthy. Most biologists agree barbed hook damage is usually only cosmetic damage not life threatening. I have seen more dameg from using the wrong net on fish than a barbed hook. And we are not just discussing trout here. But I have seen trout get damaged badly by nymph fishing a tiny single barbless hook caught deep and in the gills. So bottom line we are playing a bloo sport here and we have to understand even the best and most experienced anglers will on average cause about a 10 percent mortality on all fish caught and released.
So all I am saying is lets focus on teaching proper handling and carrying the right tools to do the best job we can to handle and release fish in the quickest, most gentle way we can and properly revive our fish as well.
All your points are good guidelines but I think sometimes focus drifts into the feel good world not reality.

Again my thoughts and from my experience and time spent discussing, filming and documenting facts over my years of angling and featuring these questions with bilogists that work in the field.

Alex Kreis

[Alex K]

sorry for all the typos on my last post

Alex

[BCSteel]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

What I am saying is that...your example is not a real world example...do you agree?

Sun

With out getting too elabourate about the brood fishing, many fish were hiked out in only a few liters of water in a back pack for up to 20 min. The recovery tank was an unaerated tub in the back of my truck. The monitoring consisted of 30 min to up to 3 hours locked in the tub while being transported down old logging roads.

To an extent I would agree. Do most anglers do some kind of recovery before releasing a fish, IME yes. Is it adequate for survival, I'd have to say that the majority of the time yes it is. What I'm not ok with is the constant insistance that trout, or any game fish, are this extremly delicate and fragile thing that needs to be constantly babied and treated more delicatly than a faberge egg. If its said enough then people will begin to believe it and question wether it is right to even angle for them. Just as fear mongering by environmental extremists about the possible side effects of pesticides when seriously abused has and is leading to the ban of pesticide use across the country, constantly expounding on how fragile a trout can be will eventually lead to lost opportunities for the majority that know better.

To be fair to your arguments, most of my experiences are based on angling in moving water, sloughs, creeks, rivers, that kind of thing, and I suspect that a lot of your experiences are coming from fishing still waters and even though the conditions of the water on release are different I still havent noticed a difference in mortality.

One thing is certain, you and I both share an higher than average respect for the fish and their well being.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Alex K

Hi Sundancer,

As you pointed out with the maxillas missing on the Grayiling that is true I saw that but as you also noticed the fish were alive and healthy. Most biologists agree barbed hook damage is usually only cosmetic damage not life threatening. I have seen more dameg from using the wrong net on fish than a barbed hook. And we are not just discussing trout here. But I have seen trout get damaged badly by nymph fishing a tiny single barbless hook caught deep and in the gills. So bottom line we are playing a bloo sport here and we have to understand even the best and most experienced anglers will on average cause about a 10 percent mortality on all fish caught and released.
So all I am saying is lets focus on teaching proper handling and carrying the right tools to do the best job we can to handle and release fish in the quickest, most gentle way we can and properly revive our fish as well.
All your points are good guidelines but I think sometimes focus drifts into the feel good world not reality.

Again my thoughts and from my experience and time spent discussing, filming and documenting facts over my years of angling and featuring these questions with bilogists that work in the field.

Alex Kreis

I think we are in agreement on the over all principles here.

Cheers

Kevin

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by BCSteel

With out getting too elabourate about the brood fishing, many fish were hiked out in only a few liters of water in a back pack for up to 20 min. The recovery tank was an unaerated tub in the back of my truck. The monitoring consisted of 30 min to up to 3 hours locked in the tub while being transported down old logging roads.

To an extent I would agree. Do most anglers do some kind of recovery before releasing a fish, IME yes. Is it adequate for survival, I'd have to say that the majority of the time yes it is. What I'm not ok with is the constant insistance that trout, or any game fish, are this extremly delicate and fragile thing that needs to be constantly babied and treated more delicatly than a faberge egg. If its said enough then people will begin to believe it and question wether it is right to even angle for them. Just as fear mongering by environmental extremists about the possible side effects of pesticides when seriously abused has and is leading to the ban of pesticide use across the country, constantly expounding on how fragile a trout can be will eventually lead to lost opportunities for the majority that know better.

