Subject: C&R - Conservation or Environmental Vandalism?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 95 16:48:02 NZS

>Date sent:        Thu, 7 Sep 1995 10:08:00 -0400
>From:             [email-masked]
>Subject:          Re: Tuna and Marlin

Captain Greg, since we are debating the environmental effects of 
catch-and-release fishing and the ethics involved in two different 
newsgroups rec.outdoors.fishing and sci.bio.fisheries, I have 
cross-posted to several groups which may find this discussion relavent 
(apologies in advance if I have wasted any bandwidth here). 

>What happened? did you have some kind of religious experience out on the
>water one day?  Is this the same person that was sharing your striped
>marlin tactics and favorite lures with me?
>There is no argument against your way of ensuring the fishes survival, 
Of
>course not fishing would solve the problem of any depleted pelagic fish
>stock.  (Except there would be no way to document this if everyone 
stopped
>fishing, so how would we really know?)

Greg I am afraid you have missed the point here. I am making the 
distinction between those who fish to harvest food, vs. catch-and-release 
only fishers whose primary motivation is to amuse themselves by fighting 
an animal whose only defence is to try to flee. Given that the 
catch-and-release hooking mortality for marlin would appear to be 15 
percent and upwards, the net impact of C&R oriented practitioners such as 
yourself is to leave a lot of dead marlin rotting on the bottom.

Considering we are going through a resource squeeze for seafood and 
fossil fuels, the activity you endorse which involves squandering large 
quantities of fossil fuels for the dubious feat of fighting a fish that 
can’t fight back, does NOT qualify as a conservation program IMHO.  
Billfish C&R programs could just as accurately be described as a 
decimation program. With millions of people starving to death each year 
worldwide and the planet’s population increasing, it is hard to place a 
higher value on billfish as entertainment, than as a food source.

If  billfish C&R programs were discontinued stocks could still be 
estimated from both recreational and longline Catch Per Unit of Effort 
(CPUE) data. NMFS Southwest fisheries center has been doing this for 
years.

>If this is truly your position than I feel it is admirable, I do not 
agree
>with it at all, but you are certainly entitled to try to convince others
>to see things your way.

>:One thing for sure - the best way to ensure a fish's survival is simply 
>:to leave it alone. I get real uncomfortable when I here people use the 
>:"any chance of survival is better than none" justification. That kind 
of 
>:platitude by catch-and-release advocates encourages a lot of 
destruction,

>:and wastage. But then again when people amuse themselves by "fighting" 
a 
>:fish that can't fight back, and whose only defence is to try to flee, 
>:those kinds of platitudes are to be expected.

>:I  had been thinking about that too. Nice to know that it works. The 
>:lure hookup % on striped marlin can get really frustrating, and I've
tried 
>:every trick in the book. Was he using the 
>:softhead to keep the mackeral from coming apart at that speed and 
>:then fishing it like bait after the strike (freespool, stop the boat, 
>:wait for the pause, etc.)??  Did he mention if he was  using both 
halves 
>:of the moldcraft over the bait or just the outside one??

>This is the same author?  Don't you think it is a little hypocritical to
>preach leaving the fish alone and then worry about your hookup %?

Greg - we both share an interest in marlin fishing techniques, but we are 
diametrically opposed in our motivations and intentions. I fish for 
marlin as a way of putting food on the table for family and friends. As a 
catch-and-release only fisher you fish for other reasons, which would 
appear to be the thrill of fighting an animal which can’t fight back, 
knowing full well that some of them are going to die as a result of their 
ordeal. Some would consider that a form of environmental vandalism.

>The long and short is that fishing does involve killing, (so does eating 
a
hamburger)
>the ocean is a resource that in my opinion can and should be responsibly
harvested.  

I am not a against killing when it involves harvesting food. I am however 
against the needless killing and senseless wastage of food resources, 
which your activities as a catch-and-release practitioner involve.

>As far as sportfishing is concerned it is simply that sport. 

I’m not sure I see the logic in that one.
 
>All of the data I can find shows that billfish stocks are not over
>exploited and the survival rate for properly released fish is higher 
than
>you might expect.  

Well in that case please post the data so we can all see it.

>The major pressure to billfish population comes from
>comercial longliners who simply throw dead marlin and sailfish (and a 
huge
>number of sharks) back in the ocean.  These fish have a near zero 
survival
>rate when hooked for 24 hours.  I have seen the data about recreational 
vs
>comercial fisherman and the numbers gathered by each, but in respect to
>Tuna and Marlin there was no data.  Marlin are not always recorded as a
>comercial catch and are almost never harvested by recreational anglers. 

