Super User Fishing Rhino Posted July 9, 2009 Super User Posted July 9, 2009 Contrary to what any manager or biologist may say to the contrary, catch and release is neutral. It cannot be detrimental. Here's why. If I fish Lake X and return every fish I catch, and everyone survives, it is as though I had never been there. Now, it may be beneficial in some instances to keep fish of a certain size, but to return them does not make the pond/lake worse than it was before you fished it and returned all of them. Hence it is not detrimental. Detrimental by definition is something that worsens a condition. Catch and release does not make things worse. It leaves them as it found them.
Super User Muddy Posted July 9, 2009 Super User Posted July 9, 2009 Hey when I am home, I fish all around bays and inlets of Brooklyn and the Island, needless to say they all go back. Next season, I am gonna give Prospect park Lake a shot, right in Brooklyn!
Super User Muddy Posted July 9, 2009 Super User Posted July 9, 2009 Contrary to what any manager or biologist may say to the contrary, catch and release is neutral. It cannot be detrimental. Here's why. If I fish Lake X and return every fish I catch, and everyone survives, it is as though I had never been there. Now, it may be beneficial in some instances to keep fish of a certain size, but to return them does not make the pond/lake worse than it was before you fished it and returned all of them. Hence it is not detrimental. Detrimental by definition is something that worsens a condition. Catch and release does not make things worse. It leaves them as it found them. Excellent point! The meeting we went to , with the fish commision was trying to figure out it they should Target the whole population over 12 inches ( current reg. 15 inch min.) Go to a slot Increase the creel limit and go to 12 inches There was mixed data on the results in similar bodies of water. They have had some very positive results with the increased creel limits over 12 inches, for a fixed number of years. It is not totally neutral. If you take one and one stays, the sex of the fish, if you can get enough of a dent to lower survival rate of a years class of reproducing fish, you can prevent the overpopulation, I did not realize, that they are not only trying to please the folks looking for trophies, but over population can lead to a problem with certain diseases and hurt other fish populations in the lake
D4u2s0t Posted July 9, 2009 Posted July 9, 2009 Hey when I am home, I fish all around bays and inlets of Brooklyn and the Island, needless to say they all go back. Next season, I am gonna give Prospect park Lake a shot, right in Brooklyn! yea, anything east of sussex county I would never consider eating. I'm still waiting to go jigging for walleye, better believe i'm eating them!
BassResource.com Administrator Glenn Posted July 9, 2009 BassResource.com Administrator Posted July 9, 2009 I see this as an opportunity to educate. If anyone has any thoughts that 100% pure catch & release is the best thing for a fishery, then please go to this link and read the first dozen or so articles. Lots of great information here that do an excellent job of explaining how this is a problem, and why selective harvest works. http://www.bassresource.com/fish_biology/about.html#fish Enjoy!
scaledriver Posted July 9, 2009 Posted July 9, 2009 It seems it is safe to say that some people that fish will keep what they catch. I have felt that good management was what helped a lake most of all. Think I am too optimistic?
NewAngler Posted July 9, 2009 Posted July 9, 2009 Nice heavy debate. My take on it; keep in mind my bass count is still a goose egg!! I personally would not keep a fish unless the fishery was over populated, and they were looking for people to keep. If it were in the limits, I would keep it to help the fishery, and probably come up with a nice recipe. Outside of that, I wouldn't keep a fish, especially one of that size, but I'm also not going to get mad that someone else did. We're in an economical nightmare, unemployment is at its lowest in 25 years, he could have lost hois job and is looking to cut costs, at all costs. I, nor you, are at any liberty to judge, especially if its keeping his family from going hungry.
DINK WHISPERER Posted July 9, 2009 Posted July 9, 2009 Discourse and arguments are part of life, Passionate back and forth does not mean people hate or dislike each other. There is no harm intended here , a lot of passion about an inflammatory subject, If Dink need something or some info and I had it, he would get it. He is as passionate about his viewpoint as I am of mine, which I find refreshing and truthful. If I wanted nice all the time I would put on the LIFETIME CHANNEL ;D Same goes for you Muddy, no hard feelings! I am not apposed to people keeping fish by any means, that is not what i meant. But people keeping the big ones in the 5lb and up range does upset me. I may be use to my local lakes that have limits and some have signs that say Bass catch and release only! Also, since i was a little kid my uncles(who taught me to fish) beat C&R in my head. That is how i was raised i guess.
