It has come to my attention that many on this board do not like to make minor sacrifices...it seems to me that they love to ***** about the other factors effecting the survival of our wild salmonids but can never look in the mirror!

I have over the past few months pointed out a couple minor things that we as fishermen can do to limit our impact.

Surprised, I faced strong resistence and at the same time I did recieve a good amount of support as well.

Yes yes...the vast majority on this board release wild steelhead. Right on! I do commend you (and I am not being sarcastic) but that is something that is very easy to do as, IMO, winter steelhead taste like crap!

But when it comes to wild kings and wild coho, we cant help but kill them if it is legal!

When it comes to something as minor as not holding up an ESA listed chinook salmon for a photo, some people can not help themselves!...and then turn around and give me a hard time for pointing that out.

Some even come up with assonine excuses such as "Well if we can not stop (enter negative imapct here) then why should I do my part?"

We (many agreed with me) are not asking you to stop fishing, we are not asking you to change your gear etc. etc. We are just asking you to leave those poor fish in the water...

Hell...I love to see here photos of dead hatchery springers from the Columbia...it makes me very jealous and gets me salivating as everyone knows that Columbia River spring chinook are orgasmic when BBQed!

I faced even stronger resistence when I brought up the fact that we should eliminate the use of stinger hooks in the summer to protect wild steelhead juvenilles. Much of this resistence came from those who know the harm that the stinger do!

Again, I am not asking you to stop fishing, I am not asking you to stop fishing from your sled and I am even willing to compromise...fish bait but dont fish stingers...

So what gives???...What are you willing to do??...aside from releasing wild steelhead.

It amazes me that this year alone in the Columbia river system we actually have one of the largest returns of hatchery and "wild" springers on record.... Yet in the past um-teen years people have been able to kill and or lift fish from the water for pictures along with the dams and all the predators... Heck there's more of a sportsman impact than ever.

Explain why the runs are doing so well... Is it that they're getting extra air when we hold them for pics? I don't see any data that proves it is tough on a salmon to be out of the water for such a time period... I don't agree with taking a fish from the water for 5-10 minutes then releasing it, but 1-2 minutes, does it really hurt??

If so many of these fish die, whether it's in the columbia or perhaps a smaller trib, why don't we see the dead ones?? You know the ones that were gill hooked etc. etc??? I fish a lot of smaller crystal clear rivers that I've never seen a dead fish in.. No springers, no summer runs even in the warmer water temps.. Rivers that run 200cfs in the summer and are 55-60 degrees and still no dead ones??? Explain why??
Keith

Actually, one thing the state REALLY needs to do is to mark the hatchery fish better. I saw alot of fish caught this last october. I personally kept most of my fish (most had intact adipose and all fins in fact). Guess how many of those fish had snouts cut off by fish checkers??? ALL of them. Hard to weed them out. But, I don't waste the fish, and so far the areas I'm fishing haven't been listed as ESA. But, I fish to eat them occasionally. I don't agree with slaughtering fish just to kill them. And if it's ESA, releasing fish ASAP to limit kill. But I feel alot more studies need to be done, and alot more work needs to be done to segregate the fish they want us to catch and the one's they don't. No use in releasing hatchery fish if we have no idea if we have one or not. I'm all for recovery, and do my part, but at times it's hard to tell which side of line you're on.

1-2 minutes of being hoisted into the air could potentially be detrimental to a salmonid's well-being, because these fish aren't adapted to take in raw air. There is a reason they have gills. I'm sure that if you have been at a lake or tiny stream in the heat of summer, you may have seen trout poking their heads out of the water to gulp down air. However, this is not normal behavior and usually happens when water temperatures are at uncomfortably high levels. For the most part, fish don't surface for air, they open their mouths to breathe.

Run 100 yards and then dunk your face for underwater for 2 minutes and see how 'ya feel. Now to do that to an animal that is only a few pounds...I dont think survival would be guarenteed.

And my question is, what the Hell are you doing to that fish for 2 minutes? :cofused:

I think it is the way you point things out that gets some people wound up. And look......you're doing it again. Don't spaz out, just deliver your message. Ranting and raving doesn't drive the point home any better.

Your right on Sparkey!

We should all just never go fishing again!

Imagine all the stress and strain we put on fish by catching them!

Our pleasure being derived by the fishes panic struggles in fear trying to escape!

What are we thinking?

If you care so much about others hurting every fish they catch, you should lead by example and quit fishing all together!

What good are you doing any wild fish by catching it in the first place? The act of even trying to catch them does them no good at all!

You are only distrubing thier upstream progress!

Do you think you are helping them along their way by catching them?

