|
|
| Anybody come across articles outlining the pros and cons of catch and release. To get this cleared im all catch and release, have been all my life.
I am writing a research paper on why catch and release is important in musky fishing. I know the basics, but I'm looking for some really informative articles and facts. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 19
| oops, wasnt logged in. That was my post. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | I have quite a few articles, as I recall. How much are you looking for? I have a few on muskies, but a few others on other species which would still apply. There really aren't many CPR articles on musky--that's why Sean Landsman's study is going to be so important.
So if you send me an email (address below), I can probably help you out. Everything I have is freely available on the Internet, so copyright isn't an issue. Then you can use the bibliography from these articles to refine your search.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2024
| This is the most comprehensive review of all things catch-and-release: Understanding the Complexity of Catch-and-Release in Recreational Fishing: An Integrative Synthesis of Global Knowledge from Historical, Ethical, Social, and Biological Perspectives written by Robert Arlinghaus et al (2007). Use the literature cited section in that paper to guide you to other research papers.
A paper evaluating C&R angling on muskies is in the works... |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Sweet...
Here's a link to that article:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a777774355
Just click on the PDF link, and it's free. Nice score.
Thanks Sean!
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 19
| [email protected]
Thanks a lot guys I will mention other species but main focus will be muskies. Its my final exam so looking forward to completing it. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | E-mail sent, with some attached references. With the five I sent you, plus the one linked here, you should have enough information to keep you going for quite some time...lol.
Good luck!
TB |
|
| |
|
| any articles that show proof of a tagged fish being caught by an angler more than once? Would be very helpful...almost done, final is due Friday. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Hmmm.... I don't have anything like that specifically. But you should interview Sean Landsman, as his study did that. However his results are not yet published--but I would think that he could give you some ideas in this respect.
TB
EDIT: Larry Ramsell published a two-part article in the In-Fisherman publication, back in the 90s. If you email him, or give him a call, he might be able to help you with it. Basically, he followed several tracked fish for a whole summer--and (as I recall) either witnessed one or more of those fish being recaptured, or he may have even caught them himself. It's been a while since I read the article, so I cannot remember the exact details. Note that this is not a "scientific study" per se, but the data seemed perfectly valid when I read it. I remember thinking "I wish I could do that!" Anyway, you might also call him on the phone and interview him, as he could probably provide some very useful information for your project.
Edited by tcbetka 5/11/2011 12:13 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Just a thought, Rod Ramsell a biologist from Mn. mentioned in an article in the Esox Angler magazine that;
"I have yet to recapture a single tagged fish whose number has been reported as being caught and released by local anglers!"
Another quote which may be of interest from Rod;
" Unfortunately, in the 20-plus years that I have been involved in the production and management of this fish, one thing that has become painfully obvious to me is that the survival rate of angler caught and released muskellunge is not as high as we all would like to think."
From Esox Angler Vol. 5 Issue 4 in an article titled "The Real Deal"
DougP |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | With all due respect to Mr. Ramsell, I am not certain that his experience is representative of what is occurring in other parts of the muskellunge range. I've talked with Sean about his results, and although he didn't go into significant detail, it's fair to say that the angler-induced mortality they found was not nearly as high as some of the other literature has proposed.
The other thing is that the musky boards seem to support this as well. I've seen numerous reports of people catching what they feel to be the same fish, year after year, in the same area. While I have never done this that I know of, it only takes a little searching on the larger musky forums to uncover these examples.
Could C&R mortality be significant? Sure it could. But is it as high as the 20-30% reported in the older literature? Doubtful...at least from everything I've read and heard from experienced anglers. But there are many variables here. For instance, many muskies are caught in Green Bay each Spring by Walleye anglers trolling with 4-6" stick baits. And fishing in the colder water temps with today's super lines with the quality of rods & reels we see today, it isn't at all surprising that many of these fish get landed after a prolonged fight. So how do you categorize angling-related mortality for muskies then? Do we develop separate categories for musky-specific angling effort using heavy gear, versus incidental musky catches by non-musky anglers using lighter tackle? Seems fair to me, especially when you tend to see size limits and seasons based upon practices and techniques of species-specific angling effort. I may be mistaken, but I think we're going to see that the former is much less than people fear.
TB |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Shoot...forgot to mention.
Back in November 2007, PointerPride caught a 50.125" musky from my boat that had a Floy tag in it. It had been stocked some 11 years earlier (he later found out), about 1-2 miles from where it was caught. I have no knowledge of whether it had been caught (and reported) prior to PP's catching it--but I would think that the WiDNR would be able to help with that kind of information. I'll ask one of the biologists about that when I talk to them again.
But I've been advised by a number of musky anglers out here, that they've caught muskies with Floy tags in them. We checked a bunch of fish for PIT tags during the Titletown tournaments that year (2007), but none had such a tag. (I'm not sure if they found any in subsequent years though.) I guess that wasn't too surprising though, as PIT tags weren't used when most of these fish were stocked. I think the bigger fish are all being tagged with PIT tags now though, but unless someone has a PIT tag reader in the boat with them, they would never know that the fish had the tag inserted under its skin.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 5/11/2011 12:37 PM
|
|
| |
|
| With further due respect to Mr. Ramsell, how does he, or you Doug, explain the number of truly big (let's say 54" and better for this argument) muskies being caught today?
Further, if you overlook Mr. Ramsell's conjecture and look purely at science, Mr. Landsman's current study on the Ottawa reflects zero angling mortality of 30 fish being angler-caught, implanted with a transmitter, and released. This number includes three over 50". http://projectnoblebeast.blogspot.com/ This study is discussed in the April/May 2011 issue of Musky Hunter in an article by Steve Pallo of the Illinois DNR.
A radio telemetry study by Bob Strand of the Minnesota DNR on Leech Lake in 1979-80 included fish up to 48". Strand wrote: "All 14 muskellunge survived capture by angling and the surgery required for tag implants." Later he wrote: "The high survival of Leech Lake study fish, captured by angling and additionally subjected to surgery for radio implantation, strongly suggests that catch and release of muskellunge is a realistic option."
The Strand study is one of seven published scientific studies that were based on radio telemetry of muskies and reviewed by Musky Hunter in its December 2004/January 2005 issue. Not one angler-caught muskie was reported to have died in six of these studies. The only study that saw mortality was conducted by Beggs, Crossman and Holeton on Nogies Creek, Ontario, during which muskies were cannulated in the ventral aorta and held in a pen to study lactic acid, carbon dioxide and oxygen consumption of the fish.