To be fair to your arguments, most of my experiences are based on angling in moving water, sloughs, creeks, rivers, that kind of thing, and I suspect that a lot of your experiences are coming from fishing still waters and even though the conditions of the water on release are different I still havent noticed a difference in mortality.

One thing is certain, you and I both share an higher than average respect for the fish and their well being.

I think we are also in agreement. I don't say trout are that fragile...just some common sense and respect insofar as our methods can easily make all the difference. Many people do...however I personally see many that don't. I also have some cool stories as a biologist as to what fish can survive or not. They can have amazing stories...but common sense prevails. It is a great resource and a great sport. I hate to see trout wasted rather than harvested as others may miss out as a result...and I like eating fish.

Still I have seen the classic...1 million photos before release...fish died. I have seen the flopping on shore looking for plyers...fish died. I have seen fish bashed around in a boat...died. I have seen fish with bad infections...died. I have seen fish exhausted...died. I can not deny these facts... I can not deny stuff happens. But no one can deny that with a few simple rules, common sense and respect for both the fish and other anglers...you can release a fish with a great probability of survival...just as simply as you can do the opposite and ensure it's demise...without harvesting.

[BCSteel]

Originally Posted by Alex K

One slime removal is not as critical as proper handling. When we started filming I was hammered by arm chair biologists. One complaint was handling fish with a tailing glove and the fear I was removing slime. Well after a sit down with 2 biologists it was noted that removal of slime is not as critical as some would have you believe. Yes it is there protective coating but it also reproduces faster than your body produces siliva. One biologist said to me go ahead and try to spit out all your siliva. Rather odd comparison, but point was you never run out. As a matter of fact I ended up participating a Grayling egg take on quarry pond and I was shocked to see they actually took all the male fish and before they squeezed out their milt they would take a terry towel and dry them off completely. It was explained to me they had to do this so the eggs would not contact water until they were mixed with the eggs. Otherwise the milt was already useless in fertilizing the eggs. Water gets the cycle started on the sperm and they need to buy time so to speak. Then all the fish were released safe and sound.
Now keep in mind they don't want average joe doing this to fish. But point was is it is much less harmful to handle a fish with a glove and never mind worrying about the slime. More important not to drop the fish which you are much more likely to do with a wet bare hand. So careful how much emphasis is put on that. Lets focus more on proper handling techniques.
Alex Kreis

The comparison between spitting and fish slime is absurd at best. Your saliva isnt your primary barrier between bacteria and infection.

My experiences in a hatchery setting with wild captured fish have been the exact opposite of this and I have seen the aftermath of the effect of tailing gloves first hand. Virtually every fish that was held in the hatchery that had a glove used to expediate landing during capture had infections in the exact area where they were held, often to the point of having individual finger prints around the wrist of the tail. If these fish needed to be held for any length of time they needed constant attention to keep the fungus from over taking the fish and causing mortality. These were also live spawned fish that were released back into the wild after spawning so the focus was on not only the successful spawning of the fish but also their subsequent survival.

With that being said, a fish being held in a hatchery is under a large stress load simply by being held in an unnatural environment. This in its self will contribute to the rate of infection being higher. But, a fish released into the wild will not necessarily be ok just because its back "home". Any number of factors can work against them once released in their compromised state. Local bacterial levels can play a roll and more importantly, warmer water temps (meaning on the higher side of optimum) will drastically shorten the amount of time a fish has to mend its self before it is back up to optimum health.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Jayhad

I'm not the one trying to convince anyone about the proper way of releasing trout based on your laymans understanding and what you state is common sense. I asked you to support your claims that you are stating as fact, you came back with your opinion.... your opinion. An opinion which means nothing if it has no backing, that's why I asked for factual, scientific proof. You responded with more keyboard crap... good one you convinced me.

Sure...call it an opinion versus fact. You feel a fish can lose lots of blood and survive. Unfortunately simple biology proves otherwise.

This link shows blood loss kills em dead.



http://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/mfr434/mfr4342.pdf

http://wildlife.state.co.us/SiteColl...emortality.pdf

This study address bleeding caused hooking mortality.

http://www3.carleton.ca/fecpl/pdfs/F...0al%202011.pdf

While hook type could not be an indicator of bleeding potential...bleeding was a major mortality factor.