Greg - It appears you are viewing the fishing world through Palm 
Beach-tinted glasses, where marlin are reserved as Torture Toys for The 
Rich.  In many places the recreational marlin catch is primarily utilised 
as a food source. A good example is Hawaii. Hawaiian recreational marlin 
fishers have to compete against commercial longliners. The recreational 
fleet still manages a reasonable catch and subject to a nominal 
commercial lisence fee they are allowed to sell their catch. The real 
winner are the consumers who enjoy high quality fresh fish at low cost. 
This would appear to be a far more environmentally sustainable method of 
managing a fishery than what catch-and-release fanatics such as yourself 
advocate. The C&R vision is that  entertainment is more important than 
food, even if some of the entertainees are left rotting on the bottom.

>If you are truly concerned about the frightened fish that is only trying
>to get away, The first step in preventing this might be for YOU to stop
>catching them and then worry about others.
>Greg Cousins
>Ft. Lauderdale FL

I’ll close this posting with some research results on hooking mortality. 
IMHO it indicates that we have an environmental problem here.

Craig Arfman, New Plymouth, New Zealand
[email-masked]

RESEARCH REFERENCES:

39 BILLFISH TAGGED - 6 BILLFISH DEAD (15% MORTALITY)
Mortality on billfish caught and released then tracked with sonic tags

Study   by Dr. Julian Pepperell in 1994 Article: "High-Tech Tagging" by 
Dr. 
Julian Pepperel as published in Australian publication "Modern 
Fishing's Sport and Game Fishing" 1994 pages 10 to 16

Of 39 billfish (blue marlin, striped marlin and sailfish) 33 survived at 
least until the track was lost or abandoned. Six apparantly did not 
survive. Two (a sailfish and a blue marlin) were taken by sharks. Actual 
mortality may have been higher as some fish were tracked for much shorter 
periods than in Block and Carey's study. Determining mortality was not 
the primary consideration, determining the fish's daily movements 
appeared to have been the main objective.

6 MARLIN TAGGED AND RELEASED - 2 DEAD WITHIN 72 HOURS 
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

blue marlin #1 - caught on 180lb test line, 15 minute fight, tracked 67 
hours Fish survived

Blue marlin #2 - caught on 180lb line, 15 minute fight, tracked 43 hours 
before track abandoned due to rough weather. Fish survived.

Blue marlin #3 - tracked 72 hours. Fish survived.

Blue marlin #4 - tag was tracked for 72 hours. Tag was eaten by a 
white-tip shark. Can reasonably conclude fate of marlin was same as that 
of tag. Fish did not survive.

Blue marlin #5 - fish died 24 hours into track and sank to bottom

Blue marlin #6 - fish tracked 122 hours. Fish survived

The researchers used 180lb test on some of the fish to minimise capture 
times as other studies have shown long capture times damage the internal 
organs of marlin. Clearly if one marlin died and sank to the bottom, then 
the other which was killed by a shark, was most killed likely because it 
was less able to evade predators, as a result of capture stress.

10% AVERAGE OVERALL HOOKING MORTALITY IN 132 STUDIES
"Hooking mortality: A review for recreational fisheries" published in 
volume two of Reviews in Fisheries Science". Two Texan biologists, 
Maurice Muoneke and Michael Childress, amassed details of some 132 
studies which were relevant to hooking mortality, and summarised them in 
a number of ways. Some findings: 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. (As reported in 
Modern Fishing, April 1995, p. 27)

---

From: [email-masked] (Flip214)
Date: 8 Sep 1995 10:45:38 -0400

I find it very difficult to believe that I or any other recreational
fisherman can be accused of leaving "a lot of dead marlin on the bottom."
I consider myself to be reasonably accomplished as a marlin fisherman and
have proven so in several tournaments.  In my life as a sport fisherman
the most marlin I have ever taken in a single day is 3.  I have a good
friend who works on a charter boat in St. Thomas which is thought to be
one of the billfish capitals of the world.  They were very proud to catch
100 marlin in a season.  Now given your mortality rate of 15 percent, in
one year they killed 15 fish as all were released.  I also have many
friends working at the NMFS who monitor catches of commercial longliners. 
In one trip they commonly kill 40-50 marlin and DO NOT keep them for food
but rather throw them back in the ocean.  It appears your problem lies
elsewhere.

