Banning C&R

[wildwoods]

I felt it necessary to not derail the OP's thread and further. I'm sure we can have an adult conversation about banning C&R.
It had never crossed my mind to ban Catch and Release until another member uttered dismay with people catching dozens of fish in one day. He cited an article that threw some numbers around about mortality rates of C&R. I'll let him chime in on his side as to not put words in his mouth.
Pigeon and Wabamun-before walleye introduction- are proof that C&R does not decimate populations. The opposite appears to be true. Throw Pine Coulee in the mix as well. I'm sure there's many more examples but I'll stand pat on those for now.
Fishing with a limit and stopping once it's hit is mind blowing and I'll never stand for it. What a waste of time to show up to a lake and turn the boat around half an hour later because you cannot legally keep fishing.
Again- not being personally disparaging here. I respect other viewpoints but want to have a good conversation about it.
This is not about slot sizes and opening up certain lakes. That's been beat to death and we know some of our fisheries are definitely mis-managed. It's about an ideology that I firmly stand against.

[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.

[the local angler]

ya i think who ever is going to be really hard pressed to convince the proper people to ban C&R. i use to keep fish for eating but not as much now as i get lazy and just throw them back. C&R just seems more enjoyable especially playing with a fly rod.

[wags]

Well I'm one of the guys who does not like eating fish. I like fishing. So this would suck for me.

As for mortality rates, fish being kept to eat has a 100% mortality rate. so I'll go with that .

Cheers

[millsboy79]

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.

This was exactly what I was thinking reading the other post. Even fishing from shore ... every lake is at least a two hour drive.

[wildwoods]

Here's the thread I was referencing. I've never seen anyone admonished for catching (and realeasing) too many fish.
http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=322914

[newguy]

I've heard the mortality rate is high on C&R fish...
How high and how is this proven? Do they float after they die? Are they cannibalized?
Not being sarcastic but I'm just not convinced it's as big a deal as people say.

I think banning catch and release would do nothing but lower the amount of licenses sold and thus decrease revenue. Govt won't like that too much.

[rena0040]

So what happens if you're on a lake with a size limit and you catch a smaller fish, or the lake is open to pike and you catch a walleye. Does that make you a poacher?
When 70% of the water in the province is closed to fishing because its currently no retention limits and most give up and dont bother buying a license, how do we pay for enforcement or stocking without the income.
Seems pretty impracticable, would be much easier to ban fishing all together, but I think thats what you're after.
Or I just fed the troll

[wildbill]

As long as people are fishing legally, who cares, really, who cares? I release about 95% of the fish I catch but, that doesn't make me better than other anglers fishing within the law. If you don't like the law, then do something to change it. Seems like people think cryin on these forums fixes things, well, here's a news flash Walter Cronkite, it don't! Not everyone fishes for sport, just like lots of hunters hunt for food. Does that make them wrong? Because people ain't like you, you're gonna say their wrong? Time to get outta the hotbox bud!

[wildwoods]

Originally Posted by rena0040

So what happens if you're on a lake with a size limit and you catch a smaller fish, or the lake is open to pike and you catch a walleye. Does that make you a poacher?
When 70% of the water in the province is closed to fishing because its currently no retention limits and most give up and dont bother buying a license, how do we pay for enforcement or stocking without the income.
Seems pretty impracticable, would be much easier to ban fishing all together, but I think thats what you're after.
Or I just fed the troll

Might want to re-read my stance on that Unless you're referring to the other guy. I fully agree with you

Originally Posted by wildbill

As long as people are fishing legally, who cares, really, who cares? I release about 95% of the fish I catch but, that doesn't make me better than other anglers fishing within the law. If you don't like the law, then do something to change it. Seems like people think cryin on these forums fixes things, well, here's a news flash Walter Cronkite, it don't! Not everyone fishes for sport, just like lots of hunters hunt for food. Does that make them wrong? Because people ain't like you, you're gonna say their wrong? Time to get outta the hotbox bud!

I think you missed the point....
Re-read the first post

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by newguy

I've heard the mortality rate is high on C&R fish...
How high and how is this proven? Do they float after they die? Are they cannibalized?
Not being sarcastic but I'm just not convinced it's as big a deal as people say.

