February 3rd 2008
Don’t feel guilty about hook and cook a fish by thomascreek
The debate of C&R (Catch and Release) has been going on for sometime now. A lot of opinion has been discussed among anglers on to what sorts of fishing style that we ought to practice. Relatively, one could choose to be a “Sport Fishing Anglers” or one that fishes for fish meat which are widely dubbed with the nickname of “Meat Hunter”. To those who choose to be a sport fishing anglers normally are those who are keen on practicing Catch and Release for most of their catches. Where else to those who fish for meat, was often mocked by those so call sport fisherman as someone who bagged all the fishes home. The reality is there will always be two designated groups of people who hail toward the fish conservationism and those that catches it for finding food on the table. No matter how it goes, allowed me to share this article with fellow anglers.
As written by Thomascreek…
7/8/2003
Writing about the trout season opener in California recently, an outdoor columnist for another newspaper made the statement in his article, “When catching trout, practice ‘catch and release’ fishing.” There was no further explanation, simply, if you catch any trout, throw them back. I often wonder how other anglers react to such an all-encompassing statement.
I came across this all-encompassing, no exceptions to the rule attitude many times in my career in wildlife management. To some, (and I believe most to be fly anglers) killing a trout is sinful. And if we use weekend TV angling shows as our guide, it would appear that killing a largemouth bass, tarpon, billfish … is at least no better, probably worse.
Much has been written about the art — as it is often called — of catch-and-release fishing, both pro and con. A search on the Web found no less than 317,000 listings, no doubt covering every viewpoint known to man. Reading even a few we quickly discover that anglers, biologists, fish managers, researchers — and even outdoor writers — all have differing views.
So, why all the controversy? It would be impossible to cover the many issues associated with C&R fishing in this forum, but based on what I have read and learned over the years, it seems that greed, compassion, species conservation (possibly misguided), state laws, sports-person elitism and even distaste for trout flesh are all reasons proponents push C&R so heavily.
First greed. Many who push for total C&R simply want more fish for themselves. If someone kills a fish to take home for dinner, that’s one less that may be available for the strict C&R advocate. Some fishing guides (not all) strongly encourage, through peer pressure, to return all fish to the water. Some even go as far as not allowing their patrons to kill any fish and clearly make that point in their pamphlets and Web sites. If you make your living off anglers experiencing a successful day on the water, it is not too difficult to figure out why they want all fish returned.
Compassion also plays a part in C&R fishing and I am a prime example of a compassionate angler. On occasion I get lucky and catch a large mackinaw trout while fishing at Lake Tahoe. On a recent trip I hooked and got to the boat a 17.5-pound mackinaw that was probably at least 20 years old. I quickly weighed it in the net and let it go. I just could not kill a fish that had survived so many years. However, a few smaller macks that I catch each year are not as fortunate.
Then there’s misguided species conservation, like someone urging all anglers to practice C&R when fishing for trout. There is no doubt that in a few instances — very few — requiring anglers to release certain species for conservation purposes is warranted, possibly striped bass in the east or steelhead trout in some western rivers. But in Nevada, releasing trout in an effort to conserve the species is many things, but not necessary.
Most trout in Nevada waters are put there by the Division of Wildlife, and those who buy licenses have paid them to do it. And don’t be concerned, if there is a problem with a particular species, regulations can be enacted to provide partial protection — reduced limits — or total protection through the closing of a particular water. I trust no one believes the slot limit at Pyramid Lake is in place to protect the Lahontan cutthroat trout.
For the most part, I believe fish managers in Nevada have a real good attitude toward the establishment of regulations for waters where fish cannot be kept. In fact, I could only find one such water in the Nevada fishing regulations pamphlets.
Some state wildlife agencies, California’s for one, have been pressured into setting aside many waters where the keeping of fish is illegal for no better reason than greed. State agencies should be doing everything they can to encourage — not discourage — people to get into fishing. Many feel mandatory C&R discourages, not encourages, new participants. I agree.
There is also sports-person elitism, which works by exerting peer pressure on those of us who would kill a fish in hopes of making us feel guilty for even thinking about keeping a fish to eat. Most of this comes to us via the TV fishing shows, but negative comments from C&R angler-elitists to other anglers, who are often referred to as “worm-dunkers” or other derogative names, do occur.
Covering the recreational activities of Presidents Bush — senior and junior — including a fishing trip June 15 off Kennebunkport, Maine, a CBS newscaster let us all know that the two had caught fish, but quickly added that they were “playing” (her actual word) C&R. I got the impression that we were supposed to feel better about their activity since no fish were being killed.
If you are one who does not like the taste of trout, by all means return the fish. However, if you have a barbecue, keep the next trout you catch and contact me at the email address below, and I will send you a recipe that may change your mind.
