|
|
| 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 |
|
| |
