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.