One thing the past few years of blogging have taught me is that nothing sparks a heated debate among anglers quite like the topic of catch-and-release fishing does. (Which, of course, is exactly why I’m dropping the puck on catch-and-release fishing… right here on the Trout Unlimited blog no less!)
The other day as I was driving to the river, I was passed by a car with a Trout Unlimited license plate holder that said “Catch and Release.” I was pleased to see that, though I assumed I got snaked for the spot I was hoping to fish.
I am a catch-and-release angler, 99 percent of the time. And that’s partly because I believe in the Lee Wulff mantra (“a good game fish is to valuable to be caught only once”), and partly because I don’t like to eat trout nearly as much as I like to catch them.
But lately, I’ve been hearing more from those who think that catch-and-release isn’t the end-all/be-all conservation approach some of us think it is. We know, for example, that despite best practices, some fish die after they are released. If that’s five percent, you tell me who’s stressing the resource more–the guide who catches and releases 30 fish a day five days a week, or the weekend warrior who catches a couple to eat (perhaps even with lures!)? How many fish are killed for the photo op, though the angler doesn’t realize it at the time, and releases the fish with a clear conscience after the gripping and grinning ends?
And while we’re on that issue of a clear consicience, one of my editor friends at Field & Stream cannot accept that catch-and-release is an ethical high ground–to the contrary, he doesn’t fish unless he knows he can keep a couple. To him, fishing should be “finite,” just like the deer hunt. That’s was also the feeling among many of the native Yup ‘ik students at the Bristol Bay Academy I attended a few years ago. Cuturally speaking, it shows disrespect to an animal, merely to play with it and let it go.
And then there’s another layer entirely, and that is, in some cases killing certain fish can help save others. In efforts to preserve native cutthroats in the West, for example, anglers are encouraged to keep the brookies and rainbows they catch. Sometimes not keeping a fish is a bigger tax on a watershed than keeping it is.
But alas, I don’t think fly fishing for trout could exist as it does in this country were it not for the catch-and-release ethic. Personally, I cannot shake the thought that fish I have caught are swimming in rivers right now where you have your shot to catch them also… and by and large, I think that’s a really good thing. I appreciate it when other anglers extend the same favor my way.
I don’t think there are any clear answers to be had. But I think the dialogue is good nonetheless.
So where do you net out on catch-and-release? I’m just throwing the topic back for you… and the pun definitely was intended.
By fasted July 31, 2012 - 12:05 pm
Catch and release is the only way to go fish a river that has someone in it from mid August to mid May. if people took the fish out I am positive the fishery would soon be depleted.
By Duane Redford July 31, 2012 - 12:20 pm
Evidently my last post did not go through. If it shows up, I apologize beforehand for the double post. I ascribe to the notion of catch and release. I do see both sides of the argument; however, I think C&R is over rated as far as released fish mortality rates. As a guide on a specific river over a hundred days a year, I know specific fish that are caught and released on a “regular” basis. Jjust ask Roger the Rainbow that lives under the bridge…;^)
Duane Redford
http://www.flyfishersplaybook.com
By Brandon July 31, 2012 - 12:21 pm
“Limit your catch, dont catch your limit.”
By Emanuel Rose July 31, 2012 - 12:27 pm
Specious arguments at best against C&R. 5% kill rate or 100% kill rate. That is very simple math. Philosophically if someone only likes to catch and kill and is satisfied with 1 hour of fishing, that’s great. But for those of us who enjoy the sunrise to sunset experience of being on the water and fishing, killing everything I catch is unimaginable and a threat to the finite resource barely surviving the crush of development. I have the photos of my Grandfather with canvas tarps full of fish, that is good enough for me. I will snap a pic and be satisfied that while it is a blood sport and fish die, most of them will survive another day.
By Travis July 31, 2012 - 12:30 pm
Im on the fence with this one. I don’t mind eating a well prepared trout for lunch or supper. However, keeping a “large” trout for the sole purposes of getting it mounted on the wall I do not agree with. I will not condem anyone who does such a thing. When in actuality I believe there are too many freeze dried mounts conducted anymore. I can see keeping to eat though. As long it gets eaten and not pitched or spoiled.
