Subject: Re: Mortality and Catch and Release

From: [email-masked] (Don Wise)
Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 01:19:41 GMT

On Sun, 5 May 1996 23:29:42 GMT, MICHAEL BUTLER <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>
>
>In the past months, I've seen much debate on the effectiveness of catch 
>and release and the potential harm of live-release tournaments.  A growing 
>body of literature has revealed that these are complex issues.  I have 
>summarized a number of studies which indicate that mortality rates of 
>fresh water fish released by anglers range from 0.0% to 33.0%.  While 
>the studies cited below represent only a fraction of the research 
>done in this area, several trends are evident:
>
>* mortality is greater for fish caught on live bait (with single hooks) 
>than for those caught on artificial baits with one or more treble hooks;

Gee, I catch Bluegill (and many other types of fish) and throw them in
a bait tank, and only about 1 in 100 die. Surely my bait tank can't be
as good an ecosystem as a natural body of water, so the survival rate
in it should be less than when they are released.

And by the way. I did not see any mortality rates for Catfish. Did you
know that 100% of all Catfish taken on trotlines either die on the
trotline, or die because the guy running the trotline eats them.

What's the REAL issue with catch and release - That fact that fish are
being killed, or the fact that the kind of fish that you fish for are
being killed? If it's the former, then why is the REAL slaughter of
fish by trotline being overlooked?

Don Wise

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 10:58:06 GMT

Well, I think mortality rates for catch-and-release are irrelevant.
The bottom line in any analysis is that the fish stand a better chance
back in the river than in a frying pan!

Even if only 50% of all returned fish survive, that means there will
be 50% more fish in the water.  

The only real alternative is to stop fishing entirely, if we're that
concerned.

For myself, I practice catch-and-release-without-touching.
I use barbless flies, and barely take the fish out of the water.  I
don't hold them at all unless I have to, and just flick the hook out
of their mouths.

Speaking of catch-and-release, why the hell are those idiotic 3-foot
deep "traditional" nets still used so often?  If you've ever seen a
fish in the bottom of one of those, you've seen a fish tortured.
They ought to be outlawed and the shallow, catch-and-release-style
nets mandated.

Scott Wilkinson
Montgomery County, Maryland

---

From: TheMuskyDude <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 11:11:47 -0500

[email-masked] wrote:
> <snip>

Oh come on, it's not the nets fault it's the jerk with the net in their hands.  If you try to net 
a fish that is still too "green", and then hoist it into the bottom of the boat (or shore) then 
yes the fish will thrash and roll up, which isn't a good thing.  If the fish is played properly 
and is sufficiently tired when netted, then left in the water, you can get the hook out 
then lift and release them without any more damage than any other net.

Vince

---

From: T-Bone <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 12:43:59 -0600

> > They ought to be outlawed and the shallow, catch-and-release-style

The type of net is the least of the fish's worries.

If you wanna catch and release from a drift boat in swift water you
better have an idiot net and not one of those dinky little jobs....

TimW

---

From: Ryan Jordan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 09:43:31 -0600

Ryan Jordan wrote:

> > You also cannot compare mortality rates between pond fish and
> > river fish, as rivers are (usually) colder and flowing, placing
> > more demands on the fish in terms of its ability to recovery
> > from physical stress.

Sean Clancy replied:

> Why not?  Most of the trout in the rivers are those found in
> surrounding lakes and ponds within particular watersheds ... Thus,  you can study the differences
> between lakes and rivers if the fish are of the same population and both
> habitats are accessible by the population in question.

I was not referring to any difference in strain or species, but 
one of environmental stresses related to the flow regime of a 
fish's habitat. Regardless of whether it is a pond fish or river 
fish that is released, that fish will have an easier time 
recovering in still water than in flowing water.

rJ

---

From: Sean Clancy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 11:05:00 -0230

> recovering in still water than in flowing water.
	Would that not depend on the type of salmonid,  the season at 
which the fish is caught,  and the temperature of the water in both 
habitats?  In general,  most salmonid fishes prefer water 
temperatures that are cool and/or cold (between 4 - 20 degrees 
celcius)[Scott and Crossman 1973] so releasing fish in the "colder flowing" 
waters of a stream or 
river may in fact increase the animals probability of survival.  From my 
experience with trout,  they seem to 
recover much faster in flowing water than in the still water of lakes 
and/or ponds.  However,  as mentioned above this depends on which stage 
of developement the fish is in and the season the fish is caught.  I am 
not sure, but I think there are a few new studies (waiting publication) 
>from  New Brunswick, Canada,  dealing with mortality of C and R trout and 
salmon in rivers and lakes.

my $0.02 worth,

fish on

s.

