|
|
Posts: 413
Location: Madison WI | So I just got done reading the IFGA's document on what rules have to be followed in order to submit a record to them, however after reading the document I wasn't able to find anywhere that it actually said the fish had to be harvested to be considered for a record. So my question is simple: If you land a fish that you believe to be a new world record can't you simply call the DNR up and tell them to get out to you and bring a certified scale with since you don't want to harvest the fish?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 159
Location: Stevens Point, WI | I've wondered the same thing. That was the plan i came up with in my dreams.
Edited by 12gauge 12/6/2008 12:10 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 210
Location: VA | I dont know about IGFA, but here in VA the VDGIF certified a smallmouth bass as a "state record" and the fish was released. It was kept in a cooler until VDGIF got there if my memory serves? And the same fish was caught again a few weeks later by another angler! But it weighed less due to spawning times.
DR |
|
| |
|
| My question is, lets say you catch what you think to be a world record fish, its in the net, How would you hold the fish until the DNR arrives? would you simply just keep it in the net until they come? Im surious to see what others will say... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2024
| Or livewell if your boat has one. |
|
| |
|
| yah, I thought about that but the livewell I have is waaaayyyy to small for a muskie let alone a world record muskie, so that would be out of the question for me, I would think the only way I could pull it ooff is letting is wade in a net??? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 413
Location: Madison WI | If it was me I would keep it is the net so that as little stress was put on the fish as possible until the DNR arrived, sure the livewell is another place you could put the fish but I don't know about you but I wouldn't want to put a 70 lb fish in a box. Unless you have a 300 gallon livewell in your boat you run the risk of too much stress on the fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 392
Location: lake x...where the hell is it? | not everyone has a 80 gallon live well! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2089
| Sit like Buddah in 2' of water with the fish in the net. Hope it's not October/November. Steve |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1270
| Seriously guys, if it's truelly a world record who really cares if it's kept? A fish of that size has live it's life and is probably ready to die anyway.
Go ahead and flame away at me now! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| Reelman,
I would absolutely agree with what your saying. Thump it and get it to a certified scale as fast as you can. Also would make sure there is plenty of quality wittness. DNR, police and or Larry. Because even if you do kill it and certify the weight and have witnesses. Your still going to questioned by everyone. Then IGAF or whatever organization will have their collective heads up your arse so far its not worth it. Not for the fisherman and certainly not for the fish. In short yes you have to kill it and for me that will never happen. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 81
Location: NEW | That's a fair opinion. That fish would have spread a lot of dna around over the years. I'd be afraid to keep it and have it not be a record though. I'd have to be certain before I let it die. No matter what you do, some one is going to believe it was wrong. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 413
Location: Madison WI | Why would you want to keep that fish, what would you do with a 70+ lb fish that you can't have done by putting it back. Replicas look better IMO and have been proven to last longer then regular mounts. Not to mention if I call the DNR and have them come weigh it on a certified scale then I have my witnesses for the IFGA, who is better then the DNR??
Edited by muskyhunter24 12/6/2008 3:23 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 61
Location: Sioux Lookout On Canada | Unfortunately, if you catch it on Lac Seul it has to go back anyway. the fine for keeping it is nothing to bat an eye at, and I don't think a guys reputation would be tarnished too bad. I don't know... I have mixed feelings about what I will do next time that I catch a monster on Lac Seul. The law says put it back.
Neil Michelin |
|
| |
|
Posts: 232
Location: Sun Prairie, WI | If it's in WI, the chances of the DNR coming out to you and with a certified scale is about as remote as Favre resigning with the Packers yet this season. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 413
Location: Madison WI | ESOXER - 12/6/2008 3:40 PM
If it's in WI, the chances of the DNR coming out to you and with a certified scale is about as remote as Favre resigning with the Packers yet this season.
Amen to that, I know it would be hard to get the DNR out which is why over the years I have gotten personal cell #'s for certain DNR agents. Hopefully the thought of a record fish would get them to get out to you but obviously there aren't any guarentees these days. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 802
| reelman, while stating it bluntly, voiced the opinion of quite a few people i spoke with since the 'monster' was caught. i applaud dale for his incredible catch AND release- it was an act that deserves to be treated as one of our sports greatest moments because it was! i emailed him and told him that his feat was both amazing an admirable.but readers might be suprised how many would keep a fish like that, altho i'd think very few would be brave enough to speak honestly and face the wrath of the masses. now don't label me as a troublemaker, not trying to start anything, but many would've kep that fish. would i have? probably. why? because i'd like to end the crap once and for all. i find the entire issue a very sad joke. i'd love to end the spray/malo/o'brien/hall of fame/etc. controversy and wipe the slate clean. better yet, let my boat partner catch it and allow me to bear witness to the entire glorious event- i can think of nothing better! no asterisks, no whispered accusations- just a properly documented, witnessed, weighed and legitimately registered fish. period. the fact that a fish like this comes around soooo rarely, really puts the odds of catching that same behemoth AGAIN into the bazillions. now i'm not talking of keeping any fish- i've only kept 1, and that was my first (39") back in the 70's as a high schooler. but keeping a special fish is ones right, whatever that criteria may be. and a 57" x 33" would be that special fish to me...
btw, someone spoke of a giant musky being able to carry on with the reproduction of it's super-genetics- but i've also heard that when a fish get's that old/large, it's like a post menopausal woman, unable to reproduce. any biologists out there to clear up this notion and give the facts?
and muskyhunter24, i would donate the actual fish to the hall of fame, and then have a replica for myself, both done by joe fittante. you're right, replicas are better...
Edited by esox69 12/6/2008 4:04 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Twin Cities | I've always heard being able to breed or not is a function of age, not size. (please correct me if that is wrong) There's no telling the exact age of any of these fish, it's speculation on both sides if they will still breed or not. Figure that fish out of mille lacs, green bay or vermillion are 18 years old, give or take a few and reaching these dimensions. But then that O'brien fish was over 30 years old and a similar size.
I'd really like to know what was in the belly of that fish, but to me it's not worth killing it. What if it is all spawn? Then those genetics would be all gone for good.