Super User SirSnookalot Posted July 9, 2009 Super User Posted July 9, 2009 I c&r mainly because I don't want to be bothered and I don't like to eat bass. In my part of Florida I run into more people fishing for food and survival than for sport. I'm more than happy to give them my catch and I'm talking freshwater. If it's legal it's their business not mine.
tnhiker44 Posted July 9, 2009 Posted July 9, 2009 I have read this thread from front to back and agree with most point/counterpoint discussions. There was one comment that was made that brought up a whole new point to me. Although it MAY be his "legal" right to keep the fish, it doesn't make it right to people who love the sport! In my opinion keeping one, two, even ten decent sized bass is way less detrimental to the fishery than sight fishing for bedding bass AND then releasing them after a weigh in. I had a heated discussion about this with my fishing partner years ago down in Florida. He would catch the protecting male, put it in the live well (legal size or not) then wait around for the female to come and guard the nest. As soon as the male was gone and before the female showed up the bluegill would attack the nest, eating eggs to the point of stirring up the water. When the female finally showed up and he caught her he would flip the male back into the water. But during the time that no fish was protecting the nest the smaller fish gorged themselves on bass eggs. Hundreds and hundreds of potential big bass were eliminated during the catch and release of one decent sized female. I realize that the survival rate of eggs/fry to maturity is very low, but, in my opinion, sight fishing for bedding fish is way worse for the fishery (and for "those who love the sport") than keeping a few mature bass. But during the spawn I see and hear about people doing this all the time. As you can tell, I am against it....
D4u2s0t Posted July 9, 2009 Posted July 9, 2009 I have read this thread from front to back and agree with most point/counterpoint discussions. There was one comment that was made that brought up a whole new point to me. Although it MAY be his "legal" right to keep the fish, it doesn't make it right to people who love the sport! In my opinion keeping one, two, even ten decent sized bass is way less detrimental to the fishery than sight fishing for bedding bass AND then releasing them after a weigh in. I had a heated discussion about this with my fishing partner years ago down in Florida. He would catch the protecting male, put it in the live well (legal size or not) then wait around for the female to come and guard the nest. As soon as the male was gone and before the female showed up the bluegill would attack the nest, eating eggs to the point of stirring up the water. When the female finally showed up and he caught her he would flip the male back into the water. But during the time that no fish was protecting the nest the smaller fish gorged themselves on bass eggs. Hundreds and hundreds of potential big bass were eliminated during the catch and release of one decent sized female. I realize that the survival rate of eggs/fry to maturity is very low, but, in my opinion, sight fishing for bedding fish is way worse for the fishery (and for "those who love the sport") than keeping a few mature bass. But during the spawn I see and hear about people doing this all the time. As you can tell, I am against it.... that's a little bit of a different scenario... that's someone who doesn't have any respect for fishing.
Super User Fishing Rhino Posted July 9, 2009 Super User Posted July 9, 2009 I'll 'fess up. I only read a couple of the articles Glenn posted, one of them being the damage caused when a fish ingests plastics. Regarding that article, fish ingesting plastics has nothing to do with catch and release. In fact, in one place it intimates that discarding "unusable" plastic lures overboard is a dangerous practice, since fish can ingest them. I was a commercial lobsterman for more than two decades. I've seen good years and bad years. I've seen the same regarding the squirrel, fox, raccoon, rabbit, you name it, populations around our home. These are absolutely normal and easily understood or comprehended. Nature has the ability to keep things in balance better than man's feeble efforts ever can. When there is a boom in the population of prey, such as rabbits and squirrels, you can dependably predict that a boom in predators will follow. When the prey is reduced by the overpopulation of predators, there will be an insufficient food supply to sustain the predators, and their numbers will diminish, making it possible for prey, not only to survive, but to have a boom in their numbers, beginning the cycle over anew. Disease, most notably rabies has its own way of levelling the playing field. Nature does quite nicely of maintaining resident populations of its critters. There is no reason to think that it cannot do so without man's interventions. The real damage man does to any resource is to over harvest it, beyond what is called a "sustainable catch". A sustainable catch being the amount of harvest that can be taken every year without impacting the census of that species. Interesting concept, since science tells us that there is a natural ebb and flow of populations. Around here, dogfish, also known as sand sharks were nothing but a nuisance fish. In late winter, early spring, when they moved into the waters around here, they clogged the gillnets that were targeting codfish. A market developed for dogfish, and at ten cents per pound, gillnetters were making handsome incomes on them. A small netter, forty feet or so, could load their boat with thirty or forty thousand pounds of the dogfish in two or three hours. When lobstering in Buzzards Bay, I'd see them returing to port, the decks heaped high with them. They were overloaded beyond reason. But making three or four thousand dollars for an hours boat ride and a couple of hours of hauling, causes some to throw caution to the wind, particularly on a calm day. Didn't take long, only a couple of years until the dogfish population was devestated. Skates, and monkfish were to follow in the decimation of populations. When the fleet cleaned out one area, they'd move on to the next, wreaking havoc on the fish populations. Seems when these fish were not being harvested, they existed in huge biomass populations. Lobstering, which was my bailiwick, is very interesting. It is controlled primarily not by catch numbers, but by size regulations, and other excellent means such as escape vents which allows undersized lobsters to exit a trap, without being released at the surface by a fisherman. It is claimed that over ninety percent of the legal lobsters are harvested every year in inshore waters. Increases in the size limits allow female lobsters to bear eggs once or twice more before they reach legal size. Does it actually result in an increase in the lobster population? Chances are it does not. Why? Simply because there is only enough food and shelter available in a given area to sustain, not a certain count of lobsters, but a certain total weight of lobsters. Five one pound lobsters can exist where a five pound lobster can. At least that is what science tells us. Having said that, I do believe the size increase is a good thing. It is good because it assures more eggs being put into the ecosystem every year. While year class survival depends upon many factors, the simple math tells us that the more eggs there are, the higher the number that will survive. It is impossible to "underharvest" any fish population, including undesirable species, while it is entirely possible to overharvest any species. Hence, catch and release is neutral. To put any onus of responsibility of those who practice C and R, is to also put the onus on those who do not fish. Survival of the fittest, the process of natural selection, are nature's way of controlling populations, be they animal or vegetable. I will concede to this one point. If any animal population is harmed by man's actions, then it does behoove us to eliminate the cause, whenever possible. And no, I am not a tree hugger.
