[STGRule]

Whenever we get pictures of nates being held we get the usual

. I spent some time looking around the net for some scientific references. It is a little hard because the good, recent science is in Journals that require subscriptions. However I did find a couple. I would like some opinions but I would ask that you read some or all of the references first and then comment on what you actually read. Thanks.

Ocean species catch and release

This one is a proposal for a study that wasn't funded but has some explanations and references. Sturgeon proposal

Trout reproduction problems caused by stress

The effect of weigh-ins and air stress on Walleye

Ocean hooking mortality

Stress tolerance

Alaska stress from catching by "expert" anglers

There are many more studies out there. These are just a couple of them that I found. If you know of any others please post the links here. (It's all yours *** :grin: )

 

[GutshotApe]

Jeez STG, we're awfully busy just now...little black animal is destroying my house :shocked: .

How about your executive summary of the studies? :whazzup: :wink:

 

[FEAR NO FISH!]

Never pick up hitch hikers! Truth be known, fishing will be outlawed next due to concerns for endangered fish. I myself have no problems with taking a picture of a fish you are going to release. I have even netted them before releasing them as it is sometimes the only way you will be able to release em. Others will argue the other way. That is what makes America great! When fishing is outlawed, only outlaws will fish! :cheers:

 

[The Fishing Geek]

I suppose that as long as it is not illegal and you (generic you used here) can convince yourself that your actions aren't hurting anything then what do you have to worry about? Facts are for those who don't have experience.

 

[STGRule]

Sorry GSA, my known opinions would predispose those that know not what an executive summary is. Although, I did add some links that don't always jive with my views. Can't be accused of bias :tongue: that way.

PS That little black animal? Aren't they sweet? Aren't they just the cutest things 56.72% of the time? You needed new stuff anyway right? Just wait till he's two to replace it. :wink:

[ 07-15-2003, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: STGRule ]

 

[BrionLutz]

STGRule,

Well...it looks like the mortality is substantial, 40% at a minimum.

I just got a Beckman's net that claims to be coated to help with catch/release.

With small fish, I can unhook them without netting but the big ones I can't...they pull away.

I could hand line it with a glove but I think the line will break and they'll head off with the lure and some mono trialing.

I wonder if that is better than netting and release.

Brion

 

[STGRule]

Brion: Be careful. 40% for some specie from one study, not all. And not all studies agree either. Isn't science great? Take the general trends and you'll be fairly close. Extremes in either direction are always suspect. For the studies to be reliable, the science must be duplicable (is that a real word?). Anyway I tend to be skeptical of extremes and have more confidence when others duplicate the results.

[ 07-15-2003, 09:59 PM: Message edited by: STGRule ]

 

[BrionLutz]

STGRule,

I read the first one and the last one...old contractors trick of tossing out the high and low bids <grin>.

It looked like the concensus was that mortality was pretty high for salmon.

Brion

 

[FEAR NO FISH!]

It is obvious, if we (generic we used here) were that concerned about the native species, we would not even be on the water fishing if there were any chance we would accidently hook one. I am all for preserving the species but I definitely
enjoy eating all the legal fish I catch. :cheers:

 

[STGRule]

FNF: I agree to a certain extent. We have the ability to harvest fish (and I will do it in a heartbeat). We also have the ability to ensure the least amount of handling mortality as possible. It is our (the collective us) best interest to do so. If "they" do a couple more studies and find the handling mortality is down, that translates into more fish we can handle and keep. My only point in all this is do your part to keep handling mortality at the absolute minimum. It doesn't matter if you are an "expert" or a "newbie". The less the fish is handled the better the chance for survival. I won't accept any rationales about "just me". It all starts with "just you". Anyway, do your best.

 

[FEAR NO FISH!]

Are we comparing sportsfishermen, commercial and Native Americans? I think on the whole, sportsfisher men and women are the least destructive to the native species. Believe me when I say I am careful when releasing nates. I do like to have some control while going about the release procedure. I do not have a lot of experience with the dehookers that wdfw is pushing. At times it takes awhile just to unwrap some of the fish I catch. I will be giving the dehooker a try though. It just looks like a gaff to me! :cheers:

 

[BrionLutz]

FNF,

It's kind of a Catch-22.

If we weren't on the water catching fish, we wouldn't care.

Brion

 

[BrionLutz]

FNF,

Do you (anyone?) have a link to some info on the dehookers?

Are they on sale at Joe's or Fisherman's?

Brion

 

[Get Bent]

BIOYA

[ 07-16-2003, 08:37 AM: Message edited by: Get Bent Tackle ]

 

[Fishin Magician]

I really believe that common sense plays a huge role here. If the fish has not been fought to exhaustion and you dont have to fight to get a hook out, then a quick pic wont hurt them. Taking multiple pics to get the right angle .......and so on simply isnt an option. I think we all enjoy pictures of our prize catches, however if a fish is in any danger of further harm by extra handling it then no picture is justified........

An idea that popped into my head is with the latest technology out today, A digital camcorder filming the fight and the landing the fish is a great way to capture the whole experience beginning to end. with software available now you can go frame by frame and pick out several pictures without having to pickup a fish that is "at risk". Anyway common sense is definatly the key factor. my .02

John

 

[Killertraylor]

Get Bent - I read my rule book. With the exception of oversize sturgeon, my Oregon book says you "should not remove" fish you intend to release from the water. It doesn't say "must not" or "shall not remove them from the water." That is not a "federal offense" as you have posted several times now. If you have the federal statute handy, please post it (or perhaps the Washington rules are different). I might be wrong - but if I am, please educate me by showing it to me in writing.

 

[Stratocaster]

Salmon release

You must not take on board a salmon thats to be released. Im think thats in marine areas due to the high amount of complaints of some charters letting wild coho roll around the deck and releasing them only after the clients rebaited up. Im sure some sportsman are guilty as well. Im just relaying what ive read on the WDFW site.

[ 07-15-2003, 09:12 PM: Message edited by: fisherdan ]

 

[WheresMyBobber]

This is really going to hurt some big ego's around here. And there are some really big ego's here...

 

[5-Cents]

From reading these studies it looks like we are talking 5%-40% mortality rate on salmon. If that is true then we should adopt rules were every salmon you catch you should keep. How many of these fish are truly wild anyway? Lets face it there are a certain amount of hatchery fish that will spawn in the wild watering down the gene pool. If a hatchery fish makes it back to spawn over a wild fish is it more fit to pass on its genes anyway?

On the other hand I dont see 100's of dead steelhead floating down the Deschutes or 1000's of dead springers floating down the Columbia. If the mortality was that high then you would have to see some floaters wouldnt you? I would venture to guess this year so far my nate to hatch ratio has been 65% nates. If it were the same for all those boats out there then there would have been 10's of 1000's of springers caught that were nates. You just dont see that many dead fish. You can argue that you would not see them in the CR and you may have a point but you would see a few. And what about smaller rivers, you dont see dead wild fish floating belly up?

I only read the first and last studies. Do any of the studies take mortality into account when removing a fish from the water vs not removing a fish from the water at all? If the same amount are going to die then why not take a picture anyway?

OMG Get bent the Federalies are at my door right now I gotta go :shocked: :shocked:

 

[STGRule]

5-Cents: Conversely wouldn't reducing the 40% that is figured into our "take" down to 5% mean an increase of 35% that we could keep? I realize that is simplistic, but you get the idea. The more "nates" that are counted at the hatchery and spawning grounds mean we get that many more to keep. And as for not seeing any "floaters". It takes a couple of days after death for the corpse to float. There are many more things than salmonids that live in the river that would take care of the morts before they float.