Subject: C&R Environmental Vandalism??: An Open Invitation

From: Craig Arfman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 16:20:38 +1300

> Brett Rowley wrote:<snip>
> 
> I know the people that did most of those old and outdated studies on
> largemouth bass personally.  I will call them and see if they care to
> comment on your using them as "Documentation".  I bet they might not 
> be willing to support those any longer.
> 
> Brett

Why did they publish their research if they didn't believe it was 
relevant and accurate?

I look forward to hearing what they have to say and invite them to 
address these groups directly, rather than through you, so their
comments are not selectively interpreted or otherwise misrepresented.

While you are at it Brett, ask them to disclose who has financially 
contributed to their studies, and are they "sport" fishers themselves? 
Then ask Maurice Muoneke and Michael Childress if they still support 
their review of 132 hooking mortality studies conducted by a large 
number of fisheries scientists. Then ask yourself whether "fighting" a 
fish that can't fight back is so much fun, that it's worth leaving our 
oceans, streams and lakes littered with dead and dying fish.
- Craig Arfman

(From a previous posting)
Craig Arfman wrote:
in evaluating any one study it's always worth noting who is PAYING
for the study, frequently these studies are paid for by recreational 
fishing interests.

I may be overly cynical sometimes, but does seem in some cases
scientific "truth" is bought and sold just like any other commodity. 
Nonetheless when fisheries biologists conduct a summary of 132   
hooking mortality studies and find an average C&R death rate of 10%,
I don't see how it can ALL be discounted.

(30% OF ALL STUDIES SHOWED HOOKING MORTALITY
AT 20% OR MORE, 48% OF STUDIES SHOWED MORTALITY AT MORE THAN 10%, 41%
showed hooking mortality at to be 5% or less. "Hooking mortality: A
review for recreational fisheries" published in volume two of Reviews
in Fisheries Science". by Maurice Muoneke and Michael Childress

76% mortality - Holbrook J.A. II, 1975 Bass fishing
tournaments in H. Clepper editor. Black bass biology and
management. Sport Fishing Institute, Washington

43% mortality - Childress, M.W. Catch-and-Release Mortality
of White and Black Crappie, Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department, Heart of the Hills Research Station, Junction Star
Route Box 62, Ingram, TX 78025 Symposium Proceeding,
Humboldt State University, Arcata, California

32% Mortality - Mays, B.E. 1972 Evaluation of large scale
release programs with special reference to bass fishing
tournament, Southeastern Association of Fish and Game
Commissioners, proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Conference.
Oct 22-25, 1972: 325-332

38% Mortality - Rutledge, William P, and David L.Pritchard.
1977. Hooking Mortality Of Largemouth Bass Captured By
Artificial Lures And Natural Bait. Pages 103-107 In R.A.
Barnhart and T.D. Roelofs, editors. Catch-And-Release Fishing
As A Management Tool, Symposium Proceedings, Humboldt
State University, Arcata, California

33% Mortality - blue marlin - Billfish telemetric study by
Barbara Block and Frank Carey, supported by; The Billfish
Foundation, The Pacific Gamefish Research Foundation, and
the National Science Foundation, 1989 (unpublished)

---

From: [email-masked] (Flip214)
Date: 26 Apr 1996 09:14:26 -0400

>contributed to their studies, and are they "sport" fishers themselves? 

I know, I said I was going to keep out of this and for the most part I
still am.  But Craig, were you the second gunman on the grassy knoll? 
Does everything have to be some kind of politically influenced alterior
agenda?  Could it be that there is another human being that merely wants
to present the facts?  Sure money influences a lot of things, In our old
battles I provided studies where C&R fishing proved much more economically
benificial to economies than C&K.  I'm sure you're not convinced but since
then I can name 2 more countries that have banned long lining in favor of
sport fisherman.  You present some outstanding arguments, I'm certain many
anglers have no idea about stock assesments and mortality rates, but sport
fishing is a large part of most cultures.  (It's my living)  I agree with
many of your numbers, I also think my personal mortality percentage is
much lower than average.  (I feel half of the game is getting a clean
release as quickly as possible, I even keep a stopwatch in the fly bridge)
 I tend to believe these studies are dated, Perhaps if more people were
aware  of these disputed mortality rates which every one agrees should be
lowered.  More people would work in that direction.  Certainly, they'll
never meet your standards but even you must admit an improvement would be
bennificial.  I'm certain you will also admit, sport fishing is not going
away any time soon.  In fact all of the numbers I can get suggest it is
more popular than ever.  And yes, I'd be happy to provide references if
you like.
Good Luck
Greg