Edited by JRedig 12/6/2008 4:11 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1767
Location: Lake Country, Wisconsin | As far as why keep the fish, I personally can't think of any lakes where I fish that an "On-Call" DNR officer would be ready to come out with a scale. Plus, while the net is a good SHORT term device for keeping a fish in water, I would hardly say it is a good tool for 30-60-80 mins....
With that being said, I personally think it would be VERY cool to be the undisputed record holder of the largest musky ever caught. There are plenty of guys who would thump a fish like that, whether they want to admit it or not. I can't say for sure what I would do one way or the other ( not like this will ever happen anyways), but I can say that keeping it would possibly be an option if it was a world record... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 86
Location: University of Hartford | I would love to be in that position, but the fish would either be thumped, or returned with only a picture (that would never end up on the internet).
I applaud the people that do post pictures of their giants but if it was near that size i would not post it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 341
Location: Passaic, NJ - Upper French River, ON | " remote as Favre resigning with the Packers yet this season"
The Jets management hate him. You'll have to wait for the comeback kid until next season.
Edited by gimo 12/6/2008 4:28 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 392
Location: lake x...where the hell is it? | by now most of you have seen the musky that Dale MacNair CPR. it is a wonderful and amazing fish and the fact that he released it is even more amazing. it was easly the next world record, i used every weight calculator formula i could find and the lowest one was still about 5lb more then the current world record of 69lb 11oz.
i wish he would have havested it! why? cause it would end the almost 60 years of b.s. over Sprays musky. i belive sprays musky is a fake after seeing many pics of musky that really are 60lb or more. it needs to fall to a true giant musky like Dales musky. it will be a SAD day when a giant musky is havested to take down sprays musky. but it will be worth it to have a TRUE fish of a lifetime and all our dreams as the next WORLD RECORD.i think we owe it to the might fish that we all chase and to be honest with ourselves on the size of every fish we release.
would you have kept Dales musky? i think i would have but cant say for sure either way till i am in that spot. just my 2 cents, whats yours? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 413
Location: Madison WI | esox50 - 12/6/2008 4:35 PM
muskyhunter24 - 12/6/2008 1:33 PM
If it was me I would keep it is the net so that as little stress was put on the fish as possible until the DNR arrived, sure the livewell is another place you could put the fish but I don't know about you but I wouldn't want to put a 70 lb fish in a box. Unless you have a 300 gallon livewell in your boat you run the risk of too much stress on the fish.
Why then would you put a 70lb fish in a NET? Even the Big Kahuna is going to feel like a souvenir bag to a world record muskie.
And I disagree COMPLETELY about livewells putting undue stress on a fish. Explain how a net is better, please. Livewells keep the water flowing and providing constant oxygen in a dark container. This type of "black box" environment has been SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN to reduce heightened physiological parameters (for example, heart rate ) back to baseline values. It is the accepted method for obtaining many different types of physiological data in the scientific community, especially for fish. Ever feel anxious or nervous about something? What is the first thing people tell you to do? Usually it's BREATHE. Providing oxygen to the body calms it, and being in a dark room further helps.
If you keep lifting the lid of the livewell though, you will likely spook the fish and get their heart rates up again just like if you are trying to relax in a dark room and all of a sudden someone flips on the lights or turns a flashlight on in your face. The fight or flight response kicks in immediately and for fish generally it's flight, but either way your internal physiology is going to change.
I don't know about you but to put that muskie in the livewell it has to be taken out of the net, which is going to stress the fish, and I have seen everyone talking about not holding the muskie vertically but come on a fish that size its impossible to take it out of the net horizontly unless your in the water rather then in your boat, or your using a cradle. So now you have taken this huge fish out of the net vertically, walked it over to your livewell and then put it in a box where the fish may have at maximum 3 inches on either side of it. Use us as humans as an example, would you rather be in a net or in a coffin. The livewell itself I don't see as putting a huge amount of stress on the fish but getting that fish to the livewell will put stress on it anyway you look at it. Everyone that is ethical seems to talk about trying to do whats best for the fish and if that is the case why take that fish out of the net to put in the livewell? |
|
| |
|
Location: Twin Cities | You can't use the weight calculators on fish like that, the formula's don't take odd shaped fish into account. Let alone the fact that it was developed on dead fish...
A comment on another thread or site was to the effect also that a couple HUGE fish have been reported recently and the pictures were taken with the person sitting down with hte fish in their lap. Big fish like that aren't gonna get held up the same way as "the rest".
Edited by JRedig 12/6/2008 4:47 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4053
Location: Land of the Musky | I thought an X-Ray was required on world record fish also? I may be wrong but I know the next world record bass has a $1 million price on its head and I bet Bass Pro will not give that out without a fish in hand... I may be wrong on the x-ray???? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2865
Location: Brookfield, WI | It's a no brainer.
I would keep it to assure my glory. When the verification requirements were met I would fillet it and donate the meat to a food pantry. It is not unusual for the diets of the less fortunate to be lacking in the mercury, pcbs, and other various chemicals that can be found in abundance in the tasty flesh of long lived predatory game fish.
I would not want a replica made. I'd much rather have a photo of me holding my world record expanded into one of those huge bigger than life posters. I fancy one laminated and hinged in several places, approximately 8' x 16', and permanently attached to my garage door. I like the idea of the elitist fly/trout fisherman across the street seeing it every day when he leaves his house, and again when he comes home.
Me rich and famous, the hungry provided with much needed chemicals and rare metals, and my snooty neighbor completely faced. Triple sweet!
I need to fish more next year and make this happen.
Kevin
How about that? A new Plan.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1270
| Speaking for myslef I would have kept that fish in an instant and offered no appologies. I would have had it mounted as I do not care for replicas. I realize that they are done great now but to me they are nothing more than fake, an artist rendering if you will. If you like them that's fine but to me it's not what I want on my wall. I would prefer to have a good 8x10 photo on the wall.
For Dale to release it took a lot more will power than I have.
