Washington Fly Fishing Forum banner

You May be Killing Steelhead and Not Know It

5K views 48 replies 24 participants last post by  Smalma 
#1 ·
I found this really interesting. We all need to do whatever is necessary to minimize steelhead mortality - except for hatchery brats.

You May Be Killing Steelhead And Not Even Know It

50 comments / Posted on November 18, 2013 / by Louis Cahill

Photo by Louis Cahill
Steelheaders are generally pretty serious about catch-and-release, but it's likely that many are mortally wounding fish without ever knowing it.

There are few species of fish as vulnerable as wild steelhead. These fish are beset on all sides by threats both natural and man-made. With their numbers dwindling, it's safe to say, every steelhead counts. It's vital that those of us who fish for them practice the best catch-and-release practices.
However, common landing practices can kill fish without the angler ever knowing. A team of biologists studying steelhead in British Columbia discovered this problem, quite by accident. These scientists were tagging steelhead with GPS trackers. They determined that the least intrusive way to capture the fish was, well, the same way we do it. With a fly rod. They landed the fish, tagged them with the GPS device and released them. When they went to their computer to track the fish's progress they discovered something alarming.
Within two hours many of the fish they had tagged, and released in good health, were dead. They collected the fish and performed autopsies to determine what had gone wrong. In every case the cause of death was head trauma. It turns out that 'steelhead' is a misnomer. The fish's head is, in fact, its most vulnerable spot.
When landing the fish the researchers had played them into shallow water where they would be easy to tail. As the fish came into the shallows they were on longer, fully submerged. Without the resistance of the water surrounding them, their powerful thrashing was able to generate momentum that is not possible underwater. The flopping fish simply hit their heads on a rock.
The fish appeared fine when released, but their injured brains began to swell and soon they were dead. It makes perfect sense if you think about it. Fish have evolved in an environment where hitting their head on anything with enough force to cause damage is almost impossible. Their brains lack the natural protection enjoyed by terrestrial species.
Luckily, this unfortunate outcome is easily avoided. The angler has a couple of good options. Landing fish by hand in knee deep water is a little tougher but much safer for the fish. You can grab the leader to control the fish long enough to tail it. After a fish or two it will feel very natural. When possible, it's best to use a good catch-and-release net. This is safest for the fish and easiest for the angler. A net helps you seal the deal while the fish is still fresh and requires little reviving.
Always control your fish once he's landed. Keep his gills wet and support his head in case he makes a sudden attempt to escape. Keeping him, dorsal fin up, will keep his range of motion side-to-side, making it harder for him to injure himself. When possible keep him in deeper water. Never beach a fish when landing him and never lay him on the bank for a photo. It's just not worth it.
Wild steelhead are a precious resource. Those of us who come to the river looking for them must lead by example and do our best to to be good stewards of these remarkable fish. Their future is, literally in our hands.
Come fish with us in the Bahamas!
Louis Cahill
Gink & Gasoline
www.ginkandgasoline.com
hookups@ginkandgasoline.com
 
See less See more
1
#4 ·
". . . A team of biologists studying steelhead in British Columbia discovered this problem, quite by accident. These scientists were tagging steelhead with GPS trackers. . . ."

What's the name of the study? Who are the biologists who performed the study? Where can I find a copy of the study? I'm aware of tagging fish with radio tags and acoustic tags, but have never heard of GPS tags for fish studies. Where is there more detailed information about the use of GPS tags for fisheries studies? Is this study even real, or is the whole blog post bogus?

Sg
 
#5 ·
I would love to see the study also... but it makes perfect sense that a fish flopping around in the rocks may sustain mortal injuries. It also makes perfect sense that a rubber mesh net decreases the odds of fish mortality significantly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Andrew Shoemaker
#7 ·
I seem to recall a program that went on for several years on the Bulkley where they were capturing steelhead near Moricetown Falls and tagging them. I don't think they were fishing for them though. Many of the tagged steelhead getting above Moricetown were showing severe damage from mishandling and from smashing their heads against a walkway that had been placed across one of the smaller side channels up the falls. Maybe this is the study he's thinking of and somehow it got spun around along the way into an interesting tale.