32% of the Nogies creek muskies died, but this was addressed by Strand while comparing his results to that of Beggs et al: "...a comparison of the methods and results of the two studies suggests that cannulation and retention...may have induced stress in addition to capture by angling..."
Science is telling us muskies can be caught and released successfully. Why argue otherwise unless you have an ulterior motive? |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Excellent points. Thanks for reminding me about those articles, as it's been some time since I've read them.
I think it's pretty simply really: For those equipped and prepared to deal with large fish, they aren't much of a problem to release. This is especially true for anglers with previous experience in handling/releasing LARGE fish. However for anglers catching muskies incidentally, say while fishing for smaller fish using lighter tackle, it may be more of an issue. If you aren't equipped with a Big Kahuna for example, what are you going to do? If you cannot unhook the fish in the water, you must bring it into the boat and unhook it. And if the angler is afraid of the fish, or at least intimidated by it, how quickly and efficiently are they going to unhook and release it? It doesn't take a statistician or a Las Vegas bookie to figure out that the odds aren't as good for the fish. So the mortality rate goes up, in all probability.
It's great that the majority of musky anglers seem to be more aware of the potential pitfalls of catching and releasing large fish--and seem to be getting better at it, as evidenced by the (apparent) increase in the average size of muskies being caught and reported in many waters across their range. But are we ever going to truly see ZERO angling-related mortality? No. Does that mean we should not strive for it though...? NO.
I've written a couple articles for local publications here in Green Bay, suggesting that non-musky anglers should in fact have some basic tools available with them while fishing the Fox River and bay system. Since these fish tend to feed on the same forage as the walleyes out here do, it only stands to reason that walleye anglers have a good chance of encountering large muskies. Indeed, the very largest fish reportedly caught out here in the past 4-5 years, have been caught out-of-season...by walleye anglers. It happens. So my argument is that these folks should be aware of it, and be prepared to deal with it. And since there seem to be far more walleye guys than musky guys fishing early in the year (when the fish are more vulnerable, post-spawn), it seems like we should concentrate our efforts to educate those anglers as well. They very definitely could have a huge impact on the future of the biggest fish in the system.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 5/11/2011 2:28 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | fins355 - 5/11/2011 12:13 PM
Just a thought, Rod Ramsell a biologist from Mn. mentioned in an article in the Esox Angler magazine that;
"I have yet to recapture a single tagged fish whose number has been reported as being caught and released by local anglers!"
Another quote which may be of interest from Rod;
" Unfortunately, in the 20-plus years that I have been involved in the production and management of this fish, one thing that has become painfully obvious to me is that the survival rate of angler caught and released muskellunge is not as high as we all would like to think."
From Esox Angler Vol. 5 Issue 4 in an article titled "The Real Deal"
DougP
Another thing that should be noted is that this assumes all angler captured tagged fish are reported by the angler that caught them.
This winter the UDWR PIT tagged 504 burbot in Flaming Gorge reservoir. Many of those fish were captured using angling methods through the ice. From the results I have see 5 tagged fish were recaptured. While this isn't a large number on must also consider the vast size of Flaming Gorge and the number of burbot that are in there. I'm not sure how many anglers were in the tournament but I know at least 2000 burbot were caught, with teams averaging about 73 fish/night. I'm actually impressed 5 tagged fish were caught. Surface area of Flaming Gorge is 42,020 acres holding 3.8 million acre-feet of water at full pool. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Mr. Guest, I don't know how Rod Ramsell would explain the big fish of today. You'd need to ask him. Better yet read the article I'm sure he explains his position very well.
To ask that ? of me is a good way to get this thread pulled so I won't answer.
There is much to be said about this but it was not my intent to highjack the thread.
I just thought there might be some interest by the author of this thread in what Rod Ramsell had to say.
Dougp |
|
| |
|
Posts: 426
Location: Perryville, MO | One example does not establish a whole lot. However, in verification to what other experienced anglers have reported concerning repeated capture of the same fish I can offer a recent experience.
After reporting a tagged ski on Kinkaid last Fall, the local district biologist, returned my call with previous information on the fish. It had been "handled" twice before. Once it had been rescued bellow the spillway and returned to the lake. And it had also been caught and released previously. As a mature male, its length was less than 1/2" greater between the previous CR and mine, nearly two years separated (from what I remember of our conversation). It was also interesting to learn the fish's preference for current related areas. |
|
| |
|
| might want to take a look at this video
it touches a few issues
http://fishfactor.tv/FISHFACTOR_TV/Resource.html
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| I saw that vid....actually it serves to illustrate the facts of delayed mortality.
I don't think anyone disputes the idea that C&R is beneficial to a fishery.
However, C&R can also impact a fishery negatively by excessive C&R fishing pressure and lack of restraint by the numbers of fish caught by C&R anglers.
DougP
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 19
| keep forgetting to sign in but that was me asking.
Sounds like their hasn't been solid data that is accessible, realistically easy for me within a day or two notice.
Appreciate all the help I will mention a couple points some of you have stated however. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| I've had an experience of my friend catching a released fish 2x in the same area.
The fish had what looked to be a "prop cut" notch in it's back and pics revealed markings to be identical.
Two years had gone by and the fish had grown from 42" to 44".
Great.....
DougP |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Zolson....there is no solid data that will cover all the fisheries and their response to C&R.
There are too many variables, as in , population, lake size, fishing pressure....etc.
C&R works, to a point. It is NOT a "no kill" practice.
If you fish, you WILL kill fish whether you C&R....or not.
DougP |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | I've seen a couple of the videos of Marc's talks. There's some very good stuff in those. He certainly speaks from experience.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2024
| Zack,
Feel free to shoot me an email, if you want. The information you want is within reach, you just have to ask for it. Come up with a list of questions and I'll try to share with you what I know.
Best,
Sean Landsman |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32959
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Science is telling us muskies can be caught and released successfully. Why argue otherwise unless you have an ulterior motive?'
Reality is some fish will die. I believe the motive is reality. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 123
| I do believe in delayed mortality, but recently Sean Landsman did a study on LOTW where he caught fish then tagged them to follow their movements, etc. I believe every one of the fish survived and his group caught at least one of the fish multiple times. I think they even studied the effects of keeping the fish out of water for different periods of time. Project Noble Beast it was called. Good info. By the way, I put together a c&r website a few years ago. There should be a link to it at the bottom of this post. Good fishing.
http://catchandrelease.webs.com/
Edited by Lens Creep 5/12/2011 6:41 AM
|
|
| |
|
|
What Rod's quote says to me is that he has never recaptured a tagged fish after anglers have recaptured one.
Meaning a fish was tagged by DNR, caught be an angler and then never recaptured by DNR in test netting.