Jredig, You say that if the fish was killed all the genetics would be lost and that is just untrue. We can presume that this fish has spawned many times already in it's life nad those genes were passed on the first time it and everytime that is spawned. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'I would love to be in that position, but the fish would either be thumped, or returned with only a picture (that would never end up on the internet). '
He said as he posted that opinion...on the internet.  |
|
| |
|
| glory for a musky wr?are you serious? |
|
| |
|
| The IGFA is just an org that has its own rules & regs. The state dnr has jurisdiction, the IGFA cannot enforce laws, nor make them. If your that vain & just must have your name in the books, you could follow thier guidelines. You could have what you need to tie up a musky & wait out the officer to get to you to verify the catch ? There are options if you dont wanna kill it. You can have your cake & eat it too. As the system is set now, it is not very friendly to cpr anglers, but what really can be done ? Taking it upon yourself to be prepared for a monster is one thing, having it happen is another. Alot of fishing occurs in places that are pretty isolated & may not have cellular reception, so a radio, or sat phone is in order to communicate. Having the right phone #`s to call also. Knowing your location ? GPS. Know that your catch is legit. Nothing worse than crying wolf & looking like an ass. If your heart says dont kill it, then dont. There is a way. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1286
Location: WI | I don't know what I'd do. I used to say I'd thump a 50", and then I released one without a picture. Either way I'd end up getting a lot of attention, and I'm not sure I want that. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 271
Location: davis,IL | This is a hot button issue with some guy's. There are some of you out there who say you would never keep a fish regardless of size. But, I wonder what would you really do if this extemely rare opportunity presented itself. I'm not trying to be sarcastic, or point fingers. Think about it, while saying you would never keep a fish is noble, the spur of the moment decision may differ. I personally would have kept the fish. I feel that keeping one fish as a trophy is not a crime ( the guys I have a problem with are the ones with multiple mounts of one species). My personal goal for muskie is in the 55" range( my pb is a 51.5"), would I keep it? I'm not sure, depends on that spur of the moment thing, and reproductions are pretty impressive. As to a world record potential fish, I suppose if nothing else your name would be house hold name for years to come in the eyes and ears of muskie nuts. I wonder how long Dale's ( 57x33 release) name will be mentioned along with Spray's. If I sound like some kind of glory hound, I'm not, it would be a very personal accomplishment that I would share. I view "us" muskie folks as a kin to big game hunters of years gone by, only without the need to actually kill our prey to "make a kill". For me and my father at least I know a big part of this "big game hunt" is just that the hunt, I feel this is probably a common feeling. |
|
| |
|
| What it comes down to is this : EVERY time you put a hook into a fish. YOU MIGHT KILL IT !! Thats just part of the game. You can do it all right, even have barbless hooks, yet kill a musky. Things happen, all any of us can do is our best to be carefull. Common sense should prevail, but thats not even common these days. To choose to release is ones own perrogative, but I applaude anyone who lets a monster like that go free willingly. Regardless of what Dales motives were, he is not vain, nor insecure, or needing the accolades of his peers. He could really give a crap what any of us think..........He caught it. We didnt. As far as fish breeding into old age..............Who came up w/ this idea that they get too old ? They continue to make viable eggs until death. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1451
Location: Kronenwetter, WI | I, just for this reason, carry a cryogentic kit in my boat. Put the fish on ice, cert scale, DNR, photo's..reawaken and viola!...realeased record! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | Thump!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I agree with reelman. A replica f a fish that is a worls record would mean nothing to me, just a fake as he said> I'd want the real deal. I also hate to say but with the money to be made off it you'd be much better off the real fish. Its just the plain and simple.
Pfeiff |
|
| |
|
| I will preface this with my personal philosophy on releasing or keeping a musky.....I have no plans on EVER keeping a musky of any size unless something goes bad and the fish dies on me.
With that said, I do not look poorly upon any angler who does decide to keep a fish. I am very proud that most musky anglers live by a strict creed of catch and release....this has taken the sport of musky fishing to a level that I beleive is better than it ever has been in the history of the sport.
Because an angler decides to keep their trophy fish should not be means for ridicule and scathing comments (This opinion is based on keeping A trophy and not ignoring the pratcie of C&R). Far to often, I beleive many of us take a "Holy-er than Thou" approach when we here a a trophy fish being kept. At the point of catching a trophy, every angler has a decision to exercise their own God given free will. As long as this decsion is made responsibly, I beleive the angler should be held in a similar regard as if the fish was released.
I look with admiration upon anglers like Dale who CHOOSE to release a giant that most will never encounter. I also look at anglers like Tom Gelb, who have kept some true giants that again most anglers will never encounter with the same admiration. (noteable: Tom Gelb did catch his fish in very different circumstances and was unsucessful in trying to release his fish). That with standing, I do not beleive the decision to keep or release a trophy should taint the acomplishment of the catch.
With that said, I do hope that most if at all angler will release all fish no matter of size. A world record class fish...hard to fathom that many anglers would release it. With the world record class waters available today and the quality of anglers today, I do think this record will be broken. I would love to see the next world record released, but beleive it will only be offically recognized if kept and ran through every imaginable test possible. |
|
| |
|
Location: Twin Cities | reelman - 12/6/2008 7:37 AM
Jredig, You say that if the fish was killed all the genetics would be lost and that is just untrue. We can presume that this fish has spawned many times already in it's life nad those genes were passed on the first time it and everytime that is spawned.
I know that and am not sure why I posted what I did, strange train of thought. I was thinking along the lines that a bigger fish will produce more spawn and have more potential of carrying on it's genetics. Not sure why that didn't make it to my fingertips! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
There is something that we need to consider here in regards to being able to ever catch a fish that big (record size) in the first place.
They have to get that big. Very simply if an angler would have kept Dale's fish the year before, than it Dale wouldn't have caught it.
For every 55"er that's killed there is one less chance at a 56+"er to be caught.
To me the answer is simple in regards to intentionlally killing a fish, no matter what the size.
I want to catch more and bigger fish, and that can only happen if they are let go.
What's more fun, catching them, or gawking at them on the wall?