---

From: [email-masked](brett rowley)
Date: 26 Apr 1996 12:08:54 GMT

>the National Science Foundation, 1989 (unpublished)

OK dude,

Your on.  I'll begin making calls today.

One thing, I have no experience with, or knowledge of billfishing and
will restrict my comments and questions to largemouth bass.  

Like I posted to this thread awhile back, if catch and release didn't
work for bass, I'd be unemployed. or at least in anothe r aspect of
fisheries.

Brett Rowley
Fisheries Biologist
Great Lakes Sportfishing Resort and Koi Breeding Farm
West Columbia, Texas

---

From: [email-masked] (Fishb412)
Date: 26 Apr 1996 18:31:05 -0400

Fact:  Catch and keep kills 100% of fish.  Any lesser kill that  results
>from  C&R fishing is conservation of the resource.  
.

---

From: [email-masked] (Roberta Hatch)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 20:11:23 GMT

>Why did they publish their research if they didn't believe it was 

	At the time it was published.  It could very well be outdated.

>comments are not selectively interpreted or otherwise misrepresented.

	You sound like you might be related to Russell Lawrence.

>contributed to their studies, and are they "sport" fishers themselves? 

	If that were the case and, you support that study, what would
that tell you?  Hmmm?

>oceans, streams and lakes littered with dead and dying fish.

	This really sounds like someone that has no clue what he's
talking about.

	Anyone else notice all the waters of the world littered with
dead and dying fish?  Anyone else ever hook a fish that had another 
hook in its mouth from a previous 'fight?'

	Does anyone really think these idiots will ever achive their
goal of a ban on sport or commerical fishing?  I don't think many
people are going to listen to these losers myself.  In fact, I wouldn't
be surprise to read about a few of them getting the crap beat out of 
them after assaulting others on a pier.

	Followups set to talk.politics.animals, a group where loons
like Arfman should hang out.

Bobbi

---
Roberta Hatch						'65 Panhead
Dykes on Bikes, San Francisco, Ca.			(This space for rent)

---

From: Craig Arfman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 08:30:59 +1300

> from C&R fishing is conservation of the resource.

Looked at that way, it is possible to justify catch-and-release 
fishing which leaves our lakes, oceans and streams littered with dead 
and dying fish as "Conservation". Just leaving the fish alone kills NO 
fish. But, apparantly the thrill of "fighting" a fish that can't fight 
back is irresistable to some.
- Craig Arfman

---

From: [email-masked] (Geoff Quaile)
Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 13:19:14 GMT

>> from C&R fishing is conservation of the resource.

I beg to differ on your "fact".  Studies done in Canada have
demonstrated that with proper handling (as little as possible)
survival rates of fish are quite high.

---

From: [email-masked] (Markus Medak)
Date: 1 May 1996 16:20:14 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] 
says...
.
. Just leaving the fish alone kills NO 
>fish. 

Craig,
Just out of curiousity, what exactly is your position on sportfishing? 
 A complete ban, or just a ban on C&R?
--Markus

---

From: Rob Hatcher <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 14:27:10 -0500

> survival rates of fish are quite high.

No, I think the first statement was correct.  Catch and keep kills 100% of the 
fish (unless you have a tank or pond that you transplant them to.)  You were
probably referring to catch and release stats, which we've probably all heard 
ranging from <1% to greater than 50%.  I'd kind of like to think that my C&R
fish all survive, but I expect I lose a few....
-- 
********************************************************************************

	      Rob Hatcher	         [email-masked]

             "Please don't remember me for anything I may have said."