He is refering to the use of tags in brood stock lakes where they trap fish every year.
You don't always recapture fish in spring netting, but the occurence is fairly high.
His thoughts are based on his extensive experience in MNDNR and are concurred by researchers JerryYounk and Dan Iserman, both PHD is fisheries in MN.
I know these gentlemen do feel that the majority of muskie anglers don't have as high a success rate of fish survival as they would like to think. Some anglers are very good at releasing fish quickly and relatively unharmed. Some are not but feel that they are due to the perception that fish can tolertate being caught, un-hooked and then pulled into the boat for bump-board, girth measurements and multiple pics on a routine basis.
Rod and Dan have both written articles that talk about the "myths" of what fish can handle and how people should be handling fish if they want to lower the mortality rates to a minimun.
Conclusions made by reading a sentence of his article seem to be a little misleading.
John Skarie
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Mr. Guest.......There are certainly 2 sides to the C&R concept..........
This is from the state of MN 2011 fishing regs:
"A fish that can be legally kept should not be released if it is bleeding
heavily, which indicates its chance of survival is poor."
Ask them why they put that in their regulations under the title of C&R.
I don't mind discussing my views on this. This has never gone well however, I wouldn't like to see this thread pulled.
Too bad this subject always has to go bad w/personal attacks. 
DougP
Edited by fins355 5/12/2011 9:42 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Just to reiterate a point I made awhile ago on this subject on another board.
A C&R fisherman can potentially be more harmful to a fishery by C&R multiple fish in one day which may be mortally wounded than a fisherman who keeps and kills 1 fish and quits fishing for that species.
DougP |
|
| |
|
|
Doug the point you are making is common knowledge to anyone who fishes, and anyone who is in the field of fisheries.
Not all fish will survive. Please who me someone who claims this is true. You keep making the claim that C&R fish may die for some reason, I'm not sure what it is really.
Maybe you are trying to imply that people who say they will never kill one are hypocrites because a fish they release may die?
To me that is like saying a person who tries to conserve energy for whatever benefit they see in doing so is a hypocrite if they use any energy at all.
C&R is a tool that sustains our fisheries so that people who enjoy fishing can keep on doing so. It isn't a tool to ensure every fish ever caught will survive.
If you are suggesting that people are wrong if feeling fish like muskies shouldn't be killed to mount or eat but are C&R fishermen than I disagree with you.
There is nothing wrong with telling people the benefits of letting all muskies go.
There aren't enough trophies out there for everyone to keep one. We learned that in the 70's and 80's in MN. To suggest that C&R fishermen are as harmfull as intentionally taking fish flies in the face of what we can readily see in our fisheries.
If every C&R fishermen killed one trophy on purpose our fisheries would be similar or in worse shape than they were in the old days. More peopel fish more muskies now than ever. So the idea that C&R is just as harmful is not supported by any facts, logic or other reasoning.
Again I don't know why you keep trying to potray C&R fishing as just as harmful as catch and kill. It very obviously is not and I would challenge you to prove that it is with facts other than opinion.
John Skarie |
|
| |
|
|
Sorry for the grammar errors in last post, was up to early today.
JS
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | I understand the argument Doug is trying to make, and (in theory anyway) he does have a point.
If an angler is adept at catching muskies but careless or inept at releasing them, then in theory they could actually be killing more fish that had they simply bonked the first fish and quit for the day. That is certainly possible. But how likely is it though, especially considering the fact that more anglers are catching more fish, and getting more practice at handling them successfully? This argument is a bit futile in that respect, because there's no way to ever prove how true or likely it is to happen. But it does make for interesting discussion at the very least, and that itself is very valuable when it raises attention to the issue of minimizing angling-induced delayed mortality; especially as the start of the season approaches.
TB
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| The author of this thread asked for info on C&R, I supplied a few things that I thought to be relevant, that's all.
You know that I have always maintained that I support the C&R concept.
However, C&R is NOT a "no kill" policy.
Because of what I do, I get input from all types of fishermen/women. Not all are able to fish as often as they would like and many have the opinion that they would like to keep a trophy should they have the opportunity. They are aware of replicas but may not choose that approach.
I support "choice" in the practice of C&R. I also support the expansion of knowledge of the C&R concept.
JohnS; "There aren't enough trophies out there for everyone to keep one"
This is a straw man argument.....no one has stated or promoted that concept.
JohnS; "Again I don't know why you keep trying to potray C&R fishing as just as harmful as catch and kill. It very obviously is not and I would challenge you to prove that it is with facts other than opinion."
That is not what I'm portraying at all. If you look at what I said it was related to an individual C&R fisherman....not the whole practice. Take another look at what I said.
I honestly think you missed my whole point........
Address the reason for the Mn DNR making that statement in their 2011 regs.
Why did they do that?
DougP
Edited by fins355 5/12/2011 10:41 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Thanks Tom....I'm glad you understand my point.
I'm not the original author of that statement, it just made a lot of sense to me.
I'm just an advocate for the average fisherman being able [allowed] to make an educated choice in the pursuit of the C&R concept.
DougP |
|
| |
|
Posts: 123
| Long ago and maybe on this very website someone posted a story about a weekend angler who was not a muskie fisherman that caught a near-record fish and they kept it. I believe they even said in the article that it was the only muskie that individual had ever caught. Well someone I won't name but who I know catches 50+ fish per year thought that story should have never been printed, much less posted on this forum. I said I had no problem with it and mentioned that he had probably been responsible for a minimum of 1 fish expiring from delayed mortality due to the sheer number of fish he came in contact with. He about crucified me for that response, but I stood by it and still do. Some fish die no matter what our handling techniques are. Nobody will ever know the % I'm sure but I know it happens. I also know I was not responsible for the demise of a single muskie last year. Didn't fish for them.  |
|
| |
|
|
The MNDNR doesn't want people to throw legal sized fish back if the fish appears to be badly bleeding. That is all. I don't think anyone would find fault with that.
Again, who is saying C&R is a "no kill" practice? Doug you make that point over and over, but to whom are you talking to? I think everyone on this thread knows that C&R fish do can die.
Also, the point that there aren't enought trophies for everyone isn't a "straw man" agrument. I believe it to be very true. If even the majority of anglers kept one trophy for the wall the consequences would be very vivisble. A 50" muskie would still be the "bar" for a trophy, 'cause the majority of them would be killed at that point.
The point you are trying to make, as I see it, is that C&R fishermen are just as damaging as catch and kill fishermen, or the fishermen that kills occasionally.
As an individual you may be right some of the time, but as a group that sentiment is very far from the truth.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Lens Creep.....I know what you're saying. I hear that reponse to a kept fish all too often.