Very simple truth here, the more trophy class fish that are released, the more chances we all have to catch our next PB.
To me that's what muskie fishing is all about, the quest for the big one.
Some dude may be very happy next year when they catch Dale's released fish, that guy could be you!!
JS
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 12
Location: Saint Charles, IL | At some point in their lives......all fish will die. Dale's fish may be dead already.
Personally, I would rather look at a TRUE World Record skin mount, done well, as it hangs on the wall rather than look at a replica of what it may have looked like by creating it from measurements that may or may not be accurate.
But that's just me. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 12
Location: Saint Charles, IL | The concept that a fish has to die to create a mold for a replica is NOT true. A specimen can be CREATED much like the Frankenstein monster and a mold then made from that creation. There is a replica of Louie Spray's "record" that was done by Artistic Anglers of Duluth. That replica has been shown at many sport shows. There is a copy from that mold at the FWFHF.
There are many ways to accomplish this. The BEST molds, however, are made from the real fish for obvious reasons. Yes, it's best that the fish is dead when doing this.
The fact that this can be accomplished is both a plus and a minus. The plus side is obvious. The negative side is that since virtually any size can be created you never really know what your looking at. The replica on display may never have existed as a living fish. It is only a representation of how a real, or imaginary, fish might appear.
I should mention that not all taxidermists have the capability to do this. Most taxidermists are NOT mold makers. Most taxidermist rely on mold makers to supply the "blanks" of a needed fish to be completed. These "blanks" are limited in size and number. Most, if not all, of these blanks come from molds of the actual fish.
There is still much about this subject that is very misunderstood.
BTW...Thoughts and prayers for all those who suffered and died on this day , December 7, 1941. Pearl Harbor....."lest we forget."
Edited by sknmnt 12/7/2008 9:00 AM
|
|
| |
|
| There are a few companies out there that make graphite reproductions of just about any fish you want. The take a mold of a fish and then use it to create a replica. They have gotten very good at modifying original molds to create something original and the paint is amazing. They take your photos and paint it to match your fish exactly. The best part about a reproduction is it lasts FOREVER. Your kid's kid's can have it on the wall and it will look the same as when you caught it. Not some shriveled up mess. Think of the stories they can tell about Great Grandpa's big muskie!! Check out the two sites below and I am sure there are many others.
http://www.fittantereplicas.com/
http://www.laxreproduction.com/
Edit: And I believe the cost is the same or less than a skin mount. The most impotant part of a replica is the fish lives to see another day, fight another fight, breed another year, and give someone else an experience of a lifetime.
Let 'em go and let 'em grow!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | It can be done, and Lax can do it. |
|
| |
|
| uh, they got computers n stuff. They can take a smallermold & ENLARGE it to match the measurements. Anyone thats worked w/ cad or anything like that knows what I am talkin about. Good quality pics, close ups, different angles, all that plays into the accuracy of a REPLICA. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 78
| As has been stated Lax can do it, and if you have a picture of the fish he can put all the markings on thr replica. Unreal what they can do with a picture! From a picture they can duplicate the exact deminsions of the fish- skinny fish, fat fish, humpback, scars on head . No need to kill any muskies anymore! |
|
| |
|
Location: Latitude 41.3016 Longitude 88.6160 | GUEST go to the CHICAGO SHOW and you will see a 57" x 33" MUSKY !!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
| |
|
| for a confirmed world record?
yes, it would realistically need to be harvested. the talk about how to keep it alive for an extended period of time in a net vs livewell, etc. may be entertaining but it's not realistic, imho.
and...since the current world record isn't realistic, it doesn't really matter anyway.
the 60lb minimum for the "modern" records does realistically require harvest for confirmation.
------
as to getting a replica?
yes, in fact they can add size to existing molds to make it match the fish. that's already been stated in this thread by an associate of Mr. Lax.
it's a replica, not a skin mount.
that means that the person getting it believed that releasing the fish was more important than having dead rotting skin on the wall.
if the replica is very very close, but not to within an exact 1/8" of girth? so what? the fish was released and that was clearly the most important thing to the angler. we shouldn't be worrying about whether or not the replica will be perfect because the actual fish is still perfect, alive and swimming.
in a catch-and-release sport, we're very fortunate to have a number of options for quality reproductions by skilled artists such as Lax and Fittante and others.
Rick Lax has been extremely generous in his support for MuskieFirst and Muskies Inc, and my personal experience is that his work is first class.
http://www.laxreproduction.com/
congrats to Dale on catching this wonderful fish, and also for selecting Rick Lax as the artist to recreate it for him!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | I wonder if dale would have released that fish if caught on water where he was allowed to keep it. We really will never know will we. To have that fish on water where you could keep and feeling confident its a new record maybe he would have had a change of heart and kept her. I don't know bit I wonder.. I really think alot of might have 2nd thoghts when its in our net.
Pfeiff |
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
I must be missing something. Why couldn't he keep that fish??
I was under the impression Lac Suel was the only C&R only water in Canada.
Regardless, seems a little insulting to infer a man would kill a fish under a different situation when you don't even know him.
JS |
|
| |
|
| I guess it comes down to the individual. How vain,or self absorbed, or narcisistic or selfish , or insecure does one have to be to choose a skin mount over a repro ? " Ah hell, someone else might get her & I lose my spot at the top". If you really think you`ll just get handed $$ hand over fist for your story, or your catch, your sadly mistaken. Fishing is supposed to be fun isnt it ? To me the whole trophy syndrome is old. If your not gonna eat what you kill, then dont kill it. Pretty simple huh ?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 86
Location: University of Hartford | ya I know steve but they asked for my opinion and I gave it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 543
Location: WI | In all honesty, I would take a picture, release it, and keep the photo as far away from the internet as possible and share it w/ only those close to me. I personally could careless about the attention from the general public and would hate getting in the middle of the politics and controversy of is it or isn't it a world record. It reminds of the Rompala buck that was shot not that long ago in Michigan. The buck clearly beats the Milo Hanson buck, but somebody finds something in the photo they don't like and then the internet blows it into a controversy and the actual accomplishment of harvesting that incredible buck is totally lost. If a dead buck whose antlers could easily be measured is fought over, how ridiculous will it get w/ a fish and an already questioned record. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2024
| Don Pfeiffer - 12/7/2008 9:44 AM
I wonder if dale would have released that fish if caught on water where he was allowed to keep it. We really will never know will we. To have that fish on water where you could keep and feeling confident its a new record maybe he would have had a change of heart and kept her. I don't know bit I wonder.. I really think alot of might have 2nd thoghts when its in our net.
