Recreational catch and release fish mortality
- Thread starter Nemytalu
- Start date
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
Fasty
Active Member
It’s east to get caught up in details. If the intention is to reduce the number of released, sport- caught salmon because it’s clear which ones will certainly die, then it’s seems to me the most simple approach would be to remove the size limit.
If you catch a little fish and you decide to keep it, then you are done for that day. No more fish can be caught. So in effect, no catch and release but perhaps coupled with increased limits.
My “guess” is you could allow 2-3 to be kept with no right to keep fishing after your daily limit and the overall mortality would still be lower… and I would have more fish!
If you catch a little fish and you decide to keep it, then you are done for that day. No more fish can be caught. So in effect, no catch and release but perhaps coupled with increased limits.
My “guess” is you could allow 2-3 to be kept with no right to keep fishing after your daily limit and the overall mortality would still be lower… and I would have more fish!
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
this is an ask in vancouver to move the size limit down to 45
salmonkiller01
Well-Known Member
Keep the fish in the water and release, pretty easy. If you question if it is legal, release. Lets keep the fishery alive. People that net fish and release after they beat themselves to death on the deck, and lose a bunch of scales need to either change their ways or stop fishing. I have stopped fishing with a few people i know because I was disgusted at how they treated the fish alive and dead.
Last year we caught and released atleast 50 fish, most were legal. Not one left the water.I am not good with the gaff release so I use pliers.
Last year we caught and released atleast 50 fish, most were legal. Not one left the water.I am not good with the gaff release so I use pliers.
Derby
Crew Member
Are sure u guys asked to retain Harbour trout? Thinking a 55 cm fish perhaps?
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
pretty sure both have been asked for 45 for cap area for sure, then perhaps 55 for everywhere else
Sharphooks
Well-Known Member
What does “held out of the water under a certain amount of time” mean? Thrashing in a net on a deck out of the water, or pulled out of the water by the hook in its jaw then dropped back into the water once the hook is dislodged?
The big difference between C&R in the salt chuck and C&R on a river is that in a river, you can fine tune your C&R mortality studies based on the number of dead bodies you find in back eddies, victims of poor C&R handling techniques. In the salt chuck it’s conjecture—-did the fish swim away or was it sufficiently stressed that a seal got an easy lunch?
I lived on a river that in the 80’s, in order to promote angler opportunity, fishery managers decided to open a spring steelhead fishery in April. In years past, by April 15 the river had been shut down to protect winter spawners. The regulatory catch: all steelhead had to be released.
This was in the heart of good-old-boy territory: whack and stack was in their DNA and they’d never heard of the term Catch and Release
The fishing was off the charts: these guys were using bait, fishing over fish on redds as well as hooking springers and early summer run fish. Double digit days were common.
I personally saw the good-old-boy approach to C&R: drag the thrashing fish up on the cobble, yank the hook out, kick the fish back into the river. Rinse and repeat.
I drifted the river in a raft which gave me an opportunity to do my own mortality studies. I lost count of the number of (chrome) bodies I saw in back eddies, giving me new respect for C&R handling techniques.
Scale imbrication is a delicate mosaic on both steelhead and chinook. Scale loss promotes stress and fungal growth.
It seems pretty obvious that a fish landed in a net should be a retained fish.
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
oh boy don't get so triggered]
you can image that they were probably handled pretty good if they were part of a study right
they probably didn't curb stomp the fish on the deck
you can image that they were probably handled pretty good if they were part of a study right
they probably didn't curb stomp the fish on the deck
Sharphooks
Well-Known Member
Triggered is a bit strong but I see guys who should know better using nets with C&R all the time....meanwhile, seeing a guide who should know better netting a spring in a vid for a guy discussing C&R and how critical it is for fish management is a true WTF moment.
People watch those vids and walk away thinking that’s proper protocol for C&R. Meanwhile, a gaff is cheaper then a net, nothing has to come over the gunnel, and you shake the fish lickety split. No touchy feely. No trigger.
wildthing
Well-Known Member
All because most don't know or even used to care about C&R been doing it longer than most as a brit from the old UK thats all we done for many many years ...guides vloggers TV shows need to get onboard and show that fish don't need to be in the boat or net just unhooked at the side of the boat never taken out of the water.....
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
A buddy of mine did a study in conjunction with the biological station, late 80's early 90's. Caught fish ( chinook ), tubed the fish, fish were taken into a holding pen at biological station, held for a period ( I think it was 2 days ) then released. Less than 10% mortality even with all the handling. Buried this data somewhere as it won't fit the narrative.
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
That was in Nanaimo. Local anglers did that one with DFO, and I know that the fish were netted etc. That what is frustrating these have all been done before. But if that doesn't fit in some people's eyes we just do it again and again...so on...so on.
Last edited:
G
gone fishin
Guest
I would like to see that study!!
Not sure why a member of the biological station would catch a chinook, "tube it" ? and take it to a holding station, then after two days. let go and conclude a less than 10% mortality rate.
OH REALLY Did they hold the fish out of the water for photo's before tubing it?
When your buddy finds the study lets see it!! Otherwise I will file your comments as "fake news"
I was hesitant to even mention this as I suspected I would get insightful comments like this.
1-Fish were caught using downriggers with conventional flasher or plug set ups ( I suspect he was using barbed hooks as they were legal at this time )
2-fish were netted and put in holding tubes and then set afloat (no photos )
3-retrieval boat picked up fish in tube and put in tank in boat
4-fish were taken from retrieval boat to net pen at biological station
5-after a certain time they were released ( like I said, I think it was 2 days before release )
6-less than 10% failed to survive to release so 90+ % survival rate to this point ( could some die later, sure )
7- So, no photos being taken but the extra handling with nets, tubes, tanks and transport would certainly ad to the stress that the fish had to endure.
Sorry if some would rather think that a much higher % die during C and R.
It should be noted that at that time of year ( spring ) the chinook he was catching were mostly in the 3-12 lb range. I am sure if he was catching smaller chinook and coho the number of morts would be higher.
Also, at that time seals and sea lions were a rare sight so they were not an issue. Obviously this has changed.
Carry on.
Last edited:
G
gone fishin
Guest
that's a lot different than your original post
I am not against proper catch and release.
what some people see as proper is what i find difficult to accept.
thanks for the clarification
I am not against proper catch and release.
what some people see as proper is what i find difficult to accept.
thanks for the clarification
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
I wouldn't have responded good on you.
1. There clearly needs to be a need for additional(repeatable) studies on C&R mortalities. This information should inform best practices in catch and release.
2) The best practices should become part of the regulation. IE if it is determined that the survival rate is much higher when fish don't cross the gunnel/don't enter a net, then that should be the rule.
3) With all the available technology with go pros/cameras etc. It really should be easy to get the hero shots/evidence of fish caught that people crave while following best practices for C&R.
2) The best practices should become part of the regulation. IE if it is determined that the survival rate is much higher when fish don't cross the gunnel/don't enter a net, then that should be the rule.
3) With all the available technology with go pros/cameras etc. It really should be easy to get the hero shots/evidence of fish caught that people crave while following best practices for C&R.
Similar threads
