|
|
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? |
|
| |
