|
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | On another post someone said they would never a keep a muskie even if it died. I don't understand that thinking at all. Why put a dead fish back into the lake to be found floating by other anglers. If not not that its just turtle food. This makes no sense to me. Is it that someones ego is so great they want to say they released every fish. I hope our sport is not headed in that direction. Also someone hinted that every fish they released made it. I highly doubt that. Even the best of the best lose a fish. Thats just the way it is. I do wonder what you all think is the % of released that die. Sure for each angler it varies. The more you catch I believe just increases chances that some won't make it. Look at all the videos on utube of fish that were released. Look at the timer on the video and see these fish often out of the water 2 to 3 minutes and longer. Pfeiff |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 10%. Maybe.
|
|
| |
|
|
I would hope that the more you catch, the more your % of good releases goes up!
If not than maybe some better release techniques are in order.
Personally I don't know why an angler wouldn't keep a legal fish that died.
Lots of good meat on an accidental death if you didn't want a mount.
JS
|
|
| |
|
Location: Illinois |
4% |
|
| |
|
Posts: 384
Location: Eagle River, Alaska | I don't know if there are any real, comprehensive studies done on musky mortality after catch and release. But there have been many studies done with trout on this subject....and I would consider a trout to be more susceptible to damage and post release mortality than a musky.
If you summarize these studies (this is from Robert Behnke....considered foremost trout fisheries biologist in North America and probably the world) the post release mortality averaged 4-5%. One of these studies kept the caught trout in pens for 30 days afterward to see if they died.....others were similarily thorough. The most fascinating results were that barbless hooks were no better in mortality than barbed or treble hooks (although barbed and treble generally cause more fish disfigurement....you can see that with the large trout here in Alaska on heavily fished waters). As a matter of fact, barbless had a slightly higher mortality because they have deeper penetration then barbed hooks.
When the dead trout were autopsied for cause of death over 95% was due to bleeding to death from punctured gill filaments and carotid artery bleeds in the roof of the mouth. The largest study (a doctoral thesis) used trout caught by any anglers on the river where the trout had been dragged in on the rocks, not handled well, etc... but this did not significantly effect mortality.
What did dramatically effect mortality was water temperature. When the temperature was as the upper range for trout (rainbows about 70 degrees) regardless of the catching style (barbed, barbless, trebles) the post release mortality was nearly 60%....pretty sobering thought.
Incidentally there were studies on using lures and flies vs. bait. Bait fishing overall had a post release mortality of 40%. When evaluating the cause of death, if the fish didn't swallow the hook it was only 8% but if the hook was swallowed mortality increased to 73%.
One other statistic which I found contrary to popular thought is the stress on the fish by how long it was played after hooking. Post release mortality was no different if the fish was hauled in seconds or played for over 10 minutes.
Food for thought.....trout are not muskies but they have been studied alot....I would consider musky a hardier fish also.
Brian |
|
| |
|
| Trying to rationalize a justification for intentionally killing a Muskie because some unknown percentage of release mortality exists is like advising someone not to wear a seatbelt because it is possible you could be thrown clear in a crash. The percentages just arn't there and never were. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Trying to rationalize a justification for intentionally killing a Muskie'
Show me where Don said anything like that. He didn't, nor did anyone else. Read the posts and respond to what was said, or put a cork in it.
Doc, there are a few good studies that determined angler relared mortality to be in the 10% range. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | unless it's a trophy floater ... i see nothing wrong with eagles, coons and turtles getting some grub ... that would be the natural process. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Actually, if one knows the fish is dead, its considered wanton waste if you chuck it back. The natural process would not include angler caused mortality. Just a point... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Guest, I doubt anyone on this site is trying to justify keeping a fish by trying to figure out release mortality. Here is a composite answer I received from WDNR Personel when I put together the Size Limit FAQ when working on the Pelican Lake 50” limit:
>>
Higher length limits won't do any good because too many fish will die after they're released, especially if they're deep-hooked on live bait. Besides, unhooking a large musky is dangerous!
Some hooking mortality is bound to occur any time fish are caught and released. However, with a minimum of handling and some common sense, most released muskies will survive, without undue risk of injury to the angler. Proper catch and release techniques are already being practiced by many anglers. Efforts to educate all anglers on these techniques should continue, and again anything that reduces angling mortality will improve the quality status of the fishery….