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

---

From: Craig Arfman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 20:23:56 +1300

Flip214 wrote:
> to present the facts?  

Could be. But science can be used for ulterior motives and it is always 
worth noting who is paying for the research. Following is some info
on how money and vested interests influence science re the tobacco 
industry. What I am suggesting is that is is not impossible for "sport" 
fishing interests do do the same. I think discussing hooking mortality 
research results and their ethical implications is worthwhile and 
appreciate your input. Regretfully the latest postings by other 
contributors have also shown this discussion has the potential to 
degenerate into pointless name-calling. Here's hoping that can be 
avoided.
=======
.           RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #464           .
.                    ---October 19, 1995---                     .
.                          HEADLINES:                           .
.              CIGARETTE SCIENCE AT JOHNS HOPKINS               .
.                          ==========                           .
.               Environmental Research Foundation               .
.              P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD  21403              .
.      Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: [email-masked]       .
.                          ==========                           .
. Subscribe: send E-mail to [email-masked] .
.  with the single word SUBSCRIBE in the message.  It's free.   .
.   Permission to repost, reprint or quote is hereby granted.   .
=================================================================

CIGARETTE SCIENCE AT JOHNS HOPKINS

As the scientific evidence piles up, linking chemical exposures
to serious human diseases, many chemical-dependent industries,
such as pesticide purveyors, are searching for a strategy to buy
themselves some time, to put off the inevitable.  They needn't
look far.  The tobacco industry has demonstrated that 40 years of
scientific bad news can be deflected and neutralized with
relative ease.  Roughly half-a-million Americans die each year
>from  tobacco-related illnesses, and this assessment is not
disputed by the federal government, or by thousands of scientific
researchers and physicians, or by the nation's mainstream medical
and health organizations.  Yet the tobacco corporations have
successfully maintained their privilege of selling a product that
kills 10% of everyone who uses it as directed.  What is the
secret of such success?

A key component of the tobacco strategy is scientific research,
funded by the Tobacco Industry Research Committee, which was
formed in 1954 and later was renamed the Council for Tobacco
Research.[1]  Scientific research sponsored by the Council has
served to create and maintain a "scientific controversy"
surrounding questions of tobacco and health. The Council has
funded studies of questions such as, Do some people have a
genetic predisposition to cancer?  Scientific controversy about
tobacco-and-health gives the tobacco industry "plausible
deniability" (a phrase made famous by Richard Nixon in another
context).  Scientific controversy allows the tobacco industry to
insist that the case against their product in not conclusive.
And it gives tobacco corporation executives the wiggle room they
need--to deny that they are cut from the same cloth as drug
dealers and murderers.  For example, an official of the Tobacco
Institute (an industry trade organization) said in 1987 --33
years after the American College of Surgeons identified smoking
as a major cause of lung cancer --"Smoking may cause illness; it
may not. We don't know and we don't think anybody knows."[2]

We call this phenomenon "cigarette science."  Cigarette science
is scientific study that serves the needs of a particular
industry that finds itself beset by scientific bad news.  One
such industry is the pesticide trade.

The pesticide corporations have formed their own
cigarette-science group called RISE (Responsible Industry for a
Sound Environment).  RISE is made up of executives from companies
like Monsanto, Sandoz Agro, DowElanco, Dupont Agricultural
Products, The Scotts Company, and other pesticide manufacturers,
formulators, and distributors.
======
I haven't included the rest of the Cigarette Science article, but I 
think it gives a good indication of one way science can be used for 
dubious purposes. Anotherway science can be misused is illustrated by 
Japan's killing whales inside the Antartic whale sanctuary for 
"scientific" purposes. It has been suggested tag-and-release has a 
similar potential for misuse.

Regards, Craig

> You present some outstanding arguments, I'm certain many

---

From: [email-masked] (John H. Kim)
Date: 2 May 1996 14:08:36 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>,
>appreciate your input. Regretfully the latest postings by other 

I would submit that it is much more difficult to fake a C&R study
than to fake a tobacco study.