By Woody July 31, 2012 - 1:22 pm
Fishing evolved from the necessity of people having something to eat. You have to kill it to eat it. I don’t care if you release your fish but do not try to tell myself and others what is right as long as we are within the law which should be made objectively to allow continued conservation of a resource. My feelings are more in line with those in Bristol Bay although I do some catch and release fishing too. Just because you release a fish does not mean it makes it. If you can’t bare killing animals you should not be catch and release fishing.
By Doug Swesty July 31, 2012 - 1:40 pm
I have started to practice catch & keep in some circumstances. After TU National released it’s policy regarding stocking of trout in water bodies with existing native trout populations, I did some digging through the fisheries science journals. I looked at published results from studies that considered how the presence of stocked fish affected native fish populations. The results were disconcerting. Every study I was able to find documented negative impacts on native trout populations when hatchery trout were stocked on top of of those populations. I have also discussed this with fisheries researchers who reinforced my conclusions. Since I believe in science-based stewardship of our fisheries, I now feel obligated to practice catch & keep in situations where it is legal and where I will be removing non-native fish, either wild or stocked, from waters where there is an existing viable population of native salmonids. It took a while to become comfortable with this, but I simply can’t deny the science and I know that I am helping the native populations by doing so.
By Jeff Elliott July 31, 2012 - 2:39 pm
I too practice catch and release 99% of time time. For myself I’ll keep about 2 8-10″ fish for dinner 1 night while on the 4 night camping trips I take 2x a year. As guide I will allow a client to keep a trophy if they really insist on it.
By Dave Sims July 31, 2012 - 3:06 pm
Catch and release! Yeah, some fish die. The ones that live, which is most of them, get smarter and harder to catch. The ones that dies are by no means wasted. They become food for other larger fish, birds, bears, predators, and scavengers. Even if they end up on the bank their bodies act as fertilizer for plants and trees which provide shade, prevent erosion, and increase insect populations. Insects may also lay eggs and things like flies end up in the stream as trout food. When you remove a fish from the stream that has been feeding on the resources you just took all of those nutrients out of that watershed and if it would of died there it they would have returned to the system.
By Greg Walck July 31, 2012 - 3:55 pm
I only C&R, I don’t know how to gut a fish. That doesn’t mean I am against keeping fish for food. I really think this is a fish management issue, not an ethical issue. I believe we need to keep Browns in the Black Canyon if we want a healthy rainbow fishery again. I believe we have Gold Medal waters because of C&R on heavily fished streams. I believe Antero Res is now a poor sports fishery due to over harvest and we get mostly stockers. I believe there are to many small brookies when there is not enough harvest. So do what is best for the resource your fishing.
By Drew Irby July 31, 2012 - 4:05 pm
Kirk,All the usual arguments you pose on catch& release (C&R) are good, valid ones. If I had to moderate a debate and ensuing dialogue on this subject, I believe I would add one more; it depends on what an educated angler or guide knows about the watershed they are engaged on and at the situation point, deciding from a conservationist point-of-view.
Examples: #1–here in California, home to more salmonoid species (and more people) in the lower 48 states, you have have to be well-informed.C&R is a must on wild & native watersheds.You can argue that criteria but, education is the root of that decision when you net that endangered, threatened or similarly tagged species.
#2–in southern CA, a vast majority of once-a-year or weekend anglers travel to the Eastern Sierras, perhaps one of the biggest put & take (P&T) group of fisheries in the U.S.Nearly all the trout are of hatchery origin and even the wild fish have only resided there some 120 years.The mind-set is clearly P&T and the local economies have grown to promote and protect this culture. A number of attempts have be made to start a TU chapter in the area but, it is a tough road because of this mind-set.
The only native trout is the Golden Trout, which is relegated to a small patch high in the southern Sierras and is generally accepted as a catch & release species because of its rarity. (No one wants to see your state fish extirpated…)
#3:on the North Coast above San Francisco, the coastal streams once had an abundance of anadromous steelhead, coho and king salmon and the elusive coastal cutthroat.The decision of C&R is not clear-cut. Yes, Native Americans get their annual take gill-net quotas and are relatively good at not abusing them.However, to CATCH a native anadromous salmonoid on a fly rod in peak spawning season in this area with miserable weather is not easy nor inexpensive.The consciousness of the guides here is to get 1 or 2 fish anyway you can and that means lures, egg roe, etc on single barbless hooks and, are mindful to return illegal sized or gendered fish.