>>
I don’t think that anyone is arguing that even a 10% mortality rate still means a 90% successful release rate. So there is every reason in the world to let these fish go. So every fish that can swim away we should let swim away, if that’s the angler’s choice. I am sure on this site that is the majority opinion. The questing that has recently come up is what does one do with a fish that wont release at all. I bet this number is VERY small probably under 1%. I know I have been in the boat for hundreds of captures and only had one questionable fish, and it did finally swim away. But I was ready to take that fish if I had to.
I asked this on the other thread that got locked, but I will try again here. Other than feeding the carrion eaters, what reason is there to release a dead fish. Unless of course the law mandates it. Over 20 people answered that poll that they would release no mater what even a dead fish. What is the benefit of that? I seriously would like to know the reasoning. Otherwise I am left with what Don described above, the angler being able to say “I release everything NO MATTER WHAT!”
Sled, I don’t see this as part of the natural process. Yes if a fish dies of natural causes it sinks to the bottom or floats to shore where it either rots away or ends up feeding the bugs and carrion eaters. But a fish that dies as a result of interactions with anglers is not a natural cause, therefore what is wrong with the angler taking the animal if the law allows.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
Edited by MRoberts 1/31/2008 8:47 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | but if you've got a floater that won't go and it's under the size limit, what do you do? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2024
| I'm not even going to attempt to put a number to delayed mortality as, IMO, I think it's completely unreasonable to do so without hard data. If someone knows of an empirical study documenting catch-and-release effects on mortality in muskellunge (Terry Margenau's single hook mortality study aside), PLEASE POST A LINK!
I do have one question for Steve and others. If a sub-legal fish dies as a result of the catch-and-release process, is the fisherman done for the day even though the fish is not of legal size? We had a fish die on us this summer on LOTW that was (way) below the 54" size limit. Instead of letting it float around I popped its swim bladder and let it settle to the bottom where the decomp process could proceed faster (in theory). Should we have stopped fishing right then and there? Thanks, gents!
Lol, Sled, you beat me to it!
Edited by esox50 1/31/2008 8:43 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | MRoberts - 1/31/2008 8:27 AM
I asked this on the other thread that got locked, but I will try again here. Other than feeding the carrion eaters, what reason is there to release a dead fish. Unless of course the law mandates it......
.......therefore what is wrong with the angler taking the animal if the law allows.
If the fish is under the legal size limit, it must be released even if it's dead. As, it is illegal to posses a fish under the minimum size limit. It is one down side to high minimum length limits, but in my opinion the benefits out way the negatives.
That is where the argument from the DNR comes in. “…anything that reduces angling mortality will improve the quality status of the fishery.”
That’s not the question here; the question is why leave a dead fish when it could be legal to take it?
Sean, I don't know where the law comes down on the possession limit if a sub-legal fish is dead released. I would say you can probably keep fishing because the law says you can't keep the fish. That is another problem with dead releasing legal fish. It allows the angler to keep fishing, someone pointed this out on the other thread. I agree it is a strange gray line, probably the reason for the wanton waste rules. Each person needs to determine for themselves what is "RIGHT". Some personal responsibility is always required.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
Edited by MRoberts 1/31/2008 9:03 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | so, will you be allowed then to lift that 53-7/8" over the gunnel, inside the boat for a photo legally under a new 54" limit? or would that be considered "possession"? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | You’re KILLING ME!!!!! 
Yes, just as you can now legaly take a picture of a 49" fish, on Green Bay.
Excerpt from an email with WDNR Oneida County Biologist regarding immediate release tourney registering fish of sub-legal size:
“I have discussed the topic in the past with Tom Wrasse (Regional Warden
Supervisor, Woodruff). He compared an immediate release tournament on a
lake with a 50 inch minimum length limit to an angler who catches a
sublegal fish on the same lake: we would allow the angler to measure
and take a photograph before release, as long as the fish is not
"reduced to possession" by keeping it in a livewell or transporting it
in any manner (except to facilitate a safe release, or to avoid imminent
danger).”
This question was asked a lot by people worried about taking pictures of fish if the limit went to 50” on Pelican. I have since by trying to get the WDNR to define Possession in the Regulation pamphlet, they may have added it for 08-09, we’ll see.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | i've also been instructed under tournament rules that if you caught a fish under a limit on a particular lake that you could not lift the fish over the gunnel.
it's a grey area ...
so, currently if you're under the jurisdiction supervised by Tom Wrasse, you're ok ... ?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | I would say the % is pretty low. Look how many fish get caught again and again... It happens to my boat every year, by multiple fish. It's got to be pretty low if you know what your doing.
