Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Knnn]

I watched this today:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_em_RMNU9wE

It is a topic I have though about a great deal in the past, and not just about Steelhead, but for all non-salmonid fish where watersheds are solely catch and release.

Should concerns about catch and release also apply to Salmon?

Like many on this forum I try to minimize the harm I cause. swapping in smaller hooks on gear, using trailing hooks (spoons and beads), using heavier leaders so I can horse fish in rather than having to play them until the are completely exhausted, handling and releasing fish in shin deep water, never using gloves, etc.   

I would be interested in seeing a discussion on what causes the mortality, such as overplaying a fish, hook size, terminal tackle, bait, using gloves and/or other poor handling techniques.  Is the data based on a limited watershed and/or representative of ethical and contentious anglers, or systems where catch and release techniques are poorly implemented.

Also what can be done to reduce mortality to a minimum.  Should anglers who fish catch and release only rivers be required to pass a controlled waters test?

[RalphH]

good video with a broader perspective than catch and release. I certainly enjoy what Captain Quinn puts out there.

I've read many studies on c&r - most of the academic work is that hooking location and exposure to air (removal from water) have the highest mortality per fish released. Water temperature is important as well.

I have basically given up taking pictures of fish I release. Too much fumbling around for the camera. I mostly fish by myself and it would be less complicated for people fishing with a buddy. I think fish should never be removed from the water for a photo. Sometimes I have had fish just lay in a few inches of water while I got the camera. However in the long run most of the photos don't have a lot of meaning for me.

[jim]

I notice that the Chilliwack is a very cold river, whereas the Cowichan is much warmer.
Would that mean more mortality on the Cowichan?
Summer run steelhead, sockeye, pinks and chinooks, should be most at risk due to temperatures.
I have personally had 2 bleeder Steelheads. I blamed it on casting roe upstream, taking too long to set the hook.
I am trying to keep the fish in the water, unglove the hand(s), more than ever before. Not taking pics either. Thinking to get a new Moby net.
In March, when most Steelhead are wild, I see veteran anglers still using roe, and casting straight upstream also! When asked they say no bleeders. Beads work in March, I say.

[RalphH]

I think the evidence from mortality studies is there is a temperature threshold at which release moralities rise significantly. That threshold varies with the species.

Here's one article for steelhead:

https://www.wildsteelheaders.org/science-friday-steelhead-in-hot-water-and-what-it-means-for-catch-and-release/

[DanTfisherman]

I have watched this video from Captain Quinn a few times, and it is one of the best I have seen, and as I have stated a few times, makes me think deeply and really ponder who I am as an angler.
I am going to take a different stance, and ask us to challenge the status quo and possibly look for another solution.
I do agree in principle with much of what is said in this video, in a philosophical sense, but wish to avoid coming to the conclusion that changing our ways so we catch less and thus impact fish less is the only answer.
Yes, this would work, but deep down, my understanding of human nature says for the reality of most anglers, they may be able to speak and preach such philosophy, but when push comes to shove, realistically not be able to practice what they preach.
We can acknowledge a time in our past where we would never even look at such a video and make such statements, for the targeted fish species were so numerous in numbers, catch mortality would be a non issue.
Could we not shift our line of thinking to this is our problem, and if we wished to solve it, we need to unify, work together, and collectively devise plans where we return various stocks to very productive levels, and our impact through mortality is a non issue once again?
There was a time I taught about Acid Rain and felt we as a society had a limited ability to correct this.  People changed their way of thinking, legislation was put in place, and now we do not talk about Acid rain as if it was an issue.
There was a time we were worried about Ozone Depletion, it's negative impacts, and did not know what to do to solve it.  Policies and products were changed, people came together, and once again, it is an issue we were able to collectively solve.
I have to hope fish and their overall health and vitality are similar to the other two issues above, and we collectively just have not come to that place on where we can agree and implement changes to benefit them, as well as ourselves.
Reducing catch rates and impacts of anglers is a reactionary approach, and in my experiences, reactionary strategies are met with resentment, resistance, and do not always have the greatest degree of success.
Increasing fish numbers and their overall health would be a proactive approach, and once again, proactive strategies tend to be embraced, endorsed, seen favourably, and have a greater amount of long term success.
Food for thought,
Dano