"Although this is too low an estimate
to warrant further evaluation, these results still reflect the existing
catch-and-release literature, where mortality or a reduction
in the likelihood of survival was often associated with a hooking
injury to the gill and the resultant blood loss"

While this was a bull trout study...it does point to blood loss concerns by biologists. My experience doing surgery on bull trout yielded similar results to this study. Bull trout are an amazingly robust trout.

Cheers

Sun

[Alex K]

BCsteel,

I know what you are saying as I too have seen these marks. However in a tank environment as you ponted out they are highly susceptible to disease and fungus in that artificial environment. Just look at brood fish that are released. I have caught them with fungus on them after they were released. In most cases this clears up once they have been in a more natural environmet for some time.
My point was that it is again a place that does not harm organs or gills and is the best place to grasp a fish by the caudel peduncle. Using a glove minimizes the chance of dropping them. And allows and angler an opportunity to take a good picture while holding the tail and supporting the belly. Giving the fish its best chance for survival. An inexperienced angler is who all this was addressed to in the first place and I am only saying they are more likely to drop a fish if all they focus on is not harming the slime coat. The spitting reference was made by a fisheries biologist in the fact that we reproduce spit the same way fish reproduce slime. Not that we need it for protection.
So dont compare tank effect to lake or stream effect.
As I said the slime is important but not something we should stay focused on.

Alex Kreis

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Alex K

BCsteel,

I know what you are saying as I too have seen these marks. However in a tank environment as you ponted out they are highly susceptible to disease and fungus in that artificial environment. Just look at brood fish that are released. I have caught them with fungus on them after they were released. In most cases this clears up once they have been in a more natural environmet for some time.

Now this would an interesting study. I have seen in our lake that once a fish gets it...it just seems to get worse and worse until it dies or gets taken by the osprey. We can tell cause of distinctive markings and the whiteness as it swims around.

[BCSteel]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Now this would an interesting study. I have seen in our lake that once a fish gets it...it just seems to get worse and worse until it dies or gets taken by the osprey. We can tell cause of distinctive markings and the whiteness as it swims around.

The same happens with river fish as well, once a fish gets it it becomes hard for a fish to fight off the infection. Small localized areas of slime loss happen naturally and a fishs immune system is able to deal with these for the most part but no where in nature does the slime become so thouroughly removed over such a large area as it does when an angler uses a glove to handle the fish.

Originally Posted by Alex K

Just look at brood fish that are released. I have caught them with fungus on them after they were released. In most cases this clears up once they have been in a more natural environmet for some time.

What constitutes "some time"? What kind of conditions are you releasing the fish in that the loss of a significant portion of its protective coating makes absoutly no difference in the survival of the fish?

Originally Posted by Alex K

My point was that it is again a place that does not harm organs or gills and is the best place to grasp a fish by the caudel peduncle. Using a glove minimizes the chance of dropping them. And allows and angler an opportunity to take a good picture while holding the tail and supporting the belly. Giving the fish its best chance for survival. An inexperienced angler is who all this was addressed to in the first place and I am only saying they are more likely to drop a fish if all they focus on is not harming the slime coat.

And so instead of focusing on the protection of their first and primary barrier to infection your focusing on the potential for dropping a fish. A poor trade off at best. The advocation of something that will compromise a fishs first line of defence (using a glove) is a sad substitute for using an apropriate method of restraint (c&r net) that will protect the entire fish from harm. This is assuming that some kind of restraint is even necessary, which it usually is not.

Originally Posted by Alex K

The spitting reference was made by a fisheries biologist in the fact that we reproduce spit the same way fish reproduce slime. Not that we need it for protection.

And so it has absoutly no bearing on this conversation.

Originally Posted by Alex K

So dont compare tank effect to lake or stream effect.
As I said the slime is important but not something we should stay focused on.

The reality is that even though you say its not important, it is actually vital to the survival of the fish and advocating for a method that purposly removes a large protion of a fishs defence barrier simply so that anglers can get "a good picture" harms more fish that it will ever save.