Point fingers all you want.

Fact is commercials kill more wild fish in one day than the sportsmen will kill with hooking mortality in the whole season!

That fact alone does not give anyone the right to mishandle fish, but I think you are preaching to the choir here buddy.

We seem to have got you a little riled up on this one eh Spark?

You're original statement "Leave 'em in the Water" is solid advice and well taken. We have all witnessed brutal examples of conservationists "releasing" fish, from both the bank and boats.

I think you need to preface it however, with "If you don't know how to properly handle fish".

If Brian and Reiter Rat went down to the Columbia and C & R'd 10 springers I don't think that one of the released fish would perish. They know how to handle fish.

You I cannot speak for Sparkey, maybe it's better you do leave em in.

Lifting the fish out of the water for 5 - 10 SECONDS does no damage, NONE, if its done properly.

Ike

From around the world, some FYI for those who think prolonged air exposure has no effect:

http://www.asf.ca/release/science2.html#airexpose

http://www.fisheries.nsw.gov.au/science/projects/maximising_survival.htm

http://www.agfisch.ch/doku/literatur/af_cooke.htm

Plain and simple, you never, ever have your released fish out of the water for more than a few seconds.

What are you doing bringing science into this Bob?

Since there are no regulations prohibiting the removal of salmon or steelhead from the water to do so is a matter of choice.

My choice is never to remove a fish I'm going to release. Anyone on a boat of mine is stuck with the same decision.

If a fish is hooked or bleeding where release becomes difficult the leader is cut,after paying for gas,equipment,maintaining two boats I can sure as hell afford to lose more gear.

My choice is not to fish with folks who have a need to show their skill to everyone who will pay attention.

My choice is not to hunt with folks who have to tie a trophy to the grill of their rig.

My choices limit my partners,but sure make for good trips.

If it makes you guys feel any better, myself and the 3 people I regularly fish with were not aware of the impact holding a native out of the water can have. Because of the recent activism on this board and ifish, I will avoid doing it in the future and so will everyone on my boat. (I think a shot of the fish in the water is just as cool, and can be done quickly).

Anyway, my boat doesn't catch a lot of fish, but I think you guys can take some satisfaction in the fact that the awareness has been raised and some people will think twice before taking those pictures (as I'm sure many others will).

Glad to hear it opened a few ears BH

I think the point of these discussions is to encourage others to use common sense and protect the resource / fishing ops.

It's not about taking a picture at all, it's about being careful when you do. For those using drifters that can be easily pulled into the shallows and the fish handled in the water ... it's easy and can be done w/o harm to the fish. When working with boats that can't be taken into the shallows where fish can be handled only briefly out of the water and over the water rather than a hard floor when they squirm free (it does happen) ... then sometimes those photo ops will have to be forgone for the sake of the fish and so forth.

While some might not see the importance of the actionand / or reasons behind the reactions of other anglers ... they're very real. Many anglers work hard to carefully take care of the fish and it's frustrating to see others treat them carelessly at times. A good example for anglers in my neck of the woods was the near closure of the Hoh a few years ago for summer king fishing due to published photos of profusely bleeding / poorly handled fish to be released ... it could happen elsewhere and to all those that go to great lengths to take care of the fish ... they're gonna lose out because of the actions of others.

Be smart out there and good luck to all!

Question?? what the hell am I willing to do??

Answer..

I am willing to ride a scooter naked down my street with a football helmet on backwards.. I am "willing" to do that..

You guys need to work on keeping wild fish out of your coolers way more than you need to worry about carefully holding one up for a quick picture. 10 seconds tops.

Sort of a horse before the cart complaint if you ask me. And you did ask me.

So ReiterRat, all sarcasm aside, you are saying that you DO in fact agree with Sparkey on this? Interesting.

Notice how you never see Sparkey and CWUgirl in the same place at the same time. Hmmm!!! CWUgirl coming to save the day again!!!

Vic, somebody has to! I'm just feeling there are a couple guys on this thread that gotta hug and stop acting like.....girls!

Maybe you could get in on some hug action too, but I don't think either of them is in to that! :p

Spoogin Sparky is doing it again!

I swear he must be on the peta board too.
I see alot of the same arguements against fishing over there!

Compared to the general population fishermen are a minority. Out of that minority not many people actually catch that many fish,
and out of that group many are strictly catch and release! sportsfishermen take a very small portion of the fish! I for one do my part to lesson my impact on native fish by not targeting them at all, but that is only having a microscopic positive effect ont the native fish. The #1 positive thing I do for native fish is cut and drag out illegel nets especially ones that are totally blocking streams usually set out at high outgoing tides at night by our so called enviromental stewarts the indians.