There are two stages to studying a population.  The first is to
show correlation - "hey, these two things seem to be related."
Correlation, however, is not causation.  A and B could be correlated 
because A causes B, B causes A, or something else causes both A and B.  
The second stage is to pin down that causation.

Correlation is easy to show.  It often amounts to compiling and
counting numbers from surveys, records, etc.  Once you have those
numbers, there's very little to dispute them (aside from non-
random selection).  They simply are what they are.  People get
graded A-F for doing correlation studies in high school.

Causation is difficult, and sometimes impossible to show.  It
amounts to determining, describing, and proving the method by
which the correlation arises.  You have to hypothesize a mechanism,
explain (usually in molecular detail) how it works, then prove it. 
It is difficult to understand, often involving lifetimes of study,
and can be very confusing to non-experts.  People get Nobel prizes
for successful causation research.  

Most C&R studies are correlation studies.  They don't try to
explain how catching a fish leads to its death (although that is
the underlying assumption).  You catch a bunch of fish and see how
many die.  Then you compare that to how many fish die normally,
and you get a correlation.  In arguing about percent mortality,
we're just arguing how strong the correlation is.  The only ways
to fake this (aside from outright fraud) are procedural.  Once
you've collected the numbers, everything afterwards is pure math. 
You should be able to figure out any procedural anomolies from
reading the study if there hasn't been outright fraud.

The tobacco industry lost the correlation war some 30 years ago.
That's why the labels saying "smoking MAY be hazardous to your
health" (emphasis mine) showed up.  They've been fighting against
causation studies.  Because causation studies are so difficult to
do, it is very easy to fight against them.  They've put (legally 
speaking) the medical community in a position where they have to
prove smoking causes death beyond all doubt, stronger than what's 
required in criminal cases.  If the tobacco industry can dig up
one inconsistency in a study or run another study that shows a
different possible cuase, that's enough to cast some doubt, and
they've deflected that study.

>fishing interests do do the same. I think discussing hooking mortality 

Be careful when you say "not impossible..."  It's a wide brush that
can easily cause you to throw out the baby with the washwater (good
studies with the bad).  You'd be better off finding a single instance
of sportfishing funding corrupting a study.  Then you'll have something
to back up what you say instead of mere speculation, as well as giving
others a starting place to counter your claim.  Otherwise you're
operating in the same realm as those folks claiming aliens control
the government without a shred of evidence.  The publishing of studies
in journals is the first line of defense against fraud.

I mean it's not impossible for a conservation minded researcher doing
these studies to want to stop all manmade causes of death in a fishery.
:)

>> more popular than ever.  And yes, I'd be happy to provide references if

Greg, after all your ruckus over stand-up fishing vs. charter boat
fishing, it's great to see you write a polite, non-inflamatory
argument.  You've just moved up several notches on my respect meter.
:)
-- 
John H. Kim            "I don't want to go there today."
[email-masked]             - overheard outside the Microsoft booth at
[email-masked]          Internet World '95

---

From: [email-masked] (Sue)
Date: 4 May 1996 05:29:34 GMT

I notice that most of the studies you use as are 20 t0 25 years old.
The sport of bass fishing has changed quite a bit since then.  Can 
you cite more recent studies to back up your stace?

Sue

---

From: Craig Arfman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 21:40:43 +1300

John H. Kim wrote:

> I agree. The way to influence the result of a C&R mortality study is to 
use a procedure which is likely to skew the results. Outright fraud 
would be tacky and only shows a lack of imagination. The point I was 
attempting to make is that when Joe Megabucks, who has a million dollars 
wrapped up in his "sport" fishing machine, and is a board member of an 
Organisation representing "sport" fishing interests, hands out a 
research grant, it's in Joe's best interests to select a researcher who 
is pro-C&R. Whatever facts the research yields, he want's to be sure the 
researcher can be counted on for the usual "we gratefully acknowledge 
the assistance of the Megabucks Foundation, .... and we have acquired 
useful data regarding .... and although some mortality occurred this is 
within acceptable limits". Now this is opinion, not scientific fact, but 
Megabucks would be a fool to give money to a researcher unsympathetic to 
his cause.