JS...."The point you are trying to make, as I see it, is that C&R fishermen are just as damaging as catch and kill fishermen, or the fishermen that kills occasionally."
John, actually my point is that a C&R fisherman "can be" more damaging...not that they "are" more damaging.
Gord Pyzor even wrote an article sometime back about how the Lac Seul fishery was in decline because of the mortality from the increased pressure even though Lac Seul is 100%C&R.
I make my point to keep the C&R concept not being a "no kill" proposition in perspective.
An angler who catches 50+ fish a year is more of a potential threat to a particular fishery than the casual angler who catches one fish to keep on his weeklong trip spent "up nort'"....
DougP
Edited by fins355 5/12/2011 12:13 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| JS...."The MNDNR doesn't want people to throw legal sized fish back if the fish appears to be badly bleeding. That is all. I don't think anyone would find fault with that."
I don't find fault with that. I think it to be a sound idea but flies in the face of the 100% C&R practice. It also illustrates my point.
IF I C&R a musky that is bleeding heavily or ortherwise wounded gravely, that musky is more likely to die because of those injuries according to the MDNR. So if I continue to fish for muskies after that release, I can now potentially repeat that same scenario again in the same day as well as again during the rest of the trip.
IF I kept that fish [if it were legal] I would be through fishing [legally at least] for muskies as long as that fish was in my possession which would give that fishery at least a measure of protection it would not have in the other scenario.......
DougP
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| I guess my reasoning here is that we can't be so quick to denounce an angler for keeping a legal fish should he choose to do so.
It is also up to an angler who has the ability and the opportunity to catch more fish than the average person to consider the possibility of limiting the numbers he catches in the pursuit of responsible C&R angling for muskies.
Yes, I also agree, it's of great importance to practice the highest degree of release procedures....especially when catching large numbers of fish.
DougP
Edited by fins355 5/12/2011 12:36 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | I have no article, but caught the same tagged fish twice on the Manitowish Chain. I beleieve the first year we got it was 2004, and the next was 2005. 45" both years, and in a different area.
Also on the same lake we got the same fish three times, three years in a row. Not tagged but it had a distinguishable notch out of it's tail. It was also in a different area each time. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | fins355 - 5/12/2011 12:29 PM
I guess my reasoning here is that we can't be so quick to denounce an angler for keeping a legal fish should he choose to do so.
It is also up to an angler who has the ability and the opportunity to catch more fish than the average person to consider the possibility of limiting the numbers he catches in the pursuit of responsible C&R angling for muskies.
Yes, I also agree, it's of great importance to practice the highest degree of release procedures....especially when catching large numbers of fish.
DougP
You're way over John's head. Don't waste your time. Your points are easily understandable. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 444
| Maybe understandable, but not at all based in any logic or what really goes on in the muskie community.
Doug are you a taxidermist? A little conflict of intrest here? |
|
| |
|
|
His points are understandable, but what do they really mean?
Is C&R a failed concept because fish can still die after being released?
It the promotion of C&R over killing a fish to mount hypocritical because a fish may die?
Is the promotion of getting replicas instead of skin mounts hypocritical because the fish you released to get a replica may die?
I would say the answer to all of the above is no.
Doug you bring up points that we all know are true. Fish will die from delayed mortality.
Is pointing out the fact that C&R fish can still die a defense of killing them intentionally?
You are obviously here to make some kind of statement other than C&R fish can still die, because we all know that.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Scottith...yes I'm a taxidermist. How is that any more of a conflict of interest than a guide who practices 100% C&R and yet catches 100 fish per year??
Or a resort owner, or a tackle mfg'r, or....etc??
I think my points are "dead on" logically and exactly what goes on in the musky community.
JS....I think I explained my points fairly well.
I'm sorry you don't understand 'em.
DougP
Edited by fins355 5/12/2011 2:49 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Thanks Pointer....sadly, you may be right. 
I don't view this as a waste of time, however. I think there may be others who are interested in a little different point of view, eh? 
DougP |
|
| |
|
|
Your points are understood Doug, just not your motives.
Are we supposed to feel ashamed for letting a fish go because it may die?
Your telling facts to people who know them already. Fish that are released may die.
Why you're doing so you won't come out and say directly.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| My motive was to answer a question about C&R articles which was posed by the author of this thread. |
|
| |
|
|
The question was why is catch and release important to muskie fishing.
I'm not sure how you answered that, but we'll just let that one go.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| John you have very selective reading habits....LOL!!
The first sentence of this thread reads as follows;
"Anybody come across articles outlining the pros and cons of catch and release. To get this cleared im all catch and release, have been all my life."
Do you see the part where it says "pros and CONS"...??
I guess I supplied some of the latter, eh?
DougP |
|
| |
|
|
So I guess what you are saying is the fact that a fish can still die after release is a "con".
O.K. We all know that, so again, what is your motivation for telling us that fish can still die after release?
Is it to make us feel guilty? To make people think it's O.K. to kill them on purpose, 'cause they might die anyway? Is it to make people who decide to kill one feel like that choice is the same as being one who practices C&R 'cause one that is released could still die?
Are you just trying to make people who have made the decision to never kill one feel bad about that? Or make them try not to persuade others to follow that route?
JS
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Ohhh Jeeeezz, I'm done....!!!
DougP |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Guest - 5/12/2011 5:33 PM
So I guess what you are saying is the fact that a fish can still die after release is a "con".
O.K. We all know that, so again, what is your motivation for telling us that fish can still die after release?
Is it to make us feel guilty? To make people think it's O.K. to kill them on purpose, 'cause they might die anyway? Is it to make people who decide to kill one feel like that choice is the same as being one who practices C&R 'cause one that is released could still die?
Are you just trying to make people who have made the decision to never kill one feel bad about that? Or make them try not to persuade others to follow that route?
JS
Could it simply be to point out to the original poster that C&R isn't a flawless, 100% mortality free way of fishing? It might be worth pointing that fact out in the paper.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32959
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Exactly.
|
|
| |
|
|
So saying a guide and a resort owner who practice 100% C&R is a conflict of interest in the same way that a taxidermist who doesn't do repos because they aren't "real", is merely pointing out that C&R isn't flawless?
Seems to me someone is on the Killing a few isn't any worse than letting them all go propoganda wagon again.
I guess that's a message to be promoted here?
JS
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 444
| Exactly, Doug's trying to justify killing muskies for the wall for a little extra.....$$$
Anyone who has done any research on C+R knows it's not 100%...not alot in life is 100%...well except a 100% of the muskies you mount for the wall are dead Doug.