Making more rules and regulations is only going to cause more and more people to stop fishing, and our voice will be eventually to quiet to be heard. (if that hasnt happened already)

Find a typo in this one Sparko!

Sparky and bob are 100% correct. Don't remove fish from the water that are going to be released. In addition to the science, I have seen several unclipped springers roll over and die after being handled improperly. On a further note, why can't we go to barbless hooks for Columbia River springers and most steelhead fishing. It seems to work in Canada, in Puget Sound and at Buoy 10. For example, if Oregon and Washington would ever get a hooking mortality study done (after over 100 years of "mangement") The Columbia could probably be open all week right now.

I guess I wasnt clear in the question I was asking. I was just curious as to what sacrificies, you as a fisherman, were willing to make to help our depressed stocks.

I was just using the Columbia River as an example because it seems that some were not willing to do anything...not even forego a 'hero shot' of a wild ESA listed chinook.

It turned into another debate regarding certain fish handling practices...and there are some clarifications I have to make.

Obviously, my point was mistaken. I am in no way claiming we must eliminate our impact as that would be impossible considering all the other ways, we 'take' ESA listed fish other then just pursuing them with a hook and line.

Given that we are lucky enough to have a selective fishery to have a chance at mouth watering hatchery spring chinook, how about we do what we can to minimize our impact??

We can do nothing more then quit fishing all together but given that we have the oppurtunity, if we properly handle fish, we can almost asure an excellent survival rate.

So I guess treating an ESA listed fish as harmlessly as one possibly can, suddenly makes my rhetoric mirror that of PETA members??

As far as I am concerned, you can take a hatchery spring chinook or hatchery coho etc. etc., and play frisbee with it, play soccer with it or do whatever the Hell you want to it while it is still alive. I dont care...well I do a little because I think that is a tad cruel.

This is not about animal cruelty in any way!! This is about doing what we can (such as practicing proper release techniques) to do as little harm as possbile, without halting our fishing, to help protect certain depressed, threatened or endangered stocks!

I count my blessings every day since we crossed paths! She looks out for me, takes good care of me and there is truely, no other girl like her!! If only yourself (and JoJo) could be so lucky!! :p

Ahh the dreams... beautiful dreams... Me... Kaari... Sparks is gone...

Aw shucks, Aix, :p Hasn't (Not taking sides) Sparko needs a little adjusting now and then.

Note to self: never eat barbequed springer with Sparkey.

But I'm with ya on this one Sparkey. The whole idea of CnR is to catch fish and still give them the best chance at survival we possibly can.

Well, I must be doing something right...

Leave \'Em in the Water, v. IFish

Coincendence???...I think not!

I found this interesting.



Best case mortality rate for C&R = 12% die

Worst case after only 60 seconds out of the water = 72% die

I would also think that the figures would be componded if the fish was bleeding.

Based on the above figures I have to wonder how many fish actually die due to C&R regulations that have no limit on the daily catch rate?

If an Angler fished 3 days a week (successfully) and released every wild fish they caught, how many wild fish has that Angler killed?

Interesting observation reference the difference in reaction between the Ifishers and the PP'ers.

I must be missing your point with the comparison. You were saying.........??

NWR,

You best case of 12% mortality for C&R is flawed. You assume all fish caught are exhausted. What constitutes an exhausted fish. I think this would be subjective.

Good question Kerry, I don't know...

I pulled this graph off of the Ifish board, it was being used in support of this disscussion.

However, I would think that most fish must be close to if not exshuasted after being caught by the average angler. Again though I can't back that statement up?

I am not supporting or condoning C&R either way, but I do tend to believe that unregulated C&R must certainly kill a high number of wild fish and the above graph seems to support that belief.

If a guide for example takes out two clients a day and C&R's wild fish throughout the day. How many fish are killed in the process? Again I don't know... But I do wonder.

Are these hatchery trout or wild trout?,Are they lake trout or river trout?,Are they brook trout, or rainbow trout? Are they steelhead trout? Were they squeezed before release?, were they properly revived?, were they dropped on the bottom of the boat? were they lip hooked or gut hooked? were they netted or grabbed?,with dry hands or wet hands? Was this graph made up? or is it real? Did the people doing the survey know what the hell they were doing? Or were they complete morons?


Why argue about a survey we know nothing about?

NWR,

No one who fishes is going to submit that c&r is not without some mortality. The big question is how much? This is where the argument of c&r really exists isn’t it? Some studies would back up the 12% rate. I read a report put out by a local steelhead club that showed less then 2% mortality while catching steelhead for broad stock. These fish were subjected to far more stress then a steelhead caught during a typical c&r season. In my opinion. There are those that will disagree with me.