>can't fight back, does NOT qualify as a conservation program IMHO.  
>worldwide and the planetÆs population increasing, it is hard to place a 

It is very clear by this statement that you and others who believe they
are feeding the world, live no where near the real world.  I would point
you and your feed the world following to The NMFS Green Turtle Billfish
Economic Impact Study.  This study convincingly concluded that the value
of one blue marlin taken commercially as a food source was approximately
$700 to the Bahamian people.  Then they found the value of the same marlin
caught and released by a visiting sport fisherman resulted in an average
inflow of $17,000 to the same economy.  The action taken by the Bahamian
government was to immediately ban all longlining in the Bahamas.  So while
you are feeding a few needy people with your captured marlin (which really
doesn't taste that good any way) the sport fisherman who releases his fish
is actually doing almost 25 times as much for the general public.  I ask
you now who would the people of many of these underdeveloped countries
rather see fishing their waters? You, who will give them 1 or 2 fish that
really isn't that good to eat.  Or me, who is going to spend several
thousand dollars buying fuel, give a few local people work as mates or
crew, spend a few thousand dollars in local hotels and restaurants and
maybe buy some souvenirs while I am there.  I think it goes all the way
back to the "give a man a fish - teach a man to fish" proverb.
What is your REAL problem with catch and release? I think you better find
some other group of people to single out in you attempt to solve the
world's problems because sport fisherman are doing more than most.

Captain Greg

---

From: Steven Poet <[email-masked]>
Date: 8 Sep 1995 19:44:03 GMT

This is a great discussion that impacts much more than just billfish.
The C&R mentality is a good one when used in moderation.  Fishing for
food is fine as well, when done in moderation.  My background is the
Pacific Northwest.  The historic pictures of fisherman posing with
literally hundreds of sea-run cutthroat trout demonstrate outrageously
excessive fishing-for-food practices, and that fishery is suffering 
today, in part, because of overharvest.  C&R fishing kills fish, no one
can argue that point.  The guy in the fishing TV shows who talks about
C&R while dangling his catch out of the water is killing that fish.
Eating your catch is OK as long as you use common sense.  
I hunt and fish, and I eat what I kill.  I practice C&R as well when I 
feel I can release a fish unharmed, or when regulations require it.  
That means it never comes out of the water, is hooked in the lip, and
was fought a short time.

If you C&R fish, you will leave dead fish on the bottom.  That means
both food fishermen and C&R fisherman must use moderation in their
fishing.  Catching 50 to 75 trout in a day (yes, it is possible in the
Pacific Northwest, and I'll deny I ever said it ;)), is not protecting 
the fishery even if you release them all.  Limiting out every day for
a week is not protecting the fishery either.  I truly believe that 
hunters of all types (gun, bow, rod and reel) are some of the most
conservation minded people on the planet.  Protecting the wild stocks
of game animals is in all our best interests.  The only 100% effective
method to do this is to close off fisheries to any harvest method.

---

From: [email-masked] (Jason T. Didden)
Date: 8 Sep 1995 20:56:52 GMT

: decimation program. With millions of people starving to death each year 
: worldwide and the planet’s population increasing, it is hard to place a 
: higher value on billfish as entertainment, than as a food source.

	Exactly what large scale food value do Bill-Fish have?  And I am 
unconvinced that harvesting billfish for food is an environmentally 
friendly practice in the first place.  Is it an efficient method to 
collect food?  I mean, it's one thing to harvest billfish for food if 
there is concrete evidence that they are experiencing over-population 
problems (like suburban deer winter-kill situations) but I have a hard 
time that the pursuit of bill fish would be the best allocation of 
recources, if the goal was to use the least recources to procure the 
greatest foodstuffs at the least cost to the environment.

: >:One thing for sure - the best way to ensure a fish's survival is simply 
: >:to leave it alone. I get real uncomfortable when I here people use the 
: >:"any chance of survival is better than none" justification. That kind 
: of 
: >:platitude by catch-and-release advocates encourages a lot of 
: destruction,

: >:and wastage.

	True, it is not the best senario.  But in the best senario if 
what you are looking at is a narrow view of what is the best thing for 
the environment, we should tear all our cities down, reduce the 
population of humankind to about 1/100 of what it is now, and spend every 
day going individually through the forest pruning out plants that will 
eventually die because they are sick or will be out-competed by near-by 
plants.  This most likely will not happen.  So what we need is some 
comprimise.  And if when I go fishing, I release most of my fish, and 
keep one or two fish every couple of trips, I think that this is a 
comprimise that will help the environment.  If I and all the other 
Potomac River fishers kept even half of the fish we caught, the River 
would be depleted in no time at all.  The other thing is that you can 
usually tell when fish are going to survive & when they are not.  So if 
you keep a few fish, only those you deep hook or exaust, then you both 
return all most all of your fish *and* prevent waste to a great extent.