There are no Cons to C+R with Muskies, IMHO |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32959
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I think a couple of you boys need to take a reading comprehension course or ten.
The question was pros and cons. That was the question, and well thought out answers were offered. Doug said repeatedly he supports CPR, and tempered that with the concept he doesn't feel it should be forced upon anyone if the law allows otherwise. THAT is what MuskieFIRST also supports, and always will, because THAT is the model that allows for cooperation and education without confrontation, and forwarding the CPR ethic to those who are not yet educated. A baseball bat approach doesn't work, and never will. Education occurs when all viewpoints are discussed in a civil manner (A couple folks here need a few courses on that front, too) and change occurs when the benefits of a proposed course of action are presented, and ultimately accepted by, the majority.
The point that CPR is not perfect and fish will die is well made, and accurate. No where is it stated CPR is futile, just that the process is not without harm to the Muskie population. If you fish for muskies and release every one, you very likely will kill a few over your time as a muskie angler. Fact. No where in this conversation does anyone say CPR is a bad idea or shouldn't be practiced; that shouldn't even be necessary to point out.
I'm certainly guilty of releasing fish that did die. I justify that personally by telling myself that if I didn't, the result is obvious, and argue with myself that I KNEW that one wouldn't make it, but released it for my own self righteous gratification and so I can claim I'm 100% CPR. A true conservationist would not do that....a true conservationist would utilize that fish so it's not wasted. Then, of course, there's the argument that the turtles gotta eat too, and interestingly, no one good guyes at the turtles for doing exactly that.
If the opportunity to CHANGE the law to match what is socially acceptable to increase the quality of the fishery comes along, MuskieFIRST is not only behind those efforts, but has been actively involved in many cases.
|
|
| |
|
|
With all due respect Steve Doug's "approach" is to tell people that C&R is just as harmful or more so than people killing fish for the wall.
That has been his message here and other places for a long time.
That is not pointing out pros cons of C&R with facts or articles as was asked, it is Doug trying to justify killing fish by lumping C&R mortality with intentional kills.
Call a spade a spade.
JS
|
|
| |
|
| fins355 - 5/12/2011 2:44 PM
Scottith...yes I'm a taxidermist. How is that any more of a conflict of interest than a guide who practices 100% C&R and yet catches 100 fish per year??
Doug, the difference is that the guide is trying to keep the resource renewable while promoting C&R to fishermen who are probably less experienced than he is. On the other hand you are telling those who have never released a big one that they should consider taking the fish to a taxidermist because it may die.
Both of you are making a living off the resource but at least the guide is TRYING to keep the big fish alive so they can be shared with other fishermen. Even if 50% of the guide's big muskies died from delayed mortality that's still better than your telling them to thump it. That's a big difference IMHO.
You mounted a big walleye from Lake Erie for me a couple years ago. Beautiful work. You were on my short list of taxidermists if I ever had a big muskie die in my hands. Not anymore.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Some of you guys are really amazing....
Mr. Guest
I guess I need to address a couple things here.
First of all I have never advocated anyone "thumping" anything. You can't quote me saying that.
I also never mentioned that I am a taxidermist until I was asked directly. The accusation that I'm trying to get more business is silly.
IF some of you were to read what I have posted and not "spin" my words to fit your agenda I think you will find nothing that is not pretty rock solid.
Since you can't negate the info I have provided it is easier to try to devalue me as a poster.
Lastly, Mr. Guest, thank you for your past business. I'm glad that you are happy with my work and I appreciate the nice words.
I'm sorry that I am no longer on your list. However, I've never let my opinions and beliefs be swayed with the prospect of "getting more work". I'm not going to start now.
Best of luck to you in your future fishing ventures.
DougP
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32959
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'With all due respect Steve Doug's "approach" is to tell people that C&R is just as harmful or more so than people killing fish for the wall. '
Show me where I (or anyone else...edit)have EVER said that. That's just your weak debate skills showing when you can't argue your point using actual facts and references to what has really been said and resort to completely inaccurate personal attack to try to win a point.
On one hand, some bash guides for increasing pressure on the fishery and additional angler related mortality on the Muskie population, on the other, the SAME folks argue they are better for the fishery because they forward CPR philosophy. The truth is somewhere in between.
Taxidermists will no longer mount fish when folks stop bringing them in. If that is the desired goal, then get busy trying to get the actual facts out to the general public and eventually acquire a total CPR philosophy for the sport. There are negatives to our personal feelings as to what a Muskie Nirvana would look like from TOTAL CPR law as well, ask your local fisheries manager.
Until that time, it's not the taxidermist who kills the fish...it's the angler. Until you can show where any taxidermist has actually told anyone here to kill a fish, I'd suggest you refrain from that. Fair is fair, Skarie, you can't have it both ways.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 444
| So, What is one con of Catch and Release and what data do you have to support that con Steve? Lets see you provide some data or Facts... |
|
| |
|
|
I never claimed you said anything Steve, those were my words, that is Doug's approach in my opinion.
To think you accuse me of needing reading comprehension classes and having weak debate skills.
Funny.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32959
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | There's plenty of data on angler caused mortality and Muskies in the archives of the MN, WI, and other state fisheries management papers. Look them up, or go to our Research board and begin searching and reading. It's common knowledge that there's a percentage of Muskies released that die later.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1980.tb02798...
http://www.lakepewaukeesd.org/Pewaukee%20Muskellunge%20Study%201998...
http://washingtonlakes.com/forum/yaf_postst6929_Text-of-20102011-Ru...
Good one by someone regularly visiting muskie websites:
http://www.carleton.ca/fecpl/sean_landsman.htm
There's a ton more, go look and enjoy the reading.
If one is trying to say all CPR is good and successful, especially when releasing a badly injured fish, then hypocrisy is in play. Sure, if I release a fish I know is going to die, I can still claim I did a 'successful CPR' because the fish swam away, but I know that's crap and so should any other Muskie angler who is truly interested in our collective real impact on the fishery.
I'll personally let a fish go I know is going to die IF it can swim away. Even a legal. Why? To satisfy my personal ego and release ethic.
If I had a monster die 'in my hands' and it was plain old dead, I'd take it to Lax, I guess...rather than let it rot. But wait...then I'm not 100% CPR...am I? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32959
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | With all due respect Steve Doug's "approach" is to tell people that C&R is just as harmful or more so than people killing fish for the wall.'
No one in this thread ever had that "approach" and never said or promoted anything like that.
MuskieFIRST certianly doesn't support or promote that view.
Your accusation...twice now:
'That has been his message here and other places for a long time. '
'I guess that's a message to be promoted here? '
MuskieFIRST is the publisher, and therefore the message is published and brought to the public by us. Tell me that shot was to be interpreted differently, and how you actually meant the accusation to be taken.