For the record, there is a widely published and cited report from the Vedder River in BC about steelhead C&R mortality that showed very low mortality from anglers catching steelhead.
 
#9 ·
It is not too hard to see that fish banging on the rocks could be damaging or fatal. One thing that I see every year are a good many people overplaying the fish instead of getting down and dirty with them and getting them in and off of the hook in a brief amount of time. I like to keep them in knee deep water when possible.
 
#10 ·
One thing that I see every year are a good many people overplaying the fish instead of getting down and dirty with them and getting them in and off of the hook in a brief amount of time. I like to keep them in knee deep water when possible.
ditto...it seems like many folks are just afraid to stick the wood to them...get them on the butt and you'll get them in in no time. I see a fair number of folks fighting them with the tip of their rod. not good for either the fish or the rod.
 
#11 ·
Louis Cahill who wrote the piece on the Gink and Gasoline website has responded that there apparently was no study. Obviously a poorly worded reference. Regardless, the point is don't play fish into water so shallow that they'll bang themselves on rocks, etc. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that can't be good. Walk out to knee deep water and net or tail them. Respect the fish.
 
#12 ·
Louis Cahill who wrote the piece on the Gink and Gasoline website has responded that there apparently was no study. Obviously a poorly worded reference. Regardless, the point is don't play fish into water so shallow that they'll bang themselves on rocks, etc. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that can't be good. Walk out to knee deep water and net or tail them. Respect the fish.
maybe i'll suggest a study that states that any air exposure for tarpon/bonefish/carp (pick your fish) results in instant death from the bends and when proven wrong i can just say at least i educated people about proper fish handling.

mistruths always hurt your credibility. there's a long time conservation group who i no longer support because they massaged catch data to support more restrictive regulations in the saltwater. i agreed with the rule change but had to oppose them because they were dishonest in their reasoning.

fucking "head trauma"... anyone who has actually killed a steelhead knows the kind of force it takes to make them go cross-eyed... and flopping in the rocks (although bad) aint gonna swell their brains. we're all for gentle release and care with fish we do not retain but i also think we go a bit overboard. we do kill fish regardless of how pure of heart we are or how gentle our rubber nets are. if you cannot deal with the fact that the fish you release has a chance of dying you should stop fishing for them. geez, vegans are less sensitive ;) .
 
#24 ·
I'm thinking we could really help the population if we renamed steelhead with something like the elusive "fragileface". On the side of conservation of course. If we could only educate everyone on how weak the species really is. Maybe through a new and exciting non profit, we could get enough membership registrations to save these fragilefaces. I'm really starting to feel bad for even putting a hook any where near them. I think I'll soon turn to the rich and exciting life of catfishin.
 
#26 ·
in washington at least, this should mostly be a moot point with wild fish, thanks to sparkys law. at any rate, why not err on the side of caution when it comes to an (almost) endagered species anyway ? i dont take chances with wild steelhead, and no one should. if only we could get the decision makers to think the same way.

for those that disagree, you should realize that sparky's law was intended to deal with the lowest common denominator. and that would be YOU !

every step we take to insure their well being, is a step towards being able to continue cnr angling for them.
 
#27 ·
Nobody is complaining about Sparky's Law. A little push back at first, but nothing more than that.

Because some may disagree with Sparky's Law, that makes them the lowest common denominator?

i dont take chances with wild steelhead, and no one should. if only we could get the decision makers to think the same way
What do you want the decision makers to do? Stop all fishing over wild fish, or have us take a course on proper fish handling?
 
#28 ·
many badly do need a course. plenty of them are using fly rods too. but bait, barbed and treble hooks, gill nets, etc, all unneccesary chances. beads ? more of a mangling issue. combine deschutes and umpqua rules, sparky's law and that would be a big step in the right direction for sport fishing rules.

why do so many think they always need to catch the most fish possible? and should be entitled to do so, even to the detriment of a species?

i would imagine those that disagree with spark'ys law, think its ok to drop fish in the boat, or drag them up on the bank. or, dont realize the law is designed to prevent the clueless masses from doing so, and isnt aimed at those that would lift a fish carefully for a 3 second photo op over knee deep water. even if some survive, why would anyone that aledgedly cares take the chance ?
 