Megabucks probably pays his boat captain a lot more than the researcher 
earns, and since the researcher is operating in a publish or perish 
environment, compromise and accomodation are simply realistic survival 
and career enhancement strategies.

As a "sport" fisher Megabucks would like to see results indicating not 
that many dead and dying fish are being left at sea, as a result of his 
and other "sport" fishers amusing themselves by fighting fish that can't 
fight back. How to skew the results to show low mortality? Use heavier 
tackle and shorter capture times in the experiment than are normally 
used by "Sport" fishers. Only use sonic tags on the fish which appear 
most healthy, and least likely to die. Keep post-release observation 
periods as short as possible. 

There was an article in an Australian "sport" fishing magazine lately 
which reported on a study which "proved" only a 3 percent C&R mortality. 
Kahawai were kept in a rock pool for a one hour observation period after 
being caught. 3% died within one hour after being caught. The magazine 
concluded that this proved only 3% died as a result of C&R, which is, of 
course, an "acceptable" level of mortality. Since post-release mortality 
remains relatively high for the first 24 to 48 hours, and then tapers 
off, limiting the observation period to 1 hour ensures the mortality 
count is lower than if the fish had been held for a longer period.

Many, perhaps most "sport" fishers would not question such a conclusion, 
(3 % total mortality) or ask themselves whether the procedure was 
designed to produce skewed or misleading results.

As of tommorrow I will be off the Net for a while as I am shifting 
houses. This discussion on science and C&R mortality studies was just 
starting to get good. I would certainly be willing to continue it when I 
return. - Craig Arfman

---

From: [email-masked] (John H. Kim)
Date: 9 May 1996 19:07:03 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>,
>would be tacky and only shows a lack of imagination. The point I was 

Has anybody else noticed postings from Netscape that include quotes
merge the first line of the reply into the quote?

If you're following up an article via Netscape, please include a
leading blank line (an extra carriage return at the beginning) to
avoid this problem.

>Megabucks would be a fool to give money to a researcher unsympathetic to 

I'm sure things like this happen, but I think you're being overly
cynical of people.  If Megabucks is a fool to give money to an
unsympathetic researcher, they're applying the same logic to that
researcher as you are to Megabucks.  That is, they/you are assuming
the researcher/Megabucks is inherently dishonest, and will sacrifice 
their integrity to achieve a political/financial objective.

Also, I'm not so sure they'd be a fool to hire an unsympathetic
researcher.  If they do, and the results come up against them,
then they can say the researcher never like them to begin with.
If the results come up for them, it's a publicity coup.

On the other hand, say they hire a sympathetic researcher.  If
the results come up against them, it's really bad.  If the results
come up for them, then they face criticism along your lines.

                         | Results against | Results for
-------------------------+-----------------+-------------
Sympathetic researcher   |      bad        |  uncertain
Unsympathetic researcher |   uncertain     |    good

It seems the only way they can get good press is to hire an
unsympathetic researcher, and the only way to get bad press is
to hire an sympathetic researcher.  Seems to me the smart thing
to do is hire an unsympathetic researcher.  (This is highly
idealized, ignoring a lot of factors, so don't take it as the
say-all end-all :)

And Megabucks Foundation's short-term interest is continued C&R,
but their long-term interest is in the survival of the fishery. 
The latter doesn't bode well if they skew studies.

>From  what I've seen of academia and research, if you're caught
faking data, your career is basically over.  You have to weigh
that in with the above factors.

>periods as short as possible. 

These all should show up in a description of the procedures used.
Your first example is actually useful for comparing the effect of
tackle and capture times on mortality.

>concluded that this proved only 3% died as a result of C&R, which is, of 

No matter what the magazine says, the 3% figure does provide a
baseline - after 24 hours, at least 3% of the fish will have died,
probably more.  I agree with you it's disgraceful that someone would
use data deceptively like that, but that doesn't mean the data are
useless.  It's all in the interpretation; in this case, interpretation
outside the control of those who did the study.

