Subject: Catch and Release Fishing

From: [email-masked] (brett rowley)
Date: 8 Sep 1995 11:58:05 GMT

I read the Argument about C&R billfishing with much interest and
emotion. I wonder if anybody has any comments or observations of how
these arguments might apply to largemouth bass fishing. Catch and
release have been the bywords of sportfishermen that pursue the bass
coast to coast. I have my own feelings and opinions on the subject. I
am the manager of a large privately owned sportfishing resort in
Southeast Texas. We have to practice C&R due to the large number of
users that would quickly deplete the population if the fish were
dressed and eaten. I am also a sportfisherman that practices C&R for
some species, and bring others home to feed my family. I see both sides
of the argument, but reserve my opinions at this time. As I lack the
time and financial resources to pursue billfishing, I would be very
curious about how fisheries managers felt about the same issue in
relation to largemouth and other freshwater species. Hoping to see some
more posts,
Brett Rowley
Fisheries Biologist
Great Lakes Koi breeding Farm
West Columbia, Texas

---

From: Steven Poet <[email-masked]>
Date: 8 Sep 1995 19:07:09 GMT

IMHO, as with most anything, moderation is the best route (how's that
for sitting on the fence);).  Seriously, C&R folks tend to get on a
high horse occasionally and are proud that they are protecting the
fishery.  In reality, they are still killing fish.  A person who lands
30 trout in a fly fishing day trip and puts them all back will kill
more fish than the person who only lands 2 fish and eats them.  The 
only way to protect a fishery is to close it to fishing.  I guess you
could require hookless flies.  At least you would get to see the
strike.

---

From: [email-masked] (NDucket)
Date: 8 Sep 1995 22:13:53 -0400

>could require hookless flies.  At least you would get to see the

'the only way to protect a fishery is to close it to fishing' ????  Why do
you have to completly close a fishery to protect it?  Why can't it just be
utilized wisely and at an optimum sustainable yield?  The fish maintain
their stocks, people get to fish for fun or for food, everyone's happy.  I
realize this practice is easier said than done, but saying 'just close the
fishery to fishing' is a cop out.

---

From: [email-masked] (T J Kenchington)
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 1995 21:28:38 GMT

Far too often, people confuse "fish" with "fishing". The only way to 
"protect fish" may be to close the stock to fishing (and protect its 
habitat, avoid introducing predators and competitors etc. etc.). But a 
closure does not "protect a fishery", it removes it entirely.

Still, if the resource is really in trouble, a closure can be the only 
responsible option.

Trevor Kenchington

NDucket ([email-masked]) wrote:
: >more fish than the person who only lands 2 fish and eats them.  The 
: >only way to protect a fishery is to close it to fishing.  I guess you
: >could require hookless flies.  At least you would get to see the
: >strike.   

: 'the only way to protect a fishery is to close it to fishing' ????  Why do
: you have to completly close a fishery to protect it?  Why can't it just be
: utilized wisely and at an optimum sustainable yield?  The fish maintain
: their stocks, people get to fish for fun or for food, everyone's happy.  I
: realize this practice is easier said than done, but saying 'just close the
: fishery to fishing' is a cop out.

--