Why does a dog lick itself?  Because it can!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Clancy,  BSc.                          __===////====//___    /|
Memorial University of Newfoundland        -  o               ---/|
St. John's,  Newfoundland. A1B 3X9        WWWW }}}------==========|     
		        		    "====\\\______\\     \|

---

From: [email-masked] (Kari E. Benson)
Date: 06 Jun 1996 15:41:10 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> Ryan Jordan <[email-masked]> writes:
   >   If you have a mortality rate as high as 50% when you are C&R you are
   > doing something seriously wrong. I have fished c&r for the last six
   > years and I know my mortality rate is less than 1%. I am involved in
   > three tagging programmes, one tagging Pike on loch Lomond (all my tagged
   > pike have been recaptured some more than once)and two programmes
   > involving sharks,skate and rays which have a recapture rate of about
   > 48%.

   Mortality rates cannot be compared between Pike and Trout. Trout 
   are much more sensitive to environmental stresses.

   If we really want to get at this catch/release/mortality issue, 
   we should probably stay focused upon trout in rivers, since this 
   represents the most crucial case.

Also, I think that we need to clarify what we mean when we are
referring to C&R.  Mortality rates from tournaments (when fish have
been out of the water several times, weighed, and carried in a live
well) might be higher than mortality rates where one catches a fish,
gets a quick look and puts it back (often in such cases the fish is
not even directly handled and is only out of water for 10 seconds or
so).  Presumably for mortality studies, the fish need to be handled
more, and marked (floy tags?).  Marking itself can be somewhat
invasive.  This might artificially inflate estimates of C&R mortality.

Any papers with such comparisons in the primary literature?

Kari
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                 
     ><>        ><>            Kari Benson 
           ><>                
            ><>                Nebraska Behavioral Biology Group
    ><>    ><>                 University of Nebraska-Lincoln
        ><>                    Lincoln, NE 68588-0118
                               [email-masked]
     <><      ><>              (402) 472-0089
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

---

From: David Holt <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 18:02:41 +0100

In article <[email-masked]>, "Kari E. Benson"
<[email-masked]> writes
>Any papers with such comparisons in the primary literature?

 Hi,
     When we tag a Pike its out the water for about 60 seconds, its
weighed,measured and tagged in the boat then returned.The skate are
gaffed in the wing, lifted into the boat weighed,measured and tagged but
due to the size of them (average over 100lb)it can take a few minutes to
take all the nessesary data, the fish are all tagged with floy taggs, T-
bar on the pike, dart on the skate.
  The updates on the pike tagging are published in the Pike Anglers club
of G.B. magazine "Pikelines". The results of phase 1 of the skate
tagging are available from  the Natural history dept,Glasgow
Museum,Scotland.

                                           Davy
-- 
David Holt

---

From: Bruce Victor Klette <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 12:06:00 +0200

> recovering in still water than in flowing water.

Generally speaking, trout recover faster in flowing water because of 
increase oxygen intake.  They also recover faster in their optimum 
temperature zones (Between 10 and 16 degrees celcius)

BvK

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 06:38:56 GMT

On 29 May 1996 12:41:59 GMT, [email-masked] (Chris Nmi Renna)
wrote:

(snip)

>>With all due respect, your theory is fatally flawed.  
>>It only makes sense when all things are equal, that is
>>the C&R guys and C&K guys fish the same amount of time.
>
>Do you have any statistics to show that C&R fisherman fish,
>on average, many more hours than C&K fishermen? I'd really be
>interested if you do. I'd agree with you if you could
>show me that the C&R guys fish on the order of 2 to 10 times
>as much. My experience is that there are few
>strictly C&K or C&R folks out there. So I can't really say
>that I know of any real difference in the number of hours
>that one group or the other spends fishing.

(snip)

>I apologize if my questions about statistics have been answered previously.
>I am fairly new to this debate.
>
>>TimW
>
>Christopher Renna

With regards to C&K and C&R, I would like to suggest the following...

"Once the whole is divided the parts demand names...wise is the one
who embraces the whole" 
-Anon.

***********************************************************************

R/

cedro wooley
«<>»«<>»«<>»«<>»«<>»«<>»«<>»«<>»«<>»«<>»«<>»«<>»«<>»

All great societies began with a successful warrior.

«<>»«<>»«<>»«<>»«<>»«<>»«<>»«<>»«<>»«<>»«<>»«<>»«<>»