My “take” is that anglers, guides, regulatory agencies and the public need to be better educated and informed about the differences between C&R and P&T. And, realize that while fishing is a recreational activity, it comes with a personal, even moral responsibility to respect our natural resources now as well as in the future.
Last–if I am on a backpack near some high Sierra lake and am dependent on some protein to hike tomorrow, you bet I am harvesting (other than Goldens) some wild brookies or rainbows dropped 20-30 years ago.Add lemon slices, pepper and enjoy!
Drew Irby
TUCA Chair
By John Murphy, Old Pueblo Trout Unlimited Newsletter Editor July 31, 2012 - 4:28 pm
I have been known to eat some fish – particularly when backpacking, but turn most back in for a variety of reasons. In Alaska and on the San Juan I, or one of my friends, have caught the same fish twice in one trip on several occasions. If those fish had been killed the experience of catching them would surely have been lost. I have also observed people hold a fish out of the water for 2 to 3 minutes while they fiddled around looking for a camera. You can guess the outcome of their “release” of those fish. My reaction to that is revulsion and the desire to ask the anglers to run a 100 yard dash and then hold their mouth and nose closed to see how they fare. On heavily fished waters any taking of fish will soon lead to the river being fished far less, since there won’t be many to catch without a heavy stocking program. I personally prefer wild trout as much as possible so will keep releasing them and hoping that everyone learns how to handle the ones they will release with great care. That is one of the best ways to reduce mortality associated with releasing fish.
By Ed July 31, 2012 - 5:41 pm
Mortality from catch and release is missing the point. More fish die from hooks left in them as a result of poor knots, using too light a tippet, or not replacing knotted or frayed tippet. The old belief that the hook will fall out on its own if it is left in the fish has been shown to be false, even in salt water. Tie your knots well, maintain your tippet, release fish properly, and they will be there for the next fisher.
By Tracy Watt July 31, 2012 - 7:53 pm
Catch and Release? Keep and eat? It’s a matter of discernment and choice. And sometimes the law.
I have been taught to catch and release the vivacious trout that feed in the rivers of the Rocky Mountains. However, on occasion, I’ve caught and kept a nice lake-stocked rainbow for canning. Fish and wildlife agencies mandate what you can catch and how, how many you can keep and when. And while there are currently no mandatory keep and kill regs in the state of Montana, there are fisheries where there are “no limits” on non-native fish because they threaten the local salmonids.
For me, the debate might boil down to stocked sport fishes vs. the natives. But certainly any fish that is released has a better chance of living than one that is not.
As far as disrespecting the resource by merely playing with it then letting it go, I can understand the Alaskan’s cultural disposition in this regard. However, speaking as one who fly fishes almost solely for the sport and beauty of the activity, I believe catch and release to be anything but disrespectful.
Watching a native fish strike a dry fly, entertained by its above-water acrobatics, admiring the exotic beauty within the net, then looking on with some deep-rooted kind of sadness and joy as it slides gracefully up and over and back into the waiting river, evokes an untold gratitude and appreciation for the species. And since we do not conserve what we do not appreciate, I think this is vitally important.
So is catch and release over-hyped? Not on your life!