Also I have NO use for a dead fish. NOT ONE. I'm not going to eat it as I hate fish, all fish..YUCK. I'm not going to mount it, as skin mounts look stupid and would be a waste of money... So there is no reason to bring it in for me. If I want food I'll buy it at the store. If I want a mount, I'll call Fittante.
Edited by MikeHulbert 1/31/2008 9:30 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8775
| Esox 50, Maybe I'm missing something obvious...
Many have said that if you catch a fish, it dies, and you choose to keep it, you should quit fishing for the day. The way I understand it, you are entitled to POSSESS one fish. Nowhere does it say stop fishing after that. The way I understand it you can catch as many fish as you want, provided that you release them. Your bag limit for the day, whatever species we are talking about, is for the amount of fish you can possess. Continuing to fish and catch after that is within the law unless you keep them, is it not?
Now as for keeping a sub-legal fish that died? I can certainly see the arguments for it, but the law is pretty specific -- a sub-legal fish in your possession is a violation no matter what the circumstances.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mike,
Most of the anonymous commentary comes from a small group of folks who apparently feel anti-social behavior is cool. The argument from this crowd is simple, if you don't think like they do, you are against anything that is good for the sport. lambeau can give you the exact syndrome there, I just say one cannot fix stupid.
MuskieFIRST visitors, for the most part, have a strong CPR ethic so this crew is preaching to the choir.
I can't and won't speak for our staff, they are individuals, not MuskieFIRST. I believe they have spoken repeatedly on this issue for themselves.
Personally and editorially, I recognize reality and must accept that others may not feel as I do. I find it more constructive to educate than belittle---that patience and even handed discussion allows more to understand and appreciate my viewpoint than abuse and foul language---that putting effort into actually getting something done and not pounding one's chest in the process works.
It's incumbent upon us, if we are to assist those folks who do not practice CPR where it is needed along in understanding why CPR is so important where the benefit is a trophy fishery or the conservation of a fishery, and even more importantly to clarify the actual facts surrounding the ethic and the occasional conflict with reality where CPR is neither absolutely necessary or in some cases desirable. That, in my opinion, is where it becomes a personal 'ethic', and goes beyond real conservation.
If the fish cannot swim away and is undeniably dead, that fish is in your possession and if legal and you throw it on the bank or back in the lake, you can argue whatever you like but ethically and in some places legally that is considered wanton waste.
So why would some do that? IMHO two reasons...
1) Exactly why you said, sir, so they can say they are 100% release.
2) Fear of being accused intentionally killing a fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Esoxaddict: From the ’07 – ’08 WI Fishing Regulations
Statewide Fishing Restrictions
It is illegal—
• to take, catch, kill, or fish for any variety of fish in excess of the daily bag limit or total daily bag limit (see definitions page 10)
• to possess or fish for more than the daily bag limit of fish while you’re fishing or while you’re on the water, shore of the water, or on the ice.
• to sort fish. Any fish you take into possession which you do not release immediately is part of your daily bag limit even if it is released later.
In my opinion the above is why they need to define Possession in the regulations. If a fish is reduced to possession it is considered part of your daily bag limit. The way I read the above rules, you cannot FISH for more than the daily bag limit. This is mostly to prevent culling.
If you dead release a legal size fish, and continue fishing are you culling?
Mike H, I can understand that, but let me give you one possible option. Donate the fish to the local DNR or whatever agency manages that water. There is much research they can do with a dead fish, and because most of us are 100% C&R people, they don’t get many fish to study. I know in my area here in Northern Wisconsin the WDNR are trying to work with the Indian tribes so the speared musky can at least be studied for age and length information. We spend a lot of time, money and energy to catch these fish, I think the extra time that would be required to get a dead fish in the hands of a researcher is the least we could do when one dies unexpectedly on us. Maybe it will never happen, but it pays to have a plan. Thanks for the response.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
Edited by MRoberts 1/31/2008 9:52 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | there is a third reason to do it and i've done it myself ....
what the heck do i want with a musky of any size ... the mercury levels alone would keep me from eating it, the one time it happened to me there was an eagle in a tree ... we moved out, the bird moved in ... maybe not "natural" but the kind of thing that made me feel ok with the result. it was mid-thirties on lotw the evening of the last night of a trip.
if that fish was legal at 35" on wisconsin water and there was an eagle on the water i'd do the same thing .... and for the same reason. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2024
| esoxaddict - 1/31/2008 9:22 AM
Esox 50, Maybe I'm missing something obvious...