>starting to get good. I would certainly be willing to continue it when I 

Craig, I think you might get further if you toned down the rhetoric.
I think you have a good point - that just because you C&R a fish
doesn't mean it'll live, and everyone should strive to minimize C&R
mortality, even to the point of banning C&R if the data support it.
But your tactics leave much to be desired.  You're making many more 
enemies than converts.  Yes the literal definition of 'decimate' is
to kill one in ten, but it's a charged word carrying a lot of emotional
baggage with it.  Just like 'discriminate' literally means to discern
differences (and since everyone except blind folks can discern the
difference between black people and white people, by definition
everyone discriminates).  Stop with the "seas full of dead and dying
fish" quotes and people won't view you so much as threat or wacko. 
When they start taking you seriously is when you'll start winning
them over.
-- 
John H. Kim            "I don't want to go there today."
[email-masked]             - overheard outside the Microsoft booth at
[email-masked]          Internet World '95

From  Thu May 23 14:09:14 EDT 1996
Article: 1849 of sci.bio.fisheries
Path: newz.oit.unc.edu!concert!news-server.ncren.net!news.duke.edu!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!sgigate.sgi.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!news.nstn.ca!coranto.ucs.mun.ca!news.unb.ca!news.nbnet.nb.ca!news
From: <>
Newsgroups: rec.outdoors.fishing,sci.bio.fisheries,alt.fishing
Subject: Re: Question about smallmouth
Date: 10 May 1996 02:16:10 GMT
Organization: NBNet
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nwcsts01c13.nbnet.nb.ca
Xref: newz.oit.unc.edu rec.outdoors.fishing:29154 sci.bio.fisheries:1849 alt.fishing:34397

Kevin! I have heard that all small mouth Bass have red eyes.

[email-masked] (Kevin Fay) writes:
> Do all smallmouth bass have red eyes, hence the term redeye? We are
> trying to settle a dispute. Thanks in advance for any help.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Kevin Fay
>

---

From: "Larry A. Fisher" <[email-masked]>
Date: 10 May 1996 17:33:05 GMT

Let's be realistic here Craig. You just can't stand the fact that all of 
us fishermen (I don't believe in pc either) like to catch and eat fish. 
So what if 10% of the fish die in catch and release. It all involves the 
understanding of the food chain. I guarantee you will not see any beaches 
or shorelines in the Gulf coast of Texas that are littered with all these 
supposed fish bodies. You obviously have not heard of the blue crab. A 
dead fish is devoured in short order in salt water marshes and bays. If 
we just extended your "beliefs and theories" a little bit then one could 
assume that no fish would die, and now we have the salt marsh and bays 
littered with crab bodies. Hey, they gotta eat too. Or don't they count 
with you AR types. I don't like releasing an undersized fish that is 
badly hooked, but that's the law in Texas. I know though that the fish 
will not be wasted, because the crab will feast that day. Fact. Just ask 
Mr. Rowley.

Larry Fisher

---

From: [email-masked] (Jim Powlesland)
Date: 10 May 1996 17:11:57 -0600

from: http://www.ampef.org/news

                    NOT TAKING THE BAIT 

Outdoors columnists around the country have been joyously
lampooning PETA's announcement that it will start a campaign to
end sports fishing this summer (see earlier item, below). Gene
Mueller of The Washington Times predicted in his column May 1,
"With its announcement that it will fight sport anglers, PETA
will soon discover it has committed a major tactical error that
can spell its doom. Good for everybody."

-- 
Jim Powlesland                  | OFFICE:  403-220-7937
University Computing Services   | MESSAGE: 403-220-6201
University of Calgary           | FAX:     403-282-9199
Calgary, Alberta CANADA T2N 1N4 | http://www.ucalgary.ca/~powlesla/

---

From: Steve <[email-masked]>
Date: 8 May 1996 22:52:14 GMT

Craig, you believe fishing for food is OK and C&R is immoral and is 
torture. I disagree, if anything it's the reverse.