By Dave Kumlien August 1, 2012 - 8:24 am
C & R, always an interesting debate. I practice catch-and-release on almost all of my fishing trips and rarely keep a trout. In fact, I’ll bet it has been 15 years or more since I’ve kept one. However, having had the benefit of spending a great deal of time, nearly 40 years, working with Montana Fish Wildlife, and Parks biologists, some of the country’s finest fisheries biologists by the way, C & R is not always the most effective way to manage a trout population. My position on C & R is that while I practice C & R, I believe that in some instances, it doesn’t hurt to harvest a few fish. For example, if the goal is to produce a good population of “sport sized” trout, it may be useful to harvest some smaller trout. I favor the “slot limit” regulations such as the common Montana reg that allows 3 trout under 13″ and one over 18″ which produces a nice population of 14-16″ fish which is a size that anglers enjoy catching. For our wild trout rivers in Montana, this type of regulation has been very effective at producing high quality sport fisheries. Of course, we’re blessed with tremendous habitat and water quality which provides for wild, self-sustaining trout populations which is not the case in other parts of the country. Basically, my point is that I recommend following the regulations that are developed and recommended by the managing fish and wildlife agency’s professional biologists. Mother Nature is harsh. Even in an un-fished, closed-to-fishing river, natural mortality is as high as 15-20%. So, if the reg allows an angler to keep a few “pan sized” smaller trout, I say go ahead and keep a few.
By KirkDeeter August 1, 2012 - 9:27 am
Thank you all for these great comments. It’s a thought-provoking issue, but it seems like we have good consensus. That helps me shape some thoughts that will go into the next issue of the magazine.
By Dave Stalling August 3, 2012 - 2:36 pm
I fish for similar reasons that I hunt — to be a participant in the bedrock workings of nature, because in my heart I am a predatory omnivore, and because it reminds me (to paraphrase Aldo Leopold) our food doesn’t just come from a grocery store. Hunting, fishing and gathering my own food from the wilds connects me to deep, ancient, primitive roots and reminds me of what truly sustains me. There’s nothing like a meal of fresh, wild trout cooked over a fire in a remote, wild place!
By Paul August 4, 2012 - 8:40 pm
Kirk, Couldn’t agree with you more when you said that some in Trout Unlimited think that C&R is the ” the end-all/be-all conservation approach some of us think it is”. When in reality it is a very minute part of cold-water conservation. I’ve watch through the years as some in TU membership think that if they C&R they are doing their part as coldwater conservationists. I say horse hockeys! Nothing could be further from the truth.They are doing very little for trout and near NOTHING to furthur coldwater conservation! It’s the members that write letters to legislators demanding protection of our watersheds and cold-water resources,members that roll up their sleeves to plan and do habitat work,members that donate their precious time and/or donate merchandise to chapter banquets,and chapter,regional or state TU leaders that have my respect. I could go on and on thereby getting into detail on how everyone reading this blog entry could get involved. But you gotta wanna,simple as that.The people that think C&R fishing is “all that” are nothing but posers! DISCLAIMER: The majority of my fishing is C&R.
By Mike Kemna August 21, 2012 - 8:33 am
Kirk, catch and release works, pure and simple. All one has to do is look at the fisheries of the upper midwest and compare the catch rates prior to and after the slot limits were put in place. I returned last year after a long time away and the walleye fishery has never been better and as I’m sure you know, being a fellow midwesterner, these folks still keep their fair share also. So I say catch a lot and eat a few.
By Lawrence August 21, 2012 - 9:01 am
You raise several good points that lead me to conclude that there is a time and a place for most things, and catch and release is one of them. Many of the best streams in Michigan have sections reserved for catch and release, but others are open to defined creel limits.
Yellowstone is a good example of weeding out the invasive species. Also, I suspect that by allowing some “keepers”, poaching is reduced.
By John Harris August 21, 2012 - 9:15 am
I rarely keep or kill fish, although most of my fishing is done in the high country of NW Colorado, where non-native brookies abound, and its not a difficult choice either to harvest a brace for dinner or to remove them from a creek where there are native Colorado River Cuttthroats present. But I also regulary visit a creek in the Flattops Wilderness that raises some interesting questions about Catch and Release, especially as regards protecting native from invasive non-native fish.
Ten or so years ago, when I was first introduced to this creek by a friend, you’d come across a significant number of brookies in with the native cutts — if memory serves, you’d routinely hook up on a brookie 50% of the time. (For better or for worse, in those early years on the stream with my buddy, the brookies we caught never went back into the creek.)
Nowadays, you don’t see nearly as many brookies. Moreover, what seems to have corresponded with their decline is the presence of more cuttbows. I am not a trained biologist, but nearly every “cutthroat” I’ve caught out of this creek in recent years seems to have some evidence of rainbow in it — maybe more silvery than green along the sides, a faint hint of pink running along the lateral line, or maybe the slash marks along the jaws are fainter, a little more “mustardy” in color than the bright reddish-orange than I’ve seen elsewhere on Colorado River Cutts.