And there, Mr. Skarie...it is.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| EXACTLY!!! |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Although it does not result in 100% survivability in released fish, C&R has long been recognized as a valid conservation method. Here's a link to a paper by Dr. Casselman that is freely available.
http://wildtroutstreams.com/CatchRelease/catch_and_release_review_a...
I have several more references that we can discuss as well, but would prefer to do so only if this thread gets moved to the "research" portion of the forum. I don't want to clog up the general forum with the fine details of such discussion. But the above reference is a very good starting point, and summarizes C&R mortality for a variety of species. Just be advised that there is more muskellunge-specific data out there than is cited in this particular paper.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 444
| Steve, a small percentage of fish dying of delayed mortality is still a pro for catch and release against if someone just killed and kept a fish....A small percentage of fish dying is better then 100% of them....
Doug, your first post with the quotes for ramsell are misleading in that catch and release doesnt work and can harm a fisheries.
Steve, set a example and try and not refer to people as needing more education or having weak skills....Same as calling people dumb.... |
|
| |
|
|
My "accusations" of what Doug's message is are very clear.
My interpretations of his posts are exactly how I said it.
I'm obviously not the only one that feels that way either.
Funny how some people on here get away with outright personal insults regarding intelligence while others would have those posts pulled asap.
JS
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32959
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Steve, set a example and try and not refer to people as needing more education or having weak skills....Same as calling people dumb....
OK, so critically needed education for folks who do not know about CPR is something we shouldn't discuss? or were you talking about the following...
My comments about John's tendency to attack character and personal motive when he can't actually quote the person he's attacking or can't come up with any factual content in a debate were directed at him, not you. The comment about comprehension was to indicate several posters were misquoting folks, making accusations that were not supported in this thread, and therefore were being unacceptably rude, in fact, were bordering on libelous. We don't tolerate that, and will call folks out when necessary to keep the general atmosphere here from being poisoned by train wreck arguments with no basis in fact.
By the way, learning what is acceptable and not acceptable in a discussion or debate, or pointing out folks may need to, indicates absolutely zero regarding those folk's intelligence, only their apparent lack of experience or...which is far more probable, unwillingness to employ same in the effort to 'fight nice'. That explain it better? Apply also to John's last post.
I indicated exactly where he attacked MuskieFIRST, and he responded with some crap about Doug. Typical.
John,
I respond to your comments as an Editor and owner of this publication...not a visitor. There's a difference, and you know that. You didn't answer me about the comments you made and I quoted; those were not directed at Doug.
Your interpretations do not give you license to recreate what someone ACTUALLY posted to fit your purpose.
Why did I ask you for clarification? Your mention...twice..of some ethereal concept that MuskieFIRST is somehow not in favor of the 100% CPR ideal is more than interesting. We are, according to your complaints, supposed to allow your diatribes supporting your vision even if they are based in 'your interpretation' instead of what has been actually posted, but according to your complaint should NOT allow others their opposing or even parallel viewpoints? If we publish your posts and a few others in this thread as we have here, could not someone opposed to your viewpoint also accuse that MuskieFIRST is over the top 100% supporting ALL and 100% CPR?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32959
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | tcbetka,
Back a long time ago, I tagged quite a few muskies on Pelican. Used a special tool and metal monel tags. I had a permit to tag the fish, and tagged a BUNCH.
We caught and released one 38" male several times from under the same dock except for one early capture three years after originally tagging the fish when he had the ladies on his mind. Was the first Saturday in May back when muskies opened early up here. I had several recaptures over a few years, and even a couple several years later, but the monel tags were all grown over into the fin and I didn't want to hurt the fish trying to record the number.
I had a couple turned in to Lakeview when I was tagging that were found dead long after tagging. No idea why, but signs of mishandling were clear on a couple. Keep in mind were talking the 80's here, so muskie anglers were not as 'sophisticated' as we are now using CPR. One fish, a 5o" ugly old Pelican Bronze beaut, was found dead in the Spring a few years later. I think it died of old age in the winter. Smelled to high heaven, and I still have that tag around here somewhere.
I bet every one of those fish is dead now, most due to harvest and the rest due to old age. Used to be Pelican had a ton of harvest of muskies from 40 to 45". None now, because Norm, Mike, and I ( my involvement wasn't near what Norm and Mike's was) sort of talked folks into a 50" limit there.
When the stocking was way up, and harvest was too, the numbers of 36" to 40" fish we caught was incredible. Now one has to work very hard there, but the quality is WAY up. The DNR did a population study there this Spring, and we'll know before too long if they will stock again there. There's been no stocking there as part of the Muskie program underway in WI the last decade. |
|
| |
|
| fins355 - 5/12/2011 12:11 PM
Gord Pyzor even wrote an article sometime back about how the Lac Seul fishery was in decline because of the mortality from the increased pressure even though Lac Seul is 100%C&R.
DougP
I don't mean to hijack this thread but I have to comment on the above. I've fished Lac Seul for a long time. Is it easy like in the early 1990s? No. It's still great but not like it was.
While I am CERTAIN there is some delayed mortality affecting the fishery because it's gone from zero pressure to a fair amount of pressure, what about other factors such as muskies being conditioned to lures and the dynamic flux that fish populations go through? Now that Lac Seul has gone from "Lake X" status to a well-known water, conditioning is a factor, and certainly fish population fluctuations can be very important on a lake with a limited population of a particular species, as muskies are in Lac Seul.
Finally (with no disrespect meant to Gord), I have to ask why, when a Canadian or Minnesota biologist speaks, it's as if God spoke, but when a Wisconsin fish guy says something his name and ancestors get dragged through Internet sludge? Aren't they all trained at the same universities? Or did Wisconsin hire those who graduated last in their class? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32959
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Wisconsin has some of the best in the country, including scientists like Brian Slosser. Our Muskie management team is top shelf, and the last decade has seen huge advances for the state's trophy management.
Where, exactly, do you see any dragging of our fisheries folks through anything here?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | Now that Lac Seul has gone from "Lake X" status to a well-known water, conditioning is a factor
when did the status change? and who determined it was that particular day that the fish became "conditioned"? if whomever had never called it by it's real name, would the fish still have become conditioned?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32959
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Sled, you kill me.
Crappies are going, want to fish next week? I'll bring your rifle along so you can get her home... |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | sworrall - 5/13/2011 3:48 PM
tcbetka,
Back a long time ago, I tagged quite a few muskies on Pelican. Used a special tool and metal monel tags. I had a permit to tag the fish, and tagged a BUNCH.