#29 ·
Those that care don't take a chance. There isn't a course that could be put into place that will help people handle fish because that takes actually handling a fish..... many fish. Take people to a trout pond with a bunch of 7lb brood stock fish and show them the correct way to handle a slimy fish?

What do you propose our state do about gill nets?

I think SL was a very common sense approach to the issue.
 
#30 ·
all the info needed to properly and carefullly release wild fish is right there in the regs. problem is most have never read that page. all thats needed is a simple test to find out if you have read them. plenty of people still wont care, but at least that would be a step in the right direction. sounds complicated, but, afterall, insuring the survival of the species is not a simple task.

gill nets? simple. outlaw them. i know, easier said than done.

i like the idea of haybales too. seems they have worked on nets across the mouths of some op rivers, or so i've heard.

there just arent many simple answers to this problem.

without action soon, do you think there will be any wild steelhead left in the U.S. in 100 years ?
.
.
 
#31 ·
C&R mortality is an imaginary problem. Very few die from C&R angling. It is little but a diversion of energy from real issues. I'm truly amazed at all the energy devoted to the topic when the data is so clear and accesable showing what a limitted impact it is.

PT is correct in that Sparkey's law is a fine law. It's both unneccesary and fine. Just having the law should stop the discussion, but it won't. People will still go around thinkin and saying that C&R angling has a meaningful impact on fish runs. They'll try and outlaw gear types or methods all based on a false assumption that it will help. In fact these discussions have the negative effect of splintering conservation minded anglers.


Go Red Sox,
cds
 
#34 ·
C&R mortality is an imaginary problem. Very few die from C&R angling. It is little but a diversion of energy from real issues. I'm truly amazed at all the energy devoted to the topic when the data is so clear and accesable showing what a limitted impact it is.

PT is correct in that Sparkey's law is a fine law. It's both unneccesary and fine. Just having the law should stop the discussion, but it won't. People will still go around thinkin and saying that C&R angling has a meaningful impact on fish runs.
cnr mortality is not an imaginary problem. but, in a way you are correct. that in the grand scheme of things, it is only killing a fraction of the fish that gill nets, dams, over harvest by our native neighbors, etc... does. think of it this way, just for arguments sake, if all the nets kill 90 out of 100 of wild steelhead at the mouth of river X, and 10 of those fish enter the river, but, without sparkys law, 2 of those wild fish handled by the meat fisherman, and the uneducated masses, are accidently killed. thats only a 2 percet of the original 100 right? sounds like an insignificant number. but you have just reduced the # of fish that made it up the river, and might have spawned successfully by 20 % now add sparkys law to that equation, and again, FOR ARGUMENTS SAKE, lets say half as many succumb to cnr mortality, you now have 9 instead of 8 that might spawn. thats alot more significant than 2 out of the hundred. so you really should say "of all the fish that MIGHT have made it up to spawn, cnr mortality only kills a fraction of what all the nets do" but it kills a much larger percentage of the fish that actually make it into the river. BUT, statements like yours , when read by the ignorant masses, and the vast majority of uneducated anglers, will lead them to beleive that wild steelhead are bulletproof, and its perfectly ok to handle fish carelessly, and drop them on rocks, etc. and they are only killing 2% do you really think they always survive that ? and its ok? you have to remember many of those reading this shit, actually think you know what you're talking about, and why should they bother to be more careful ? thats the whole point of sparkys law, to prevent those ignorant masses from adding, however insignificantly (IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS) to those mortality numbers.

and sparkys law is unnecessary ? you give people way too much credit. and even if they are not killed every time, do you prefer to catch beat up fish ?

now i dont claim to be an expert, but if the ignorant masses beleive that I know what i'm talking about, where is the harm ? so what, is it a bad thing that people are more careful? or should they beleive that YOU know what you are talking about? and even if you can prove to them that you can bash a fishes head on the rocks, or finger fuck their gills, and they will survive to spawn succesfully, you have done what? shown them that they dont need to be careful? and that is good