Impressionistically, there also seem to be not just more but larger fish now in the creek as well. So that’s gotten me wondering whether the apparent hybridization of the non-native rainbows with the cutts (maybe coupled with whatever intentional human removal of brookies that’s occurred) has strengthened the overall “non-brookie” population against their fall-spawning counterparts.
And the cutts / cuttbows are simply a joy to fish to and catch! Nevermind the fact that I’d have no basis to determine which of those I might bring to hand is a “native” versus a “non-native,” it breaks my heart to think of removing even one from the stream, and I am as careful with each little 4″ dink I hook up on with getting it back quickly and safely into the stream as I am with a “lunker” that might run 13 or 14 inches. As for the brookies, with the cuttbows now dominanting the creek, I don’t have nearly the appetite to remove the brookies as I used to.
Case in point — The last time I tied into a brookie of any significance was a few summers ago, after my cousin and I had had probably hooked up and returned to the water 12 cuttbows from one of the creek’s “honey holes.” After nailing all those cuttbows on top with a little caddis dry, I chucked a nymph down to the bottom of the pool and landed two brookies in quick succession that probably ran 9 or 10 inches each. Without a second thought, they went right back into the creek with their cuttbow neighbors. At that point, with the genetics of the stream already in such dissarray, and the cutt / cuttbow population apparently thriving, who was I to kill to those two fish in the name of native species protection?
By Tim Hough August 21, 2012 - 9:23 am
It was those turn of the century stringer shots, you know the ones, yellowed black and white prints, four guys with handlebar mustaches, a cabin behind them and a hundred fish on a clothes line. That is what got us to where we are today, along with a ton of other factors. It is pretty clear to me that consumption on a scale like that is unsustainable. It should be no surprise to anyone that statements like, “the fishin’ ain’t what it used to be” can be traced in part to catching one’s limit, over and over and over. TU and other environmental groups should be applauded for their efforts to keep polluting industry at bay, but if we as individuals want to really do want to have an immediate impact, then (to echo others here) limit your catch, or better yet, release them all. A 5% death rate for C&R is still better than a 100% rate for keeping.
By John Turnbull August 21, 2012 - 10:25 am
Lots of intelligent comments here — said by one of those who likes to catch and keep for eating. But in reality, be it trout or warm water species, I suspect many if not MOST fishermen are BOTH releasers and keepers, simply because we wouldn’t want to keep undersized fish, or already have enough for supper. I also am keenly aware of the mortality figures for released trout, running as high as 50% in some studies. This is vastly greater than for most warm water species.
I certainly agree that fisheries of all sorts should be scientifically managed, and by-and-large I think state Game & Fish agencies do a good job of it, often in concert with TU.
I have a few rules of my own. One is where native cutthroat populations are present, I use only barbless hooks. Or avoid some streams altogether. Many management agencies already require barbless gear on some streams — a sensible rule we all can live with, esp the C&R people.
Also, with what we now know about optimum reproductive age, I now try to release anything in that optimum size range — notwithstanding that these also are good eating size. This is exactly backwards to the reasoning of the trophy fishermen — but good science. And to the extent that a primary spawning period is identifiable, I wouldn’t object to those streams being closed temporarily. I think it would make a big difference.
Here in the SW we have a problem with bait-fishing vacationers from elsewhere, catching and keeping even more than their legal limit. The best solution seems to be to provide enough put-and-take ponds that these people will stay away from streams, and still enjoy their vacations. It seems to be a solution that works.
By Rick Murphree August 21, 2012 - 12:13 pm
The reason we have this discussion, at least concerning those tailwaters with limited natural reproduction, is that trout production is subsidized and we have nearly unlimited inputs. If the true cost of stocking was in play, then each catchable fish would be so expensive that very few people could or would pay the price. Thus, the default stratgegy is C&R.