Many have said that if you catch a fish, it dies, and you choose to keep it, you should quit fishing for the day. The way I understand it, you are entitled to POSSESS one fish. Nowhere does it say stop fishing after that. The way I understand it you can catch as many fish as you want, provided that you release them. Your bag limit for the day, whatever species we are talking about, is for the amount of fish you can possess. Continuing to fish and catch after that is within the law unless you keep them, is it not?
Now as for keeping a sub-legal fish that died? I can certainly see the arguments for it, but the law is pretty specific -- a sub-legal fish in your possession is a violation no matter what the circumstances.
I agree, Jeff, that possession doesn't necessarily mean you stop fishing. I guess I'm confused by some of the rhetoric I keep hearing about having to "stop" fishing once you catch a legal. MRobert's post with the last bullet point seems to suggest you cannot "cull," but does that mean you have to stop fishing? I fished the Big 10 Classic (bass tournament) on Madison in 2006 and we could not cull, which made it a big gamble to toss back a legal in hopes of filling its place with a bigger fish. We never caught a limit and I didn't think to ask about whether we were done for the day once we reached our limit or whether we could keep fishing but would have to release anything we caught. How do we say, CONFUSING?
For the others, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that, frankly, it's a tad selfish not to harvest a legal that has died during the release. YOU may not have a use for the fish, but SOMEONE ELSE may! I'm SURE you could find someone at the landing or nearby that would be MORE THAN happy to take the fish off your hands. A big fish could provide a fantastic meal for a family in need. At the very least, donate the fish to the DNR (as MRoberts suggested).
As for the "high in mercury" argument. I'm calling bologna on that one. ONE fish is not going to kill you! It's only a problem if you eat them on a continual basis, to the point mercury levels begin to bio-accumulate within your system.
I guess I just don't understand...
Edited by esox50 1/31/2008 10:31 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | i'm at the landing loading the boat after a long day on the water ... i got a dead fish i gotta do something with ... there's not a line-up of families waiting for me to bring the fish in ... to coordinate bringing it to the dnr ... is there a line and a drop spot ... gimme a break, it's a pain in the a$$ to keep a fish and the eagles, turtles and coons are not a "waste" ...
do some reading on the mercury level in fish in the oneida and vilas county areas ... you might become surprised. as an adult eating maybe, but don't feed it to the younger kids.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2024
| OK, I might agree that if there's no one in sight or its late at night then logistically it may be more feasible to just leave it in the water.
I'll heed your suggestion, John, and do a little snooping later on re: mercury levels in freshwater fish.
"I guess I just don't understand" means "I hope we can continue this discussion to confront all facets of this topic." I think it's good we are having this conversation and was disappointed the other thread was frozen. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | sounds like most agree though and i know it's in the back of my mind ... like Hulbert said ... i want to do everything right in the first place so i don't have that consequence to have to deal with ... eh? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI |
Regarding fishing for a species after your daily bag limit has been filled this is what happened to my dad once.
He was fishing a spring spot that consistently holds walleye, smallmouth and crappie from the opener through Memorial Day. It’s a evening spot and he was having a great evening, he caught his limit of walleye 2 fish and kept on fishing. When the warden showed up to check his license, they asked what he was fishing for, he said walleye and crappie. They said they had watched him put his limit of walleye into his fish basket (they had been watching with night vision goggles) and observed him release many more walleye, they asked why he was still fishing. He said he was releasing any walleyes he caught. They checked his basket and saw that he also had a crappie in the basket. Then their tone changed, they told him since he was catching crappie and hadn’t limited out he was still ok, but if he was only fishing walleye he would have got a ticked for fishing for a species with a full bag limit in the boat. They told him you can not C&R fish for a species if you have filled the daily bag limit. Since then we are very careful what we say if the wardens check us on this spot as many times we limit out with Walleyes in the first 15 minutes after dark, but you can catch crappie, white bass, pike and smallmouth as well as more walleye well into the night.
This is also the reason why if a tournament angler accidentally kills a fish they are done for the day. Also the reason transport tourneys ALL have a pike contest to so anglers can keep fishing after one fish is registered, they never ask who caught the fish and they used this as a loop hole to get around the reduced to possession rules.
Nail A Pig!
Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Tournament regulations frequently exceed those of the DNR.
'Possession' in Muskie tournaments has been defined for the purpose of CPR events by putting the fish in a Livewell or transporting the fish. If you net the fish, unhook it and take a picture, and release the fish, you can continue to fish. If the fish is held at boatside in a net and released after measurement, you released that fish and can continue fishing. I believe Hartman's events are set up for immediate release using a bump board, even better!