Pfeiff
Dale's fish was caught on the St. Lawrence. There is no C&R only regulation. Fish must be greater than 36" (http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR_E001337.pdf) if I'm interpreting the regs correctly.
I talked with Dale over the phone the other night. First of all, his story (at least I think), is nothing short of amazing. Secondly and most importantly, I can tell you that Dale did not have ANY inclination whatsoever to keep the fish. If you're a member of Muskies Inc., the full story should be published in February's magazine. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | If the fish was officially measured and weighed according to the rules of each record keeping group, there would be no reasonable questions, not these days. Another person posting on the internet that they wouldn't post on the internet..
I applaud the angler for releasing the recently caught possible record fish. I think I would have too, actually, but I'm not sure, still debating that one internally.
I think FishFearMe's position is nothing more than polar opposite to the position of others who would harvest a WR. What is the difference between his position and that of those who would harvest the WR if vanity doesn't drive both? If the trophy syndrome is old, then by all means go out and enjoy the sport however it suits you, but to me a trophy is a trophy. Of course, I AM old.
'For other uses, see Vanity (disambiguation).
"Vain" redirects here. For other uses, see Vain (disambiguation).
In conventional parlance, vanity is the excessive belief in one's own abilities or attractiveness to others. In many religions vanity is considered a form of self-idolatry, in which one rejects God for the sake of one's own image, and thereby becomes divorced from the graces of God. The stories of Lucifer and Narcissus (who gave us the term narcissism), and others, attend to a pernicious aspect of vanity. Philosophically-speaking, vanity may refer to a broader sense of egoism and pride. Friedrich Nietzsche wrote that "vanity is the fear of appearing original: it is thus a lack of pride, but not necessarily a lack of originality."[1] One of Mason Cooley's aphorisms is "Vanity well fed is benevolent. Vanity hungry is spiteful."[1]' |
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
Getting a replica is for the angler to have and enjoy, not for the rest of us.
It doesn't matter if any of us ever "know for sure" how big that fish was, it's really none of our business.
Feel fortunate that somebody shared that catch with you and let you see how big that fish is.
Is Dale not supposed to feel like his fish was a "potential record" because he can't prove it to anybody? His accomplishment isn't diminished one bit by people who won't, can't or don't want to believe in a fish that was released instead of killed.
Crazy, some of you are acting like you shouldn't speculate on the size of anything you don't kill, 'cause you really can't prove it to the rest of us.
JS
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 802
| hey sworrall, what the heck did you eat for lunch today? a dictionary with a sideorder of thesaurus, chased down by a double shot of theology juice? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | Thanks for the info on dale. I thought its caught on lac s. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | esox69,
Naaah, I just think that way, it's a genetic disorder. The definition of 'vanity' was a Wikipedia piece, I ain't that wordy.
Mr. Skarie is spot on, again.
reelman,
It was a possible record. He released it. That's cool. I'll say that again, if you'd like! |
|
| |
|
| Getting a replica is for the angler to have and enjoy, not for the rest of us.
It doesn't matter if any of us ever "know for sure" how big that fish was, it's really none of our business.
right right and right again, John!
reelman, why push an agenda that only skin mounts are "real" and "prove" the size of a fish? it's ridiculously out of touch with the modern catch-and-release ethic, the importance of conserving the trophy resource, and the reality of how good replicas have become.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 12
Location: Saint Charles, IL | Having a skin mount done does not guarantee that it will have the accurate finished dimensions of the living fish. We've seen that already with a number of so called record fish that have been mounted and shown to be bogus.
Ideally, a well done skin mount will have the accurate or near accurate dimensions of the living fish.
lambeau, I don't agree that having a skin mount done is "out of touch" with modern C&R ethics. I think we have taken that ethic to a ridiculous extreme in many cases. There is certainly a place for well done skin mounts in a C&R ethic and in the preservation of our resources. That is too often denied by too many people in the fear of spreading the "killing mentality".
Edited by sknmnt 12/7/2008 4:06 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
If the results of today's "golden days" of muskie fishing are because of taking C&R ethics to the extreme then that really makes "extreme" a positvive place to be IMHO.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 12
Location: Saint Charles, IL | JS, I hear you, but I don't think C&R gets all the credit. Do you?
Generally, IMHO, taking some things to an "extreme" can have a negative side that can be avoided with more realistic thinking.
Edited by sknmnt 12/7/2008 5:05 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Doug, are you sure you're able to be objective on the issue?
with full respect to your right to your opinion on the issue, is it possible that as a taxidermist you might have a stake in encouraging people to harvest/mount trophy class fish? you've mounted some impressive fish, but i see you also offer replicas. what percentage of your business is in skin mounts compared to replicas?
btw, your wood carvings are beautiful work!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
I would beg to differ Doug.
C&R is the single most important factor in the change in muskie populations throughout the mid-west and Canada.
One only has to look at historical catch rates of anglers and DNR MNR data in NON-STOCKED waters such as LOW, Leech, Cass and a plethora of other trophy waters to see the difference.
What other factor can explain an increase in avg size and size structure in the face of ever increasing angling pressure than C&R?
JS
|
|
| |
|
| Do we stock more fish now than in the past? If so does anyone know how many more fish per acre we stock now than in the past?
Edited by BenR 12/7/2008 6:08 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 12
Location: Saint Charles, IL | lambeau....thank you for the kind words, nice of you to say. I am biased. No question. I believe that a well done skin mount has more intrinsic value than a replica. I have always believed that and have tried to hone my skills and elevate my work to the highest quality I possibly can in producing any skin mount.
