|
|
Posts: 50
| In recent years there have been some monster muskies caught and released and there have been some monster fish caught and kept.I know keeping or releasing these monster fish is entirely up to the man/women that landed the fish.One thing that I hear for an excuse for keeping such fish is that it was likely at the end of its life and probaly would die soon anyway.How do we know that?How do we know that that fish isn't going to live 5 more years and spawn 5 more times and help sustain the genetics in that system. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 409
Location: Almond, WI | Actually we don't know the fish was going to spawn at all. The Williamson fish out of Georgian Bay was infertile. A female that is infertile re-absorbs all the semi-formed eggs back into fat, increasing it's weight quicker. I think the Robert Malo fish (the unrecognized potential 70lbs WR from the 1950s) was also infertile, but don't quote me on it. The flip side of the argument you're talking about is if that fish reaches that size it has already spawned probably 10-20 times and has contributed a lot of genetic material. Plus natural mortality, there's no guarantee that the fish wouldn't die of natural causes prior to the next spawn. So even though they don't know if it wouldn't spawn 5 more times, ultimately none of us know if it wouldn't die a month later either. It's also entirely possible the fish has never spawned. Since I will almost guaranteed never catch a 60lber, I really don't think about what I would do too much. |
|
| |
|
| I guess it depends on where you are at. If the system is maintained by spawning I'd release it unless it was an assured world record, then I would feel obligated to take out Mr. Sprays b.s. record. If it was something like a state record in Kentucky, it really doesn't matter since those fish don't spawn anyways. Without the extremist catch and release ethic we have in musky fishing the sport wouldn't be in the great shape it's in, but I think we are guilty of being controlling and judgemental when we start criticizing others if they decide to keep a trophy fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| Sam,
I think your respose is hit the nail on the head. As far as where and when that fish was caught would play heavily into my consideration. But to responed to your questions Steve. I don't think we can definetively says whats the right answer. I do know that I Dr. Casselman had a very interesting response to a question regarding 100 percent release. I'll try and find that link and post it for you.
Dave |
|
| |
|
Posts: 50
| I agree that where the fish is caught should be considered,but do we really know how big the fish will get if it is killed.Do we actually know if this fish is at the end of its life span?I just have a hard time with people saying the fish was probaly ready to die anyway and use that as an excuse as to why they kept it.I think where the fishery depends on natural reproduction everything should be released as everyone knows these 20 year old fish aren't replaced overnight. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 210
Location: VA | If a fish has gotten to that size, it's rare. If it can spawn, it has many times. If it cant spawn it doesn't matter anyway. You also may have just killed the fish with the battle it gave you and it is WAY more likely to die after released than if it were never caught by you.
Like said, I'll never see a 60 so it doesn't worry me none at all. I don't feel like every fish should automatically be released, it should be the ANGLERS CHOICE and NO ONE ELSE'S on a fish of that caliber.
DR |
|
| |
|
| another popular excuse is ''deeply hooked''
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 86
Location: University of Hartford | if its a 60, its going to get a wood shampoo. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2089
| Fish down South go through the spawning ritual but the spawns are typically unsuccessful. Bad spawning habitat. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 136
Location: Chicago | Is the dawn of this superfish era only attributed to catch and release? Better electronics, baits, stocking, increased and better management all have a part. As much as we all have practiced CPR and all had a part in making these fisheries what they are today your almost still guaranteed to face pointed criticism should you decide to keep a superfish. I relate these "extreme catch and release" advocates to laboratory bombing PETA freaks its become laughable. Would I ever keep a fish? I don't know, but what many of these newbies and extremists should understand is that it's your decision not theirs. Hav'nt got there yet maybe never will, but I guess I'll never know until I'm staring down at it in the net. |
|
| |
|
| Would I keep a world record fish? I think I would.
I'm all for catch and release. I have NEVER kept a muskie, but world record class I may.
How many people have kept a muskie that talk about not keeping a super fish.
Lets look a fish mortality. How many fish are killed by fisherman even though they are released. Maybe we should limit the number of days someone can fish so not so many fish die from being caught. Better yet lets throw lures without hooks on them and we wouldn't have to worry about fish mortality.
I'm a multi-species fisherman and have seen muskie fisherman keep fish of other species that should go back and talk bad about someone that kept a muskie. To me both are wrong. I love to steelhead fish and put everyone I catch back. I Know of muskie fisherman that will keep their limit everytime and keep walleyes that should be put back as spawners. I never tell them what they can or can't keep.
Who is right and who is wrong?
I think it's all about how someone thinks about what they want to do with their LEGAL catch and not have to listen to someone talk down to them.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 717
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | But what's the point of keeping it if it's a possible record? Is it just for the sake of getting it verified? We all know that a replica lasts longer/looks better than a skin mount anyways. And if it is a possible record, I'm sure Fittante or Lax would probably do the replica for free just for the advertising. So now what do you do with it? Throw it in the garbage? I can't say that my chances are 0% for a fish that big, because I will fish waters with that potential. My chances are more like .0001%!  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8781
| Personally I'd rather know it was still out there swimming around and possibly still growing than know I was the one who killed it. Just because I am entitled to keep that fish as a licensed angler, that doesn't mean it's the right choice to make. Even a potential world record would probably go back. The potential gains for me wouldn't justify harvesting that fish. Now, for a resort owner, or a tournament angler, or someone who would see a serious career benefit from having a verified record under their belt? I can see why they might choose to keep that fish. |
|
| |
|
Location: Oswego, IL | IMO, After the heat Mr Dale Mc.....got from people, and the controvesy over it, and some of you rippin his arse, if I knew I had a world record I NOW would actually keep it. Before that mess, I may have thrown it back too. |
|
| |