I think banning catch and release would do nothing but lower the amount of licenses sold and thus decrease revenue. Govt won't like that too much.

There are definitely different skill levels to catch and release. I see some pretty shady stuff in pics, but on this site saying anything will earn you a time out. When I release trout the fish rarely leave the water, and I always fish barbless. Others need the photo and keep fish out of the water longer. If you are going to release fish, use appropriate line and when you pull a fish out of water hold your breath. Don't take a breath until the fish is back in the water, that will save a ton of fish.

[Outdoorfanatic]

Senior fisheries Bio told me once that in Europe the sentiment now is that sport fishing is unethical on the basis that it intentionally causes harm to a fish with no intention of using it for food. So conclusion is only those who fish for food are ethical. Not my thing but shows how far stupid can go. I've also had different biologist tell me that the hooking mortality is 5% and others say 20%. So depending on which one is applied to your walleye lake you will see more or less walleye tags issued. Mean while we still invite public consultation on local fishing regs including tag allocation. So if non anglers consider sport fishing unethical or even some fellow anglers than the regs and seasons and tag allocations will be pretty strict.

[Solominotaur]

I for one don't have many 30+ fishing days ( probably due to lack of skill haha) but C&R is needed to further the knowledge of a rookie. What I do agree with is size minimums in every lake, river, or pond. I'm not sure how it could be done but it's probably my biggest pet peeve seeing people keep fish that are absolutely tiny. I saw a guy on the weekend keep a rainbow trout that couldn't be more than 5" long.... I don't see the point of keeping

Sent from my SM-G928W8 using Tapatalk

[338Bluff]

I buy my tags and sort through 30 oversize fish to kill my 3 for dinner and then I don't go back to Pigeon for another year. I will target perch or pike at other lakes. More into C&R for trout and they will not leave the water. I never take a picture of a fish I plan on releasing. My rules for me. Everyone should make their own for themselves. The idea of banning one approach is stupid if it's allowable under the regs. We have too many hole diggers who fancy themselves biologists
.

[KegRiver]

I fish as much to put food on the table as I do for enjoyment and I would not support a ban on C&R.

Plus I don't think it is workable or beneficial to fish.

First it would be very difficult to win a case against someone who accidentally caught a fish he had limited out on, while fishing for a different species.

It would not help fish populations because it would increase the number of fish kept, by people unwilling to end their day. I think many people would say, if it's illegal to catch it and release it I might as well keep it.

[Pikebreath]

First off, let me say, I am a strong supporter of C&R. However, I do have isues with anglers who retain their legal limit for a species ASAP and then continue targeting that species becoming C&R anglers as a matter of convenience.

If you wish to fish all day, then leave room in your retention limit to harvest that legal sized fish that obviously is going to die from hooking or handling mortality.

If you wish to angle all day, be a C&R angler, harvesting the floaters and bleeders where legal as they will likely die anyways. Once you have your retention limit, either switch fishing to another species using methods less likely to catch that species or just call it a day.

There is incidental mortality with C&R. There is intentional mortality with catch and keep. If you keep legal sized fish that would have survived release and then start releasing everything because you want to keep to keep fishing for that species, you will be double dipping on your angler induced mortality for that day.

[ETOWNCANUCK]

So let's just out right ban fishing, ban hunting ,guns and everything else that can mess up the out doors.

Is it possible to harm a fish during C&R. Of course it is.

Is it possible to C&R a fish and catch it again? Of course it is.

Winter kill and summer kill, and cottage industry does more harm than C&R does

SO ban winter and Summer and cottages by the lake.

Ban fishing tournaments.

Ban hooks on the tackle.

Ban outboards and inboards, because you might get an oil, gas leak.



But first Ban stupid.

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by Pikebreath

First off, let me say, I am a strong supporter of C&R. However, I do have isues with anglers who retain their legal limit for a species ASAP and then continue targeting that species becoming C&R anglers as a matter of convenience.

If you wish to fish all day, then leave room in your retention limit to harvest that legal sized fish that obviously is going to die from hooking or handling mortality.

If you wish to angle all day, be a C&R angler, harvesting the floaters and bleeders where legal as they will likely die anyways. Once you have your retention limit, either switch fishing to another species using methods less likely to catch that species or just call it a day.