Unless required by law, C&R is a personal choice. Don’t feel bad about keeping a fish, or even a limit of fish if you are going to eat them or share them with someone else that you know will eat them. However, if you are not going to utilize a fish that you catch, handle it carefully and quickly return it to the water. And the best way to handle and release your catch is the subject of next week’s column.
Dave Rice retired in 2001 after 30 years with the Nevada Division of Wildlife, 25 years as chief conservation officer. He can be contacted at thomascreek@worldnet.att.net.
To C&R a fish properly
Based on the research conducted on these five widely divergent species, the Cooke Lab makes the following five general recommendations for conserving recreational fisheries through correct C&R.
1. Angling duration. The length of time a fish is ‘played’ increases physiological disturbances and recovery time due to depletion of energy stores and accumulation of lactate with other physiological imbalances. During recovery, the ability of fish to cope with stress, for example from air exposure or predator avoidance, is diminished.
The Cooke Lab recommendation: Anglers should attempt to land fish as rapidly as possible to minimize the duration of exercise and the concomitant physiological disturbance. Anglers should chose optimal equipment matched to the size of fish that are expected to be encountered. Efforts to intentionally prolong the angling event through the use of light line or rods should be dissuaded.
2. Air exposure. During air exposure, gills collapse and the individual filaments adhere to one another, leading to the rapid decline of blood oxygen bound to hemoglobin and anoxia. Cardiac variables will require significantly more time to return to basal levels; the recovery correlates with duration of air exposure. Extended air exposure, for example during removal of barbed hooks, measuring and photography, can result in permanent tissue damage and eventually death; 38% of exhausted trout exposed to air for 30 seconds died, compared to 72% mortality following 60 seconds of exposure.
Recommendation: Whenever possible, anglers should attempt to eliminate air exposure by handling fish that are to be released in the water. When fish must be exposed to air, we urge that anglers do everything possible to minimize the air exposure duration due to the overwhelming negative consequences associated with that action.
3. Water temperature. Fish taken at high water temperatures, an environmental variable that differs in impact among different species, suffer increased physiological stress, greater oxygen debt, and increased mortality rates. In addition, the quantity of dissolved oxygen in water decreases with increasing water temperatures.
Recommendation: When water temperatures are their highest, both the duration of the fight and handling time should be minimized. Ideally, fishing should be restricted during extreme water temperatures. For Atlantic salmon in eastern Canada, Atlantic salmon rivers are temporarily closed to recreational angling during excessive water temperatures. Extreme water temperatures are undoubtedly one of the periods where fish are particularly susceptible to mortality.
4. Bait type, terminal tackle, and hooking injury. An obvious determinant of potential injury and mortality is the use of barbed hooks. Studies of barbless hooks found that they allow a more efficient release of the fish and produce less tissue damage, thus resulting in less mortality. In addition, artificial lures and flies tend to hook fish in the mouth, compared with live or organic bait which is more often ingested deeply and thus closer to vital organs, making hook removal more difficult and harmful.
Recommendation: Barbless hooks should be widely adopted by anglers. Anglers using barbless hooks and reducing the emphasis on the use of organic baits will generally lead to minimal injuries, reduced handling time, and lowered chance of mortality.
5. Angling and the reproductive period. The benefits of minimizing stress during reproductive activity are obvious – increased offspring to contribute to subsequent year classes. Studies of largemouth bass found that removal of males from the nest quickly resulted in predation of the unprotected offspring. Even after returning to the nest, males exhibited impaired swimming behavior for the next 24 hours, and provided less care to surviving offspring. Studies also suggest that largemouth bass caught immediately prior to the spawning period in a simulated bass tournament format produced fewer and smaller offspring.
Recommendation: Based upon the negative consequences associated with angling during the reproductive period, it is only prudent to avoid capturing fish during the reproductive period.
Clearly the C&R ethic is deeply embedded in the thinking of conservation-minded fishermen; it is the obvious and easiest tool for sustaining fisheries when done correctly. It is also clear that, although we are generalizing the guidelines discussed above across a variety of diverse freshwater species, these species of interest vary greatly in their sensitivity to the stress caused by C&R fishing. Scientists at the Cooke Lab believe that the solution to the C&R dilemma is to “… develop and refine general guidelines for the successful release of all fish, and then develop a suite of specific guidelines for individual species or types of catch-and-release activities (e.g., tournaments, deep water fishes). Included in these guidelines should be species-specific considerations with respect to different life-stages, populations, sizes or genders.”
Further scientific information on this and other fishing conservation topics is available at: www.carleton.ca/fecpl/C&R_papers.html
