|
|
| 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 - 163 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. |
|
| |