By Eric Root August 21, 2012 - 2:19 pm
Intentionally killing a wild trout or salmon in most of our highest quality Maine coldwater fishery is not OK. However, there are ponds and streams where stocked trout have limited survival potential, and no potential to spawn, where keeping a modest amount (within the law) poses no ethical dilemma at all. Some very nice water falls somewhere in between. So clearly, the situational component of this discussion is the most important part. We are also encouraged to kill all the smallmouth bass we catch in one of the small rivers I fish, whether or not we intend to eat them. I’m OK with that too, although the ultimate fate of that famous fishery is probably not going to be determined by what fishermen do.
By Dave Veilleux August 21, 2012 - 7:03 pm
I am a strong believer in catch and release . Its a no brainier. How many fish would be left in your favorite stream if it was 100 percent take and kill ? Would put a quick end to the sport of fly fishing if there wasn’t for the ethics of catch and release.
By John T August 21, 2012 - 9:23 pm
I had the good fortune to fish the Big Thompson River and several streams near Estes Park, CO this past weekend. All were C&R waters, and if they weren’t, there would be no fish to catch given the pressure those waters get. I have no problem with keeping fish where allowed if size and number limits are followed. I can’t stand cheaters and depleters and wish the fines were higher for those that get caught. Not too fond of idiots who exaggerate C&R mortality rates either. Pretty sure those that do that are trying to ease there conscience. Take what you are allowed and want, and let me release mine in peace.
By Bruce Smithhammer August 21, 2012 - 10:15 pm
C&R isn’t, and shouldn’t be, a dogma that applies to all situations. As already pointed out, there are numerous situations where keeping a modicum of fish is a perfectly fine thing to do, with no real repercussions. And other situations where it is actually quite helpful for struggling populations of native species. And of course, there are also situations where C&R is the preferable thing to do. Like many other things, a simplistic black-and white policy is no replacement for teaching situation-specific judgement.
By Steve Mason August 21, 2012 - 11:45 pm
When TU was first started at my good friend George Griffith’s cabin on the Holy Waters of the AuSable river in Grayling the mantra was “Limit your catch, don’t catch your limit”. The whole thing about catch and release is a fairly recent trend. But that is all it is. It is more often than not a bad policy for many rivers with high recuitement rates. TU has for years taken the position that Science should decide fishing regulations. The question of C&R regulations on any stream is a “social issue”. When I was on the State of Michigan Committee to review cold water fisheries regulations as the TU representative in the early 90′s there was a lot of discussion about catch and release regulations. All the studies had shown that C&R regulations did NOT improve fish populations on rivers with average to above average recruitment rates. Studies had also shown that brown trout over twenty inches would eat more trout than they put back through reproduction. Then there is the matter of the carrying capacity of a stream biomass.
I practice limit my catch and not catch my limit. C&R is not the answer for most bodies of water. In many cases if the largest fish are removed the overall numbers of fish will be greatly improved. Besides a large trout is too valuable as a meal to let it be wasted by releasing a badly wounded fish that is doomed to die later. I have found that the vast majority of those people that push C&R do so based on assumptions not on science.
By Steve Mason August 21, 2012 - 11:48 pm
When TU was first started at my good friend George Griffith’s cabin on the Holy Waters of the AuSable river in Grayling the mantra was “Limit your catch, don’t catch your limit”. The whole thing about catch and release is a fairly recent trend. But that is all it is. It is more often than not a bad policy for many rivers with high recuitment rates. TU has for years taken the position that Science should decide fishing regulations. The question of C&R regulations on any stream is a “social issue”. When I was on the State of Michigan Committee to review cold water fisheries regulations as the TU representative in the early 90′s there was a lot of discussion about catch and release regulations. All the studies had shown that C&R regulations did NOT improve fish populations on rivers with average to above average recruitment rates. Studies had also shown that brown trout over twenty inches would eat more trout than they put back through reproduction. Then there is the matter of the carrying capacity of a stream biomass.
I practice limit my catch and not catch my limit. C&R is not the answer for most bodies of water. In many cases if the largest fish are removed the overall numbers of fish will be greatly improved. Besides a large trout is too valuable as a meal to let it be wasted by releasing a badly wounded fish that is doomed to die later. I have found that the vast majority of those people that push C&R do so based on assumptions not on science.