Super User CWB Posted July 9, 2009 Super User Posted July 9, 2009 C and R, was really started by Scott and BASS. when all those early pics of Mann,Dance and Linder were coming out with huge stringers of dead bass. Then the tournaments were definitely depleting the lakes they were fished on, it was good ecology and good business for the pros to go this route Then we have the big bass guys, who are all about CandR , to the point if any of us other fisherman talk about keeping one, they go on like I sold my kid to an alien spaceship. I have eaten fillets off an 8 lb bass, tasted no different then the smaller ones. Killing an occasional fish, even in a pond is no big deal, and may just help that body of water out in the long run I could be wrong, but I believe the Lindner brothers and In-Fisherman coined the phrase "Catch and Release" prior to B.A.S.S. adopting their own phrase "Don't Kill Your Catch" I have been a subscriber to both mags for as long as I remember. But you could be right, MOOK. After all, you are a bit older than me! ;D Anyway, I keep all fish that are gut hooked and/or bleeding badly. After cutting the line on a guthooked and bleeding bass some years ago only to find him washed up on shore the next day with hook still intact, I realized it would be a waste to release a fish that had a very high probability of dieing anyway. Get a few on tipups in winter pike fishing that swallow the hook and I keep them also. They do taste good.
Super User WRB Posted July 9, 2009 Super User Posted July 9, 2009 In-Fishermen started in 1975, B.A.S.S. started using C & R in 1973. Contributed articles to In-Fishermen back when it started, Linder's are good folks. WRB "Rare Chance at a World Record". "Horizontal Jigging".
Super User Muddy Posted July 9, 2009 Super User Posted July 9, 2009 In-Fishermen started in 1975, B.A.S.S. started using C & R in 1973. Contributed articles to In-Fishermen back when it started, Linder's are good folks. WRB I have the first 4 years, Which are yours? What Editions and numbers? Under your name? Do you have a way of getting that formula to success booklet, that came with the first year,lost mine in New Orleans :-[ It was a booklet, came with 1st edition something like Fish+Location+Presentation=?
Super User WRB Posted July 10, 2009 Super User Posted July 10, 2009 A Rare Chance for a World Record; Book#64, 1985, Dec/Jan, pg 134-144. Horizontal Jigging; Feb 1995, pg 144-147. E mailed copies. I do have the original Segment 1, Study report 1, it's 45 pages and could scan it, not a booklet. WRB
Super User Muddy Posted July 10, 2009 Super User Posted July 10, 2009 Thanks anyway. There was a booklet, somewhere in 75. I had it and left it in a drum bag of all things. I would love to get that back as it ruins the complete collection. This is the only collection of anything I have. I don't have those older mags in tact, justy the first 4 years, I thought thats what you meant
LloydTheFisher Posted July 17, 2009 Posted July 17, 2009 So i was fishing one of my usual ponds when a guy across from me caught a beautiful bass, my guess around 5 or 6 lbs... he looked around to see if i was watching then sneakily took off with the bass in hand... I've only been fishing a few years now and that would've been by far my best fish, but now I'll never get a chance at it... I know there are laws regarding catch and release, and judging by the size of the fish it was probably legal for him to keep it, but its just frustrating to me, a relatively new fisherman, to know that I won't ever be able to catch that beautiful fish and that it had to die... It made me wonder what people do with bass like that when they keep them? I know you don't need the actual bass to make a replica, only pictures, so other than that all I can guess is to eat it?... but never really heard of bass as great food... I have eaten bass and it is good. As long as it is legal size it is OK to take.