Replicas are great. They just don't have the same "value", IMO, as a real skin mount. They can't...they're pure "art". A fabrication so to say.
That said, I also have great admiration for a well done piece of art. We have many examples of terrific replicas being done today. I also have great respect for those who create molds from which these pieces emerge. That is no small task. It requires a lot of time and effort and creative ability.
Replicas and skin mounts are different....it's up to the angler to choose, I'll leave it at that.
I am in favor of education about C&R and not indoctrination. I am in favor of an angler making a choice between a replica and skin mount, when legal, without being chastised for choosing a skin mount.
As we all know, C&R is not a "no kill" proposition. C&R still kills fish.
Doug Stange wrote a while back that a prolific C&R fisherman can be more harmful to a fishery than an angler who catches and keeps his limit and stops fishing. I believe that to be true with muskies...
Thanks again for the compliment.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
The prolific C&R fishermen does less damage to the fishery than the prolific Catch and Kill Fishermen, that is the realistic comparison.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 12
Location: Saint Charles, IL | JS... I think there are other factors to consider. I think stocking has certainly increased as BenR mentioned.The qualty of our waters is another, along with better and increased management in many states.
Gord Pysor wrote sometime back about the decline of the musky fishery in Lac Seaul due to the increase in fishing pressure even though 100% C&R.
Sheesh John, there you go again, to the extreme.....so who supports the prolific catch and kill guy???? BTW....what IS a prolific catch and kill guy?
Edited by sknmnt 12/7/2008 6:49 PM
|
|
| |
|
| I agree with Doug on this one. Obviously c&r has had a tremendous impact on the populations of muskies increasing in numbers. Part of the reason I really could care less if an individual chooses to keep a personal best or record fish, is that for that person, it would probably be the only one they ever keep. How many fish do some of these so-called "c&r elitists" catch per year that expire from delayed mortality? I think I caught 10 fish this year, and although they were all released quickly, I can't say they all lived. There is no way of knowing. From what I've read, delayed mortality deaths can be as high as the 30% range under certain conditions. I just don't understand why c&r must be 100% for some people, no matter if the fish was a personal best, record of some kind, etc. for the angler who legally harvested it. As far as mounts, I haven't looked into the costs for a couple of years, but the last time I did it cost MORE for a replica than a skin mount. I don't think that is much of an incentive to pursue a replica as us c&r supporters would like. If the costs have since changed, I'm sure Doug can correct me.
For those who do feel that every muskie ever caught should be immediately returned to the water and never harvested under any circumstance, can you list the reasons for that belief? I have already seen a few posts from people stating the new Kentucky State record should not have been kept. If that scenario doesn't warrant the harvesting of a fish(as a State Record), is there one at all in your opinion? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 413
Location: Madison WI | sknmnt - 12/7/2008 6:45 PM
JS... I think there are other factors to consider. I think stocking has certainly increased as BenR mentioned.The qualty of our waters is another, along with better and increased management in many states.
Gord Pysor wrote sometime back about the decline of the musky fishery in Lac Seaul due to the increase in fishing pressure even though 100% C&R.
Sheesh John, there you go again, to the extreme.....so who supports the prolific catch and kill guy???? BTW....what IS a prolific catch and kill guy?
I have met a couple of the said profilic catch and kill guys. The ones I have encountered will do anything in there power to catch a legal muskie to take home. Neither of the guys I know get mounts done, they specifically are fishing for them to eat them. I have witnessed both of said guys attempting to take fish illegally. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 25
| I respect the improvement in musky population in the mid-west and Canada (lakes)...but where's the love for those of us who never been to those places...like out East! CPR on the St. Lawrence should be mentioned in this discussion, it's natural producing musky waters and it is important to keep those big hogs in there producing more big hogs |
|
| |
|
| Part of the reason I really could care less if an individual chooses to keep a personal best or record fish, is that for that person, it would probably be the only one they ever keep.
in some ways i can understand how someone might think that harvesting one trophy fish has a limited impact on a fishery. it's just one fish, right? and it's old anyway, right?
as a high-profile representative of Muskies Inc, it saddens me to see you take this position, Brad. it's Muskies Inc that has served as the catalyst for catch-and-release of muskies, an approach that has spread to many other areas of sport fishing.
the problem comes in when many people start to think that way, and are defining "trophy" in smaller and smaller terms...suddenly we'd be back to the days where "catching a legal" 34 inch fish was noteworthy. it's also a very real problem in areas such as Green Bay or Mille Lacs where harvesting true trophy fish can definitely have a negative impact on the possibility of the fish in those waters reaching their ultimate potential.
for example, just this morning my neighbor relayed a story to me about catching a 39" muskie through the ice on a local lake and running around celebrating the event. in his mind, that was a "trophy" catch. publicly encouraging the harvest and mounting of trophy fish has a trickle-down effect of encouraging smaller "personal trophies" such as that one to be harvested.
in a time of increasing pressure on a limited resource, the example set by Dale MacNair of releasing even record-class trophy fish is the responsible course for us to follow.
and yes, Brad, i can imagine a situation where harvest would be warranted: overpopulated lakes full of stunted fish, where the taking of _small_ fish would be somehow encouraged in order to thin the population. there's one in my back yard. it's a rare anomoly however...
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 12
Location: Saint Charles, IL | lambeau, I forgot to respond to your question about my volume of replica vs. skin mounts. I have always had a much larger volume of skin mounts for all species of fish. I am not a mold maker and choose to not pursue that avenue.
Edited by sknmnt 12/7/2008 7:14 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 12
Location: Saint Charles, IL | Personally, I am for the most people being able to enjoy our waters and our sport with tolerance for excercising the legal ability to keep fish without jeopardizing the proper management of those particular waters.
I am less interested in "protecting" certain or all, waters from harvest in order to grow fish to their greatest size potential so they may be caught over and over only to die at some point along the way. These fisheries are, with many exceptions, renewable resources that belong to everyone......to enjoy as they see fit within legal parameters.