My point is that the discussions over c&r always seem to come down to whose mortality figures do you want to believe. An exercise in futility. We, as anglers, will never agree.

Agreed, mortality rate could very well be higher than what the graph is showing. It could also be less... Who knows, it all depends on the angler. Maybe getting that quick photo is not so bad... but I do agree about getting the fish back into the water as qwickly as possible. Common sense.

Statistics like the above graph will only be supported by user groups if the statistics support the user groups agendas (the ifish thread for example). Otherwise it will be discredited in one manner or another.

None the less it was being used in support of the thread that sparkey posted (Pro C&R).

Fishing kills fish. If you fish, then you kill regardless of whether or not you C&R your fish.

People that keep their wild steelhead are limited to 5 fish per year. People that release all their fish have no limit and can continue to kill fish throughout the year. I tend to believe that limiting your kill rate is a better way to go.

Come on, now. At a 3% mortality rate, you'd have to land 167 fish to equal the 5 dead fish that make up your yearly limit for retention.

How many guys do you know that hook 167 fish in a season?

i personally dont eat much fish, i also release all wild, nor do i take pics of them, and i pick up my fair share of spent fishing line on the banks, so am i ethical or a meat fisherman? tooo much prreeeessssure......

Good point Dan, but as Kerry pointed out mortality rates are subjective. I have no idea what the mortality rate is? However I do think that most of us here are probably not the "average angler". I think the average angler has a much higher mortality rate than we may have?

To answer your question ~ I don't know of anyone that catchs that many fish except guides and their clients. I also don't know of anyone that kills 5 wild steelhead a year either. I personally have never killed one, unless it died after I released it.

NWR and DanS,

Your last 2 posts seem to uphold my last point. An exercise in futility. We as anglers will never agree.

Your right about that Kerry

I do enjoy a constructive and respectful debate though. I keep hoping that someone can help me see that light "Help me help you" <img border="0" alt="[wall]" title="" src="graemlins/wall.gif" />

NWR,

I like a good debat also. I think the c&r debate has been beaten into the ground.

Plunker started a good debate on tide gates. I think I will go and see what I can learn there.

KLS

True, it has been beaten to the ground. Sometimes though when I see threads like this. "Don't take your fish out of the water for a picture". I just can't help it.

Like I said I'm not anti-C&R but sometimes I think the pro C&R crowds get a litte rediculous with thier redoric.

C&R has its place and should be utilized when the resource can't handle a kill fishery.

So what's futile? I don't see the discussion as futile. I see alternate views....each one has its points of merit.

Call it a point/counterpoint thing........nothing futile about debating the issues.

Dan S.

Futile might be to strong of a term. I just feel the c&r thing has been debated to death.

NWR,

I could say the same thing about the opponents of c&r.

[edit] Yes, you could kerry. I think that taking an unreasonable stand and spewing retoric on both sides has a tendency to discredit whomever is spewing the retoric (both ways). This is one issue that some folks are passionate about and sometimes they get tunnel vision (both ways).

Micro ... The study is real. It was conducted by Queen's University in Ontario. I'm pretty sure that rainbows were the species of interest here.

While percentages may vary some based on species, the fact that similar studies in very different portions fo the world all point the same way does make it very obvious that when you intend / are required to release your fish, the reposnsible thing to do is: play them quickly, and limit their time out of the water.

Yes, the merits of C&R have been hit pretty hard, but I think thisis an important thread to teach those that don't realize the impacts of keeping fish out of the water for minutes at a time ... maybe we can email it to some of those Saturday morning bass shows!

Dan...I am sorry about the confusion...the 'v.' was not intended to stand for "versus" but "version" such as IFish's version of my thread.

...damn...I hope Im not sounding to c*cky!

i appreciate your comments sparkey and completely agree with you. selfishness rules in the fisheries on all sides. you have many more that agree with you than you think. keep up the good work. many on this board think something is important only if it can be banged bought or built

I think it's a mistake to get hung up in the percentages, or whether it's a wild trout or a hatchery trout. The point is that air is bad for them, and exhaustion is bad for them.

The logical conclusion, in my opinion is,

a) don't bring them into the air, at all.

b) use gear that can control the fish rapidly. 4 lb test kills steelhead. I never use less than 8 lb.

c) use a net. You can net a fish more quickly than you can tail a fish.

I know that netting is controversial. This past year, I caught and released the same fish (steelhead) pver a three week period three times. On the third time, he showed no apparent damage, despite having enduring a nylon net. He never left the water, and was released quickly.