Mercury advisories on the lakes in Oneida County vary. Some lakes are very bad, some are not. Some advise not to consume any adult game fish, or to at the very least limit that intake to one meal per week. Children shouldn't eat the fish at all, similar to lake trout and older salmon from Lake Michigan.
Mercury advisories are actually posted at the landings where needed.
That said, is it not the best thing to do as a conservationist to make sure a fish you are unable to revive (you killed the thing, plain and simple)is used/consumed properly, within the law and within ethical 'boundaries'?
Not the best analogy because most folks like venison, but if a friend or acquaintance gives up on a blood trail of an obviously mortally wounded but hard to track animal too easilyusing the 'It's OK, the coyotes, bobcats, eagles, and crows will eat it up, it's not a waste" excuse, I find that person's sportsmanship and ethics questionable. To me, throwing an obviously dead fish back to the 'turtles' is similar behavior. If you are not prepared to utilize what you kill even accidentally in a blood sport like fishing and hunting, IMHO isn't it arguable you are not properly prepared for the sport?
|
|
| |
|
| "Many have said that if you catch a fish, it dies, and you choose to keep it, you should quit fishing for the day. The way I understand it, you are entitled to POSSESS one fish. Nowhere does it say stop fishing after that."
The information MRoberts posted is directly from the regulations. Once you KEEP/Possess your daily bag limit of fish, you may not continue to fish for that species any more that day. Period. If the limit for ski's is one and you put one in the box, you ARE done for the day.
As to the delayed mortality question, that will depend on a lot of factors but most important is water temperature. I would think delayed mortality on most bodies of water would be in the 1 to 3% neighborhood all of the time and higher then that whenever the water temps are above the 70 F. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8775
| sworrall - 1/31/2008 11:06 AM
...If you are not prepared to utilize what you kill even accidentally in a blood sport like fishing and hunting, IMHO isn't it arguable you are not properly prepared for the sport?
Exactly. And that's why I might keep a legal musky if ever faced with that situation. What I'd do with it exactly I can't say for sure, and I hope to never find out. I certainly don't think that makes me any less of a conservationist or any less of an advocate for catch and release fishing. Fishing can be fatal to the fish despite our best efforts. In that event, "best use" of that now expired resource is something I would take seriously, even if that meant getting a skin mount and eating the fish.
On a side note, isn't it interesting how these same discussions can be incredibly civil in July, but suddenly turn toxic in January? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | The easiest option is not always the best options. For instance, rather than unhooking a musky in the water, it’s a heck of a lot easier to bring a netted musky, bag fish and all into the bottom of the boat, let the fish bang around in the bottom until you can get a boot on it to hold it down, then unhook it, untangle it from the bag, measure it, weigh it, take pictures of it and then toss it over the side and call it a successful release.
I will admit that is much worse for the fish, and we are talking an already dead fish, but I hope you get my point on being easier, and the way different people can look at the issues.
I’ll say it again, we spend a lot of time, effort and money to catch these things. Getting up at 3:00am to be on the water for sunrise, fishing 14 hours a day, staying out all night to capitalize on a night bite. I don’t think asking someone to take the extra time to deal with a dead fish is unreasonable. How much time does it take to throw a fish in a cooler with ice, and take it to the DNR office the next day, or freeze it and take it sometime in the next month. Or even fillet it up, to be given away. I don’t know if a food pantry would take the fillets, but I know my dad, my father-in-law and my wife’s grandfather would all take the meat and be happy they got it. Even if the WDNR didn’t want the entire fish, I bet they would want the cithrum (sp?) bone and specs on the fish.
I may sound like an idiot here, but I think the fish deserves at least that much respect, and I find it odd that many of the same people who zealously chastise people for keeping fish, would just cast away, without a second thought, a fish that they killed by accident. Or maybe they feel they can’t keep it, no matter what, because of their own actions in the past toward people who have kept fish.
Sled: if you feed that musky to the Eagles, are you not exposing the eagle to a higher level of Mercury. I do agree by the way, the mercury concentration in Musky and other large long lived game fish can be very high. Essentially from a mercury standpoint when you consume a musky you are consuming every prey fish that animal has ever eaten. Same goes with the Eagle, which is why Eagles are so susceptible to mercury, because they get it from all fish they consume, and it concentrates in their system.
Nail A Pig!
Mike |
|
| |