I am also in favor of one of the espoused precepts of MI which is to promote good fellowship and sportsmanship.
Edited by sknmnt 12/7/2008 7:38 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
A guy who kills every muskie bigger than the last PB is a prolific C&K.
A guy who guides his clients to fish and lets them keep them is a prolific C&K.
The fact that fish will die from delayed mortality is not news to anyone.
You've spun this rhetoric before Doug. You think that C&R is as or more damaging than people killing trophy fish.
Lac Suel is declining due to increased pressure from anglers. Nobody expected a different outcome from increased pressure. That's exactly why it's C&R only, because killing them would only make the decline in trophy fish more noticable.
You can try to spin your logic to make C&R proponents out to be hypcritical all you want to, but at the end of the day released fish have a better chance to grow, breed and be caught again than any trophy kept for the wall.
As I stated before, if you want to catch a 55+"er than you have to let it go when it's 55", not whack it and gawk at it.
Regards Doug.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 12
Location: Saint Charles, IL | JS......nice speaking with you again too.
Merry Christmas to all!! |
|
| |
|
| Lambeau, I think what really saddens you is the fact that my position happens to differ from yours slightly. You seem to think that anyone disagreeing with you is obviously wrong in their stance. As you say, MI has done numerous things to increase muskie populations all over the country, but they don't require anyone to leave their personal opinions at the door. I'm all for c&r, yet I have no problem with an individual keeping a legally harvested muskie. Why that statement irritates you so much, I'll never know.
I think what Dale did with that fish was awesome. The issue I am bothered by comes from the people who would have bad-mouthed and berated him had he chose to do the opposite, such as those who take c&r so seriously that they feel no mention of harvested fish should ever appear on tv or in a magazine or any other media outlet, because it would "promote the killing of fish". That is what is sad. Lead by example, but understand that others may not always feel as you do, and they won't always be willing to change. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2024
| Derrys - 12/7/2008 7:03 PM
I think I caught 10 fish this year, and although they were all released quickly, I can't say they all lived. There is no way of knowing. From what I've read, delayed mortality deaths can be as high as the 30% range under certain conditions.
The Beggs et al. study you are referring to has quite a few flaws in it. Calculating delayed mortality under laboratory conditions is INFINITELY different than looking at delayed mortality in a more natural setting (i.e. "in the field"). You introduce a lot of variables when doing things in the lab.
Take that study's findings with a grain of salt. |
|
| |
|
| The 30% figure was the extreme end of the spectrum. I have seen numerous figures from 2% all the way to 30%, which is why I mentioned in my previous post, "as high as". I never implied that 30% was the actual figure, as I strongly doubt the number is that high in all actuality. It would be very interesting to find out what the actual munber would be, although it could never realisticly be determined. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2024
| Derrys - 12/7/2008 8:12 PM
The 30% figure was the extreme end of the spectrum. I have seen numerous figures from 2% all the way to 30%, which is why I mentioned in my previous post, "as high as". I never implied that 30% was the actual figure, as I strongly doubt the number is that high in all actuality. It would be very interesting to find out what the actual munber would be, although it could never realisticly be determined.
My post was more to raise awareness about the study as its numbers are a bit "misleading," and my understanding is that study's data is thrown around by both fishermen and biologists who aren't advocates of increased size limits (but I definitely don't consider you someone in that "category," Brad!)
With today's sampling methods and technology it is possible that we could get very close to calculating a "realistic" number. Is anything perfect? No, but there are a whole lot of things that are "near perfect" which, realistically, is about all anyone can expect.
And, just for the record Brad, I agree with you completely that if it's legal to harvest a fish someone should not be brow-beaten or begrudged that opportunity. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | may i assume muskies have y-bones too? |
|
| |
|
| Lambeau, I think what really saddens you is the fact that my position happens to differ from yours slightly. You seem to think that anyone disagreeing with you is obviously wrong in their stance.
i couldn't care less whether or not you agree with me, Brad. yours, mine, wrong or right, any person's opinion is just an opinion...something that i work to make sure is allowed to be presented here on MuskieFirst as long as it's done respectfully.
what i actually do care about is the damage that influential people can do to the future and potential of the fishery. YOU are in one of those positions.
for example, Muskies Inc has been intrinsic to the efforts to increase the size limits on Green Bay. why? because so many people were harvesting their "personal trophies" that it was putting the fishery at significant risk. likewise with the impact of increased pressure (and therefore harvest) on Canadian fisheries that depend solely on natural reproduction. the looming threats posed by invasives makes it all the more crucial.
you've been endorsing the practice of harvesting "personal trophies" and asking for reasons why it shouldn't be done. i listed some in my previous post, and there's a couple more. Green Bay alone is a case study in the bad that can happen when "it's just one fish" that gets harvested...over and over again by lots and lots of people. it's especially true anywhere that populations concentrate making them more accessible to more people.
so yes, considering your position, it saddens me when influential people use their power to encourage the completely unnecessary and arguably harmful harvest of trophy fish.
Lead by example, but understand that others may not always feel as you do, and they won't always be willing to change.
yes, Brad, lead by example...when you're in certain positions that can involve leaving your personal opinions at the door for the sake or the greater organizational good. ie., make sure you're leading in a direction that isn't irresponsible and that supports the efforts of Muskies Inc to preserve and protect fisheries such as Green Bay that are threatened by unnecessary harvest.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| So what's the answer to the original question? Do you need to kill a fish to have a legit world record?
So far I've read a few answers then some how this thread turns into C and R vs. somebody's legal right to keep and fish.
Then John Skarie " Good will ambassador of Musky fishing" jumps into further relations between us novices and the musky gods like himself. That was funny to read.