By Bill Fidler August 22, 2012 - 9:08 pm
I am 73 and have been fly fishing for trout since I was 15. I recall reading Lee Wulff’s plea for C&R when I was a teenager. It seems to me that most states have tried to reach a reasonable scientific and political solution to the question and that it works fairly well, depending on the stream. I have no problem with people keeping a couple fish to eat, though I have kept very few. Almost all of my trout fishing these days is done in Arkansas where, I believe, there were would be no trout if the fishing was ALL catch-and-release. Two reasons: 1 – the state would probably stop stocking, and 2 – the bait fishermen would take the rest. I fish in a river that is regularly and heavily stocked. It is not uncommon to see dead fish floating down the stream – whether caught by a fly fisherman or a bait man, I don’t know, but I have my suspicions. Nevertheless, I get more irritated by the “fishermen” who discard corn cans, shrimp bags, worm boxes, Power Bait jars, and beer cans in the river than the people who walk by with a stringer of 4 – 5 trout.
By Paul Doscher August 23, 2012 - 12:02 pm
There are good philosophical debates like this that will never really be finished. But if we take an ecological perspective, the conclusions grow a bit more clear. In waters where there are robust populations of fish (at ecological carrying capacity) and where reproduction is strong, AND the number of anglers is low (such as in Alaska) relative to the resource, killing fish seems logical and fine. It really can’t hurt the resource, or for that matter, the fishing quality for other anglers.
But in the Northeast US, where the human angling population is huge, and the fisheries are stressed, and reproduction is either impacted by stream conditions or climate change, killing fish simply further diminishes the resource. It also means that the next angler is that much less likely to have a good day catching (and releasing) fish. If we want kids and others to get out, enjoy the sport, and appreciate the nature of the fishery, there have to be ample fish to catch. C and R in most places I fish here, seems the ethical way to respect the resource and other anglers.
That’s not to say I never kill fish. In some places in northern New England, where the access is tough, and the resource healthy, I’ll kill and eat some fish. But then, I don’t eat too many, because each and every fish contains a substantial dose of mercury, courtesy of a century of coal burning power plants. But that’s another issue…
By kellie keenan-heatherly August 24, 2012 - 2:08 pm
since i guide a couple days a week during the summer, of course we are usually practicing catch and release. i often have to tell clients that, no, we are not keeping any today. when fishing personally, i would say i keep maybe 5 percent of the fish i catch. maybe. my husband wants me to occasionally bring home a fish. as kirk says, i wuold rather catch trout than eat them. i love fish but trout arent really my favorite. but of course it depends on where im fishing. there are plenty of heavily stocked, put and take waters around where the fish supply will be “replenished”. but since i guide on many catch and release-only waters, of course we put those back. now if i am warm water fishing and i catch some perch, catfish or walleye, they are usually going in the skillet. and there are of course the brookies that get over populated, so its actually good to harvest a few.
hi duane redford……haha roger the rainbow, i know that guy, and of course, that bridge.
By John Turnbull August 26, 2012 - 7:07 pm
Reading all these comments, I think it might be prudent for somebody to analyze ALL of the published scientific papers, and come up with a set of management recommendations for state Game & Fish agencies. After all, they can manage for almost anything, from mostly giant trophy-size fish, to NO trophy-size fish, to tons of fingerlings. They can manage for an artificial recreational environment or for a healthy balanced ecosystem. Private fishing resorts are doing it all the time. They just don’t say so. Some around here even have a novel scheme where if you want to catch and keep, you pay by the pound as you leave.
Take a cue from large game animal management, and manage numbers of fishermen allowed on a given stream or stream segment. Fish aside, in the recreation business, which is what strict Catch-&-Release really is, people also are getting in each other’s way, detracting from the experience. I’ve seen some film of New England streams that are almost unbelievably crowded. Like an army of L.L. Bean shoppers, all in the same place at once.