: diametrically opposed in our motivations and intentions. I fish for 
: marlin as a way of putting food on the table for family and friends. As a 
: catch-and-release only fisher you fish for other reasons, which would 
: appear to be the thrill of fighting an animal which can’t fight back, 
: knowing full well that some of them are going to die as a result of their 
: ordeal. Some would consider that a form of environmental vandalism.

	Some would call your eating such a beautiful animal when it could 
have been released the same thing...

: winner are the consumers who enjoy high quality fresh fish at low cost. 
: This would appear to be a far more environmentally sustainable method of 
: managing a fishery than what catch-and-release fanatics such as yourself 
: advocate. The C&R vision is that  entertainment is more important than 
: food, even if some of the entertainees are left rotting on the bottom.

	Just because it provides consumers with meat at low cost does not 
make it environmentally friendly...refer to my 1st paragraph...  Like the 
captain said, if you are so concerned, recearch the most environmentally 
way to live, and then do that.  I would bet that it is far different from 
what you are doing now.  Not that mine is, but what I want to emphasize 
is that what we need are comprimises, and in many situations C&R is one 
that helps the environment.

						Jason Didden

---

From: [email-masked] (John H. Kim)
Date: 8 Sep 1995 19:50:59 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>, Flip214 <[email-masked]> wrote:

>but rather throw them back in the ocean.

That's a requirement by law, to dissuade people from harvesting marlin
via the "incidental catch" loophole.  It probably could be eliminated
by proper enforcement, but the economics of marlin for food doesn't yet
justify the extra cost.

>government was to immediately ban all longlining in the Bahamas.  So while

So the total economic value from a catch-and-kill/keep (C&K) fisherman
would be $17,700 per marlin, greater than C&R.  The numbers can vary
depending on the market for food, the market for sportfishing, and the
state of the fishery.  There will be situations in which C&R is best,
there will be situations in which C&K is best, there will be
situations in which plain commercial harvesting is best.

Craig's point (up until his latest post - I'm not so sure in that one)
was that as the value of fish for food increases, the merits of C&R
would decline faster than the merits of C&K.  Eventually you reach a
point where C&R is unacceptable behavior.
-- 
___________________________________________________________________________
John H. Kim        "A common mistake that people make when trying to design
[email-masked]       something completely foolproof is to underestimate the
[email-masked]  ingenuity of complete fools." -- Douglas Adams

---

From: [email-masked] (Flip214)
Date: 8 Sep 1995 21:42:20 -0400

>situations in which plain commercial harvesting is best.

This is true for the first fish but  then you have eliminated one fish  to
be caught in the future.  We have all been using a 10 percent mortality
rate for releases (which I do not totally accept) which I would argue may
be relatively sustainable for the population.  By killing everything you
catch there may be less fish to be caught in the future.  Now captain
Charlie may tell captain John that they havent been catching as many fish
here in WallaWalla.  Now the next fish caught may be worth only $14,000
because captain John didn't come over this year.  Resources might be
better spent to figure out how to lower the mortality rates for released
billfish and what steps could be taken to improve the sportfishing in the
area. (sinking all the longliners may be a good start :))
At least now were getting some good stuff in this news group.
Good Luck
Greg

---

From: [email-masked] (John H. Kim)
Date: 8 Sep 1995 22:54:06 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>, Flip214 <[email-masked]> wrote:

>>state of the fishery.
>catch there may be less fish to be caught in the future.

No.  There are fewer fish to be caught in the future *only* if the
total number of fish killed exceeds the growth rate of the fishery.
If you wanted to think of it in terms of a sustainable fishery, say
that X fish could be killed without harming the fishery.  As long as

 (commercial catch) + (C&K catch) + 0.1*(C&R catch)  <  X 

the fishery will be fine (replace 0.1 with whatever percentage you
agree on).  How you divide up the catch into the three groups is what
we're arguing here, not which one will put you over the limit (which
is like blaming the entire deficit on welfare, or defense, or any one
program).  Even if food value were a non-issue, a 10% mortality rate
is just as devastating if you're beyond the point of sustainable
yield, and ten times as many marlin are C&R'ed as are C&K'ed.

I'm not trying to disprove your point.  I'm trying to show that your
point and Craig's point can both be correct.  They are both within the
realm of possibility.  Which one happens to true for a particular case
depends on the food market, sportfishing market, and the condition of
that particular fishery.
-- 
___________________________________________________________________________
John H. Kim        "A common mistake that people make when trying to design
[email-masked]       something completely foolproof is to underestimate the
[email-masked]  ingenuity of complete fools." -- Douglas Adams