There is incidental mortality with C&R. There is intentional mortality with catch and keep. If you keep legal sized fish that would have survived release and then start releasing everything because you want to keep to keep fishing for that species, you will be double dipping on your angler induced mortality for that day.

Good concept, but I doubt it will catch on. It's my belief that a lot or most catch and keep fishermen will ensure they're catch first incase the bite turns off and they have to go home empty handed. Kinda sad but the more people with your(and mine) mentality the better.

[FlyTheory]

Catch and release should stay and is the best conservation practice with the exception of closures. Many people don't even eat fish, like me 85% of the time, would lose out completely on the hobby. Retailers would lose business as well because less people would be fishing. Over all banning catch and release is not a good idea. Maybe catch and release with the obligation to use fish that are mortally hooked (single barbless hook like BC) would decrease "waste". People would abuse it, but people already poach in high numbers, so that wouldn't change.

[Dan Foss]

The whole premise of the discussion is aimed at hooking mortality of catch and release but yet i see no studies or statistics being discussed on what the mortality rate actually is; just speculation. if it is 2%, not a big deal. if it is 20% then i believe it is plausible to entertain restrictions on C&R fishing.

I dont have time right now to look up, read, and sort through studies and stats but I will later (more for self education). But my actual guess is that the mortality rate is alot lower in reality than most people would have you believe (assuming using proper handling techniques). there without a doubt is some mortality but if the % is small enough all you are doing is playing into the natural eco system (providing food for worms, slugs, snails, crawfish, birds, nutrients back into the lakewater) which should never be considered Bad

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by wags

Well I'm one of the guys who does not like eating fish. I like fishing. So this would suck for me.

As for mortality rates, fish being kept to eat has a 100% mortality rate. so I'll go with that .

Cheers

Agree!

I put in for the walleye tags at Pigeon and those are the only fish I keep. Wife and kids love walleye and I don't mind it, get them early before the water gets nasty.

LC

[SNAPFisher]

Originally Posted by ETOWNCANUCK

So let's just out right ban fishing, ban hunting ,guns and everything else that can mess up the out doors.

Is it possible to harm a fish during C&R. Of course it is.

Is it possible to C&R a fish and catch it again? Of course it is.

Winter kill and summer kill, and cottage industry does more harm than C&R does

SO ban winter and Summer and cottages by the lake.

Ban fishing tournaments.

Ban hooks on the tackle.

Ban outboards and inboards, because you might get an oil, gas leak.



But first Ban stupid.

No kidding! Your last line says it all. Or ban ignorance meaning lack of understanding.

To the original derailer of the other thread, leave fishing alone because you certainly do not understand the "sport". Stick to hunting. No surprise you are a no show here. As far as I'm concerned he just wanted to pee on someone's else's good time.

[Bushleague]

I wouldn't ban C&R, but I think its important for fishermen to be aware of the mortality rate. For a long time C&R fishermen have felt that they hold some sort of moral high ground... while I feel that a guy who keeps a couple fish and goes home probably doesn't actually kill more fish than a guy who catches 50 fish and lets them all go.

For me, once I have a fish or two to eat, or if I am strictly C&R fishing I quit using live bait, I pinch my barbs flat, I move shallower, and or I may switch to a more hardy species. You get so many grinning idiots around here tell you how they caught 100 fish in a weekend off the drop in Slave Lake, then piously proclaim they let them all go. If you cranked 100 walleye out of 30-40' of water then you probably killed quite a few fish.

I only fish that deep if I'm keeping a fish, once I have my eater I move shallower, switch to artificials, if the walleye aren't biting on the flats I go after pike. Theres a lot more to ethical C&R fishing than just putting fish back.

[Dan Foss]

I havent read through the whole thing yet but this appears to be a good one that discusses species specific impacts and guidelines. I have always thought some fish are more hearty than others and can take a bit more "punishment" and survive C&R (IE. pike vs some trout types):

https://www.researchgate.net/profile...1d07000000.pdf

a particular quote caught my eye:

. In a review of hooking mortality studies, Muoneke and Childress (1994) reported that mortality rates for released fish ranged from 0 to 89% across many marine and freshwater species.