SNIP...
Excellent Steve! Sounds like a fun study. Did anyone who later caught one ever give you any data on the size, so you could track the fish's progress? That would have been very good information.
In regards to research studies, I have a couple projects in mind for Green Bay. I need to get past recovering from this recent surgery, and then start talking to the right people. There's a lot of data that could be generated, and I think it would be very useful to the management of that population. Given that we have such a huge body of water, and given the fact that we know so little about the fish that lurk beyond the rivers and southern bay, there's enough work to keep a person busy for the next several years...
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32959
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Yes, and I kept records on all the recaptures I had as well; those are in my garage attic, I think...not sure. Interestingly, the 38" male never grew a whit, while every other fish recaptured did. If I remember correctly, the dead 50 was tagged at 48.5. It definitely died under the ice. She popped up right after ice out and was very stinky. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | steve ... i'd love to but am on the road again next week. spending most of my life on airplanes these days .. i'll give you a jingle when i have some time at home and would love to get on the water. ... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1767
Location: Lake Country, Wisconsin | conditioning is a factor on Lac Seul? I really doubt that, especially in the NE part of the lake....I went days without seeing people casting Musky baits, not buying that whatsoever |
|
| |
|
Posts: 209
| While I would probably never keep a muskie myself, I have heard people say that extremely large muskies don't really spawn much anyways. Combine that with the fact that they would probably end up dying of old age within a few years anyways, and you wouldn't really be taking all that much of an asset to the population out of the system by keeping one.
For the sake of not getting crucified for this, I'll point out that I'm referring to fish in the high 40 pound+ range. 50 inchers (and even most 53's and 54's) do not qualify for what I'm trying to point out.
Again, I'd probably let any muskie I caught go, but I feel like keeping a real monster wouldn't be too much harm. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | According to Larry Ramsell, Dr. LeBeau reported that the ovaries in Ken O'Brien's large musky contained about 800,000+ eggs. I'd call that pretty harmful, in terms of the loss of egg mass from a fish of extremely large proportions...
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Is there a way to determine how many, if any, of those eggs are actually viable?
DougP |
|
| |
|
| I wonder how many, if any of those eggs were actually in the fish? This fish was weighed at 56 lbs. before examining the ovaries. The fish was reported to weigh 65 lbs. at the time of capture. If this fish contained over 800,000 eggs when it was weighed at 56 lbs., what contributed to the additional 9 lbs. of weight?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 209
| Tom, that's a very interesting point. I've never heard that statistic before, and it may completely wipe my earlier comment off the map. I guess I don't know.
Doug, that's also an interesting question. I have also heard of fish having eggs that aren't fertile, but again, this is just what I've heard, and I don't remember where I heard it from so it's hard to state the validity of my sources. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32959
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Sure, strip the female at the correct time of the year and a couple males for diversity, take the fertilized eggs into the hatchery, and hatch them up. |
|
| |
|
| fins355 - 5/11/2011 5:24 PM
However, C&R can also impact a fishery negatively by excessive C&R fishing pressure and lack of restraint by the numbers of fish caught by C&R anglers.
DougP
Doug, The only ends to your arguement or "point" is a ban on fishing. Everybody already knows this anyway, so I really don't know what your motive is here.
Your quote below is even more asinine.
fins355 - 5/12/2011 9:41 AM
A C&R fisherman can potentially be more harmful to a fishery by C&R multiple fish in one day which may be mortally wounded than a fisherman who keeps and kills 1 fish and quits fishing for that species.
DougP |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| The quote you mention actually was made by Doug Stange the editor of "IN FISHERMAN" magazine. I spoke with Doug about a year and half ago and asked if he believed his statement to still be accurate and he said yes, he stood behind what he said as it pertained to all fish and muskies specifically.
Argue with him and tell him how asinine his belief is. LOL!!
DougP
Edited by fins355 5/19/2011 6:27 PM
|
|
| |
|
| This is actually a very interesting debate to me.
Hopefully we've all experienced times when the fish are just going nuts and inhaling our baits, I know that some days I've released 2-3 that were bleeding and couldn't get to the next spot fast enough.
Everyone here agrees that catch and release is an integral part of our sports well-being. However, mortality percentage has to run parallel to the amount of fish you catch on a particular day when they are snapping like that (no matter how good you are at releasing them) same with large fish that typically take the bait in deep because they have such a big mouth, it's also easier to stress them because they are harder to handle. I would guess that an increase in size typically means an increase in mortality too anyway.
I'm only going to use this as an example because I'd guess Doug Johnson will not take this the wrong way. I think it's pretty safe to "hypothetically" assume that his boat is inadvertently responsible for more muskie deaths than your typical 2-3 week a year catch & release guy even though he may practice 100% release.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Interesting point about Doug Johnson.
DougJ actually posted a few years ago that one of the reasons he practices 100% C&R is because, as he said; "I think we kill enough by accident."
Those are Doug's words and I think I still have the thread printed where he said that.
DougP |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4342
Location: Smith Creek | The question in my mind is who is more detrimental to the fishery, someone who keeps his limit every time he fishes and quits when he's got his legal, or the guy who practices C&R and continues to fish after he catches a few?
Try to remember the days you've caught multiple legal muskies. Now how many times have you caught one legal in a day. The only time a fisherman who practices C&R can possibly do more harm to fishery is when he catches multiple legals in a day. And even in those cases the chance the fish actually dies are fairly slim even at 3 to 1 odds (closer to 10 to 1 IMO). I get Doug's point, but I believe there are very few situations where C&R is potentially more harmful to a fishery. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 7115
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | So...kinda what we're saying is that because of delayed mortality, catching muskies isnt good for the fish? Really? Jabbing a fish in the mouth/face/eyes/gills/head, dragging them through the water til they're exhausted, putting them in a nylon coated net, then ripping these hooks out, taking them out of the water so that they can't breath....that's BAD for fish? |
|
| |
|
| I don't think anybody is saying that catch and release is not an essential and valuable conservation tool. Quite the contrary! All I'm saying is I agree with Doug that 100% C&R does not equate to 100% catch and survive. The way a fish is handled during the release process is everything. We've all seen muskies bouncing around the bottom of the boat, gaff hooks still being used, out of the water too long, ect. I witnessed a well known guide using improper catch and release tactics for several years decimate a particular fishery, he almost completely destroyed it! This particular guides policy was (and still is) 100% C&R but his release tactics back then (he has gotten better) were so bad he might as well have just been clubbing the fish before releasing. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 667
Location: Roscoe IL | Jsled, need a ride to the airport? I got a driver for ya..