Maybe, sell a larger variety of licence enhancement stamps like we do for public lands fisheries conservation stamps, limiting access to specified streams and stream segments except for those with the stamp on their licence. Our own Game & Fish agency has all kinds of specific stream and lake restrictions already, so why not restrict gross numbers — of FISHERMEN. And earn some revenue from those wishing to fish those premium, artificially managed trophy-emphasizing streams. A new version of “put-and-take”. I think the era of annual go-anywhere fishing licences, at least for cold-water fisheries, may be a thing of the past.
By Tippets: Salmon Safe, Handle With Care, Catch-and-Release “Hype,” Drought in the Midwest | MidCurrent August 29, 2012 - 6:42 am
[...] release ethics are a hot button issue, and no angler is without an opinion. So Kirk Deeter asks: is the debate over-hyped? “I’m just throwing the topic back for you… and the pun definitely was [...]
By Scott Miller September 29, 2012 - 5:09 pm
Having lived most of my life in So. Cal., I’ve fished the Sierras (both Eastern and western) for years. Except on stocked lakes and streams, I always practice C&R. I’ve seen what can happen in areas that aren’t regulated – rules and regs either not enforced or the area is so remote, F&G officers don’t get there very often. It’s a sad thing to see when the fishing gets worse – trout smaller and less of them – because fishing people catch and eat when they shouldn’t.
I think fishing etiquette should be taught to anyone/everyone that wants to get a fishing license. Within the scope of fishing etiquette should be several things: fishing too close – whether in a boat or on the shore; cleanliness – pick up your friggin’ trash!; C&R; and many other things.
To me, C&R is just common sense – do we really want to fish out all the streams and lakes? I don’t. I’ll gladly release trout for that reason.
By Brian O'Connor December 5, 2012 - 7:05 am
As a young kid,I was encouraged to harvest the legal limit of Brook Trout on a daily basis from two streams on my Aunts property in southern N.H.The streams had seen no fishing pressure for many years and the trout were stunted.10 three inch fish were removed daily all summer long and were breakfast.Year after year,as the population thinned,individual fish grew larger. after 4 years,my aunt instructed me to limit my catch to fish over 8 inches.This simply meant that I got to fish longer on any given day.In releasing the smaller fish,it was never considered that they might not survive and I don’t believe that many ever sucumbed.Native Brookies are often described as delicate.Given what they have survived over time through habitat degradation,pollution and acid rain,they seem to be one of natures toughfest creatures.The biomass in these streams was determined by available nutriants.Removing most three year old fish,which were destined to die during the upcoming winter,insured that many more 2 year olds would survive.The pounds of trout in these streams never changed,but their numbers were decreased, and their size increased.Maximum sustained yield Yankee style.I think everyone understood the dynamics of this system.Three year old B.T. are dead fish swimming.They spawned the year before. Removing them has no negative impact on the population.Most states have adopted a 6 inch size limit on Brookies. the bag limit is seen as a way to insure that the best anglers don’t remove all the fish of legal size at the beginning of the season.C+R on Brook Trout in small infertile headwaters insures stunted fish and has been discredited by fisheries managers for decades.That said,I have practised C+R on BT since age twelve,50 yrs. ago.I simply could no longer kill something so beautifull.
By Josh Hayes February 1, 2013 - 5:35 pm
I am a catch and release angler and guide. My trout fishing clients, which I fish over one hundred days a year, are only catch and release. The idea of guides doing more damage than the weekend warrior is interesting. What makes the anglers in my boat less viable as recreating anglers than the weekend warriors? Typically these anglers get to recreationally fish for only a short period of time (maybe 2-3 days) on a given body of water whereas the local weekend warrior may potentially fish up to 100 days year round. Who puts more pressure on the resource? Who is more detrimental to the resource? The argument against guides is a shallow attempt at pointing to guided anglers as a problem user group. We are all putting pressure on our local home waters and we are all responsible for the state in which we find them. This is not a guide vs weekend warrior question or issue. Instead of attempting to drive a wedge between avid anglers with common ground (guided and nonguided anglers) you should be uniting those anglers in order to preserve what we have. Just my two cents.
By Hunter Tray March 4, 2013 - 10:16 am
Why even fish if you’re going to catch and release? Taking a fish out of the water then putting it back in? That is like flipping a light switch on then turning it back off, just because you can. That is a waist of time. Go fishing because you want to eat fresh fish.