Trying to track down the full article from that quote, sounds like it would be a good read but may have to wait till later when I can sign into my old university account from home:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...nalCode=brfs20

[FlyTheory]

Originally Posted by Dan Foss

The whole premise of the discussion is aimed at hooking mortality of catch and release but yet i see no studies or statistics being discussed on what the mortality rate actually is; just speculation. if it is 2%, not a big deal. if it is 20% then i believe it is plausible to entertain restrictions on C&R fishing.

I dont have time right now to look up, read, and sort through studies and stats but I will later (more for self education). But my actual guess is that the mortality rate is a lot lower in reality than most people would have you believe (assuming using proper handling techniques). there without a doubt is some mortality but if the % is small enough all you are doing is playing into the natural eco system (providing food for worms, slugs, snails, crawfish, birds, nutrients back into the lakewater) which should never be considered Bad

I agree with what you say. I don't think there will be any studies done for here in Alberta. Why would there, you know? There's so much variation within even the same species (eg walleye on diff lakes) that it'd be hard to determine mortality. Involving hooks, where is hooked, how many times it was hooked, etc. Would make these studies only a little more accurate then guessing.

[MathewsArcher]

I have been told by a government bio that the model they use for establishing walleye limits and water body vulnerability utilizes 10% as the mortality rate for C&R walleye which seems to be in line with the scientific literature. 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.

If populations can support C&R then there is no problem, where populations are threatened or vulnerable to the extent that even C&R can have population level effects closures should be considered.

[MathewsArcher]

Originally Posted by FlyTheory

I agree with what you say. I don't think there will be any studies done for here in Alberta. Why would there, you know? There's so much variation within even the same species (eg walleye on diff lakes) that it'd be hard to determine mortality. Involving hooks, where is hooked, how many times it was hooked, etc. Would make these studies only a little more accurate then guessing.

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.

[SNAPFisher]

Originally Posted by Bushleague

I wouldn't ban C&R, but I think its important for fishermen to be aware of the mortality rate. For a long time C&R fishermen have felt that they hold some sort of moral high ground... while I feel that a guy who keeps a couple fish and goes home probably doesn't actually kill more fish than a guy who catches 50 fish and lets them all go.

For me, once I have a fish or two to eat, or if I am strictly C&R fishing I quit using live bait, I pinch my barbs flat, I move shallower, and or I may switch to a more hardy species. You get so many grinning idiots around here tell you how they caught 100 fish in a weekend off the drop in Slave Lake, then piously proclaim they let them all go. If you cranked 100 walleye out of 30-40' of water then you probably killed quite a few fish.

I only fish that deep if I'm keeping a fish, once I have my eater I move shallower, switch to artificials, if the walleye aren't biting on the flats I go after pike. Theres a lot more to ethical C&R fishing than just putting fish back.

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,

[Pikebreath]

Originally Posted by Outdoorfanatic

Senior fisheries Bio told me once that in Europe the sentiment now is that sport fishing is unethical on the basis that it intentionally causes harm to a fish with no intention of using it for food. So conclusion is only those who fish for food are ethical. Not my thing but shows how far stupid can go. I've also had different biologist tell me that the hooking mortality is 5% and others say 20%. So depending on which one is applied to your walleye lake you will see more or less walleye tags issued. Mean while we still invite public consultation on local fishing regs including tag allocation. So if non anglers consider sport fishing unethical or even some fellow anglers than the regs and seasons and tag allocations will be pretty strict.

That is the rational against C&R,,, I do not agree with it as I consider myself a sport fisherman first and foremost. Nevertheless there are those who see sportfishing (and trophy hunting) as unethical. But by the same token, the C&R angler is not out there trying to kill as much as he can, rather the C&R angler is trying to minimize his / her impact by not intentionally killing fish while still being able to enjoy angling.

That said, I see C&R not as some kind of "Holy Grail" but rather a management tool which allows greater participation by more anglers for the same resource.

[waterninja]

Originally Posted by wildbill

As long as people are fishing legally, who cares, really, who cares? I release about 95% of the fish I catch but, that doesn't make me better than other anglers fishing within the law. If you don't like the law, then do something to change it. Seems like people think cryin on these forums fixes things, well, here's a news flash Walter Cronkite, it don't! Not everyone fishes for sport, just like lots of hunters hunt for food. Does that make them wrong? Because people ain't like you, you're gonna say their wrong? Time to get outta the hotbox bud!

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.