Here is my take. If I caught a fish like Dale's I would have let it go. Five years ago I would have said "Where's my louisville slugger" and you what it would have been within my legal right to do so. The reason for the change of attitude is two fold. First I don't feel the need to have a mount. My photographs and notes are enough for me. Secondly, I think I've mature as a man and a fisherman. I really don't care either way who keeps or releases a fish as long as its done legally and in a sportsman like fashion. Guys like you JS hurt the promotion of catch and release. I think your approach to Catch and Release sets us back. People don't like being spoke down too. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 366
| Extremism isn't good for any issue. While C&R should always be recommended and promoted the laws that are in place are the final word on the issue. It is sad that it is so much easier for people to attack and degrade an individual for keeping a fish that was within their rights/beliefs, than it is for that attacker to get out there and work on changing the laws/size limits. No one can say that 50 years down the road, that 100% c&r won't have negative effects on fisheries. Fisheries management is an ever changing evolving challenge, and taking an extremist view now could create similar issues to the ones we face now and in the past with over harvest. I don't think that there is any wildlife expert that will tell you that letting a top level predator go completely unregulated, is the best answer, especially in every environment. |
|
| |
|
| "you've been endorsing the practice of harvesting "personal trophies" and asking for reasons why it shouldn't be done"-Lambeau
I think this is quite funny. I'm not advocating that every angler who legally catches a muskie that meets that body of water's minimum length restriction should harvest it. My point is simply that they shouldn't be chastized if they choose to do so. Muskies Inc. members annually release over 99% of the fish they catch, while at the same time they're working at getting minimum length restrictions increased and so forth. We are NOT speaking ill of those who keep legally harvested fish. That is leading by example, in my opinion. You believe that every single muskie caught should be released, and seem to feel that everyone else should adapt that same philosophy. I lean more toward promoting and spreading the idea of c&r, yet letting the angler who legally caught the fish make that decision for himself. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
Talking down to novices?? Who would that be?
The only person I directly had any response to was Doug. He's not a novice.
I don't think I talked down to him. We have differing view points and have debated them before.
Hunter if you don't like what I say that's your problem.
But either say something about the issues that have relevance instead of attacking me or keep your thoughts to yourself.
I didn't start the thread, or control where it went. So don't try to single me out because of a personal issue you apparently have with me.
JS
|
|
| |
|
| My point is simply that they shouldn't be chastized if they choose to do so.
i agree completely, that's actually counterproductive as it alienates people.
at the same time, generalized public support of harvest by influential/visible people sets a tone of acceptance.
take for example Musky Hunter magazine's willingness to publish many photos of harvested fish in their reader's photos section: that creates an incentive, a reward for doing so that impacts many people who read the magazine. (or at a minimum it doesn't reward release over harvest.) they're influential and imho they do a great disservice to the sport by this practice that isn't undone by the occasional c/r article.
You believe that every single muskie caught should be released, and seem to feel that everyone else should adapt that same philosophy.
no, i actually support harvest in unhealthy stunted populations to thin them out.
and it's quite ironic that you say that, considering that i've personally been castigated in the past by some on the far end of the spectrum as "dangerous" for not advocating the protection of muskies strongly enough in my little position of influence here at MuskieFirst. lol...
yes, i strongly believe that release should happen for every fish in most fisheries. yes, i'll continue to advocate it loudly. yes, it's my personal opinion that anyone who accepts high-visibility positions in the sport should do the same.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The answer to the original question is:
If one wants one of the record keeping organizations to recognize the fish officially and place it in the records as a WR, as of right now and as far as I can figure all this out, yes, the fish would have to be harvested.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| Thanks Steve.
I beleive that was the original question.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 413
Location: Madison WI | sworrall - 12/7/2008 9:33 PM
The answer to the original question is:
If one wants one of the record keeping organizations to recognize the fish officially and place it in the records as a WR, as of right now and as far as I can figure all this out, yes, the fish would have to be harvested.
Finally a good answer to the original question. I don't mind if you use my thread to battle about C&R vs keeping fish, so back to it but place nice. I love how cabin fever brings out the best in everyone... LOL
Edited by muskyhunter24 12/7/2008 10:22 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Obviously a fish this big I would take a ton of pictures of but I don't see how a person could watch a fish like this die in thier boat. The fisherman I respect the most don't even measure fish or take pictures of fish. As soon as you Donk the fish you are thinking soley about your own ego and showing the fish off for personal reasons.
I RESPECT THIS ANGLER MORE FOR RELEASING THE FISH THAN CATCHING IT TO BEGIN WITH! Anyone can throw 6 planer boards off the side of thier boat and catch fish. This does not take a lot of talent.
Do you think Dick Pearson is measuring his 30" fish? No
I would only meausure a fish over 48" other than that they don't leave the water.
It's a very selfish stance to justify killing any animal to mount on a wall.
Its all about the release. Whatch Grumpy old men! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 392
Location: lake x...where the hell is it? | what about harvesting it just to bring down sprays fish to end the 60 years of @#$$$%? sprays is fake and most know it but hayward greed will never let it happen! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 12
Location: Saint Charles, IL | Just for the record, I absolutely agree that a 'New World Record" must be and should be killed to be accepted as such. C&R records are all smoke and mirrors.
As far as replica vs. skin mounts, I don't care what you guys do. I just like to have all the info on the table for an angler to make an intelligent and informed decision.
I have always supported and practiced the concept of C&R, though I'm more of a "selective harvest" guy. I also support the right to choose when applicable. I support education and not indoctrination in the discussion of C&R.
C&R is not a "no kill" practice. There are guys on here that will and do kill more fish by accident in one year than I will kill on purpose.
I'm sorry if some of you feel threatened by those thoughts.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
You are absolutely right Doug. Prolific fishermen who handle fish pooryly will kill a good amount a fish in a season.
How many we will never know.
But there are a lot of fishermen catching many fish or a few that in all probability have 100% successful releases in a season. Delayed mortality % numbers are an average, it doesn't mean that every angler will have a certain % die.
So it really isn't fair to compare all anglers that practice 100% C&R to the angler that doesn't as an apples to apples comparison.
Stange's comments that you like to use were meant to potray that. C&R is only as effective as the angler practicing it.
So at the end of the day an angler can choose to kill a fish, handle them poorly and let them go or handle them as best they can.
Only one of those choices is the least damaging to a fishery other than not fishing at all.
JS |
|
| |
Does the world record have to be harvested?