(2079118961_08150e7b12_z.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
 2079118961_08150e7b12_z.jpg (101KB - 164 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
| I never heard anybody say that 100% C&R meant 100% C&S. Keep in mind that even muskies that are poorly handled have a chance at survival but a muskie kept is gone for sure. There's no question that if ALL muskies were released there would be more muskies than if some of them were kept. This should put an end to this arguement. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| It's obvious that some of you guys don't read a lot of what is on this thread, or you just don't comprehend certain concepts.
Mr. Guest 2 said:
"There's no question that if ALL muskies were released there would be more muskies than if some of them were kept. This should put an end to this arguement."
That is NOT necessarily true........depends on certain factors such as fishing pressure and release practice.
I guess you missed that particular part of this discussion.
If you are really interested in what is being put forth go back and read all the posts.
BTW, I view this as a discussion and not an "argument."
CHEERS..
DougP
Edited by fins355 5/20/2011 4:12 PM
|
|
| |
|
| All things being equal, there's no question that if ALL muskies were released there would be more muskies than if some of them were kept. This should put an end to this "discussion".
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| It's obvious you have nothing to add other than to stir the pot. There's plenty on this thread to discuss intelligently ......IF you would like to try that.......
DougP |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Tom Betka put up a link to a report from Dr. John Casselman which again clearly illustrates the point regarding a potential downside to unrestricted C&R fishing.
From Dr. Casselman;
"The impact of mortality caused by catch-and-release practices is often underestimated by both anglers and fishery managers. From a review of 118 catch-and-release studies (Appendix1), which, in total, involved over 120,000 fish, the average mortality associated with catch-andrelease angling was 16.2%. Thus, while many anglers may assume that by practising catch-and release they are having no impact on the fish population, a significant number of released fish may die. Additionally, many anglers will continue to fish after they have caught their limit under the premise that they will release all further fish caught, however they often do not take into consideration the number of fish which will inadvertently be killed as a result of this practice."
I think we would all agree that, as he mentions in the report, much more species specific study must be done.....
DogP |
|
| |
|
| If an angler who only fished one day out of the season caught and kept one muskie he may have done as much or more damage to a fishery than a skilled angler that goes out on a regular basis that catches and releases many muskies.
If this first angler went out on a regular basis and kept many muskies the fishery would be wiped out in short order. You don't see the incredible muskie fisheries we have today being wiped out by the C&R fishermen. This is proof in itself that the majority of released muskies do survive.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Guest 2 - 5/21/2011 11:30 AM
If an angler who only fished one day out of the season caught and kept one muskie he may have done as much or more damage to a fishery than a skilled angler that goes out on a regular basis that catches and releases many muskies.
That quote actually flies in the face of most data that has been shown here.
We have anglers who claim to put upwards of 50+ fish a year in their boat.
Everything I have seen on C&R would indicate that those anglers can certainly be more harmful to a fishery than the "one day out of the season" angler you mention who keeps his fish.
Dr. casselman mentions a 16% mortality....even at a 5% mortality a prolific angler will impact a fishery more negatively than your "one day out of the season" angler.
DougP |
|
| |
|
| Like I said, you don't see the incredible muskie fisheries we have today being wiped out by the C&R fishermen. This is proof in itself that the majority of released muskies do survive.
If these prolific anglers you speak of are haveing such a negative effect why are the fisheries doing so well?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| I've got to admit that the attitude of guys like Guest 2 are baffling to me.
Why can some guys accept certain facts and concepts about C&R that elevate their personal feelings of, I don't know what, maybe moral superiority and then reject anything which may show a negative about C&R even though coming from the same sources of authority that promote the importance of C&R as a management tool.
There are words for those attitudes I guess.......
Ok...to answer your ? Mr. Guest2, the fisheries are doing well from a number of different factors such as; improved water quality, stocking programs, quality management, maybe more money to these programs, etc. along with .....yes, more and more C&R with better handling tactics being discovered through more research.
If you understand certain concepts about C&R why can't you accept other concepts with just as much basis in fact?
Do you disagree with Dr. Casselman, Doug Stange, Rod Ramsell, Gord Pysor, Doug Johnson and others??
These are some of the people I have quoted to make my points. Evidently you have no faith in their words either, eh?
DougP
|
|
| |
|
| Like anything, there are a lot of things that factor into the catch and release equation. Anyone who thinks that our typical catch and releasers alone could not decimate a fishery is naïve.
"I witnessed a well known guide using improper catch and release tactics for several years decimate a particular fishery, he almost completely destroyed it! This particular guides policy was (and still is) 100% C&R but his release tactics back then (he has gotten better) were so bad he might as well have just been clubbing the fish before releasing."
|
|
| |
|
| "If you understand certain concepts about C&R why can't you accept other concepts with just as much basis in fact?"
I DO accept the fact that a percentage of released muskies will not survive. However, what are we supposed to do about it, quit fishing?
"Do you disagree with Dr. Casselman, Doug Stange, Rod Ramsell, Gord Pysor, Doug Johnson and others??"
I don't disagree with any of these people. However, a percentage of mortality should be expected if a person chooses to fish. Unwanted mortality is also not the same as an angler choosing to kill the fish.
The fact is given a loss of 16% such as Dr. Casselman claims means a C&R angler has to catch 50 muskies in order to do as much damage as a "catch & kill" angler keeping only 8.
Also, if the "catch & kill" angler would have released the 8 muskies, 7 of them would likely have survived.
Whatever damage a C&R angler does to a fishery is unintentional and the quality of the fisheries today is NOT mianly due to water quality, stocking practices, quality management or more money. It is due to the number of MATURE muskies that have REMAINED in the fisheries due to C&R. If these mature muskies had been removed, all those other factors would be meaningless. We KNOW these mature muskies are being caught year after year which doesn't lend much support to Dr. Casselman's claim that 1 out of 6 released muskies die. If this were true the vast number of proficient anglers out there should have already decimated the mature muskie population and here we are with the best trophy fishing we've ever had.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| YOU [Mr. Guest 2]...just don't get the premise of what was put forward......sorry
DougP
Edited by fins355 5/22/2011 7:56 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Is this the premise you put forward? "John, actually my point is that a C&R fisherman "can be" more damaging...not that they "are" more damaging."
Sure C&R "could be" more damaging but quality of the muskie fisheries today PROVES it isn't.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 305
| love the Lloyd picture from dumb and dumber...reminds me of my office manager in more than just his physiognomy. Interesting debate. For some really out there stuff, check out what the Germans have done. I believe they outlawed C&R. Caught fish must be kept. Something about cruel to catch em just for sport. Perhaps just a dream (nightmare) I had. |
|
| |