[Cowboybob]

This has been an interesting read. A lot of good facts and some questionable opinions. I've spent a fair bit of my career rearing (over 50 million), handling (unknown thousands) and conducting research on fish including quite a bit of published research on the effects of catch and release in both laboratory and natural environments. There are a whole bunch of factors that enter into the picture in terms of affecting catch and release mortality including species of fish, water temperature, hardness, pH, physiological state (fat and glycogen levels), stage of maturity, and hooking location (some hooks, particularly baited j-hooks, are more likely to hook fish in critical locations).

In general, and legal issues aside, the information Sundancefisher has provided in the opening post is good and sound advice. BCSteel's comments above on the importance of maintaining the integrity of the mucous layer should also be heeded. If I were to sum up my experience and that reflected in scientific literature it would be:

- fish breath as well out of water as humans do underwater - i.e. - the longer you keep a fish, particularly an exhausted fish, out of the water the more likely it is that it will die

- the more they bleed, the more they die. That's not rocket science. They may (I emphasize may) survive damage to gill filaments but I've never seen one survive damage to gill arches.

- the more you handle them, the more they die. The use of knotless mesh nets is recommended. Unfortunately these can be difficult to find. Knotted mesh is more abrasive and can damage skin integrity and, particularly on larger fish, abrade the eyes. Most fishing gloves are made with the fishermen in mind to give you a good grip. That means they are abrasive. I've used them to hold broodstock that we intended to sacrifice afterwards but not to hold fish that I want to survive.

The longer you play a fish, the more likely it is to die. There's a reason those professional guys like to get the fish in the live well as soon as possible - dead fish don't count.

[Alex K]

BCSteel

Holy,

No where in my post did I ever say the slime coat was not a protective coat. Read and yinderstand what I am saying I have agreed with everything everyone has made. I am only concerned that we need to make sure people hndle fish properly. And an inexperienced angler is more likely to drop a fish when handling if they don't understand the importance of how. I have watched many experienced and inexperienced angler drop fish trying to handle them with bare hands dropping fish on the shore, rocks, etc.

Alex

[Alex K]

BCSteel

Sorry for my typos, Anyway my information about slime coat comes not from me but the shared opinion of several fisheries biologists. They all have told me slime coat is a protective coating, but it also reproduces itself as soon as the fish enters the water. So when I was filming our television show my concern was to educate anglers. So I wanted to make sure I was giving proper information. With that said they expressed to me it was a far greater concern that we teach proper handling as the risk of damage was far greater in mishandled fish than worrying about slime coat. In otherwords I am not advocating that we go out of our way to remove it. I am only saying to focus more on handling as the biologists suggested to me.

Myself I use everything from cradles, to rubber nets, to soft meshed trout nets what ever the situation calls for to minimize stress and time out of water for fish I am handling. But you can't tell me that a soft net or cradle takes less slime off a fish than does a tailing glove. My cradle or soft mesh is always dripping slime after releasing a fish. So tell me should we advocate everyone should just handle all fish with bare hands and risk having fish dropped on rocks, bottom of boats and otherwise. Because you know as well as I anglers want to take pictures will take pictures and will handle fish.

So can we not agree on the importance of being able to handle fish properly first. And making sure we carry the proper tools to handle and release fish with minimal damage.

Not trying to argue here, just trying to add knowledge that was given to me for the purpose of education by the experts.

Alex Kreis

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Alex K

BCSteel

Holy,

No where in my post did I ever say the slime coat was not a protective coat. Read and yinderstand what I am saying I have agreed with everything everyone has made. I am only concerned that we need to make sure people hndle fish properly. And an inexperienced angler is more likely to drop a fish when handling if they don't understand the importance of how. I have watched many experienced and inexperienced angler drop fish trying to handle them with bare hands dropping fish on the shore, rocks, etc.

Alex

If an angler is planning to release the trout they should not be bringing it out of the water if at all possible. If needed a rubber no knot net should be used IMHO. I never use a glove but I have tried one and IMHO it is not needed if you handle the trout correctly.

In general...if you are lifting a fish over the rocks...that practice could change to the benefit of catch and release mortality.