LloydTheFisher Posted July 17, 2009 Posted July 17, 2009 Good for you! I am leaving this alone, it is getting to messy. The next time I keep a legal fish, with my license properly displayed I don't care what you or anyone else thinks Have A good evening I am with you on this Muddy. I keep all bass over the limit depends where I fish at the highest has been 20". I will never through that back in if I ever catch it. More food for the littler ones so they can get big. More food for me and my family. Bass is a delicacy for me. I was told it helps the lake when you take the older ones out when they are monsters, plus, they will die of old age sooner or later then only the catfishes enjoy them.
Jake. Posted July 17, 2009 Posted July 17, 2009 I was told it helps the lake when you take the older ones out when they are monsters, plus, they will die of old age sooner or later then only the catfishes enjoy them. Not true. Keeping the smaller legal bass and releasing the big ones helps the fishery. You want the large fishes' genetics passed on through the spawn as many times as possible.
Super User J Francho Posted July 17, 2009 Super User Posted July 17, 2009 I was told it helps the lake when you take the older ones out when they are monsters, plus, they will die of old age sooner or later then only the catfishes enjoy them. Not true. Keeping the smaller legal bass and releasing the big ones helps the fishery. You want the large fishes' genetics passed on through the spawn as many times as possible. Let me offer another viewpoint that also involves releasing the big ones. Wouldn't that big fish, since its obviously old enough to have spawned many times, have already passed its genes? I mean, its genes aren't any different from when its a 12" to when its 24", right? I feel since that particular fish "made it" that it should be handled carefully, and released. its a one in a millions fish, literally, considering the number of fry that are produced. Here is another thing, while genetics certainly play some part in a fish's maximum size, environment and forage play a much larger part. Just some food for thought... I do honestly think that smaller, just above the legal size taste better. Yes, I've eaten bass, and I prefer smallmouth. Not something I do with any regularity, so don't get all up in arms.
Super User roadwarrior Posted July 17, 2009 Super User Posted July 17, 2009 Yes, I've eaten bass, and I prefer smallmouth. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Super User J Francho Posted July 17, 2009 Super User Posted July 17, 2009 Yes, I've eaten bass, and I prefer smallmouth. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! LOL, didn't I say, don't jump on me!!!! Just telling the truth....I don't personally kill bass to eat, but if the opportunity to try one presents itself, why not? So everyone here is clear, all but three bass that I've caught in the past several years have been released.
Lynx Posted July 17, 2009 Posted July 17, 2009 Sacramento, California As much as I hate to say it (Due to a recent disagreement), I have to agree with "Muddy," on this one. I do enjoy the sport of landing Bass, & there's nothing more I enjoy then taking the boat out & spending the day on the water. I release way more fish then I ever keep. (My release to keep ratio 20-30/1: which equals about one every 2 weeks: Bass only). I do enjoy the taste of fish, & Bass over an open flame...well there's nothing better in my book. Its my personal choice (Just like its yours too or not) to enjoy fish as a fine meal, if you think that is bad you might not get along with me in any case then, I usually keep all other LEGAL SIZED fish that I hunt for. These include Striped Bass, Steel Head, Salmon (When Legal-Not Legal in the state of California at this time), Trout, Sturgeon, Halibut, the occasional Catfish & Shark. (I am BIG, BIG on fishing). My Fishing License total cost: License $42 & change, California Delta-Bay Enhancement Stamp $6.50, California Ocean (Salt Water) Enhancement Stamp $6.50, 2 Pole License Stamp 12.50, + $7 Steel Head Card. (You don't even want to guess how much my yearly hunting license costs). I think with all that I pay for my licensing every year I have the right to keep any legal size fish that I want, & its your choice if you want to do it to. AS FOR PEOPLE NOT SPORTING A FISHING LICENSE & CLEARLY DONT HAVE ONE (THAY SHOULD BE VISIBLE ABOVE YOUR WAIST LINE) CALL FISH & GAME, THESE PEOPLE HAVE NO RIGHT TO RUIN THE THINGS THAT WE PAY FOR. GOOD LUCKS TO YOU IN CATCHING THE "BIG KAHUNA."
Elite Image Fishing Posted July 18, 2009 Posted July 18, 2009 I agree with previous posts on this topic. Its important to keep bass and release bass, its the balance that keeps fishing healthy. I also agree that how much we spend is irrelevant and depending where you fish, HOPEFULLY there is more than one 5lber for you to catch. Lastly, as long as he was a license carrying angler and respected all legal limits its his business what he did with his fish. It stinks that topics get so heated, let's just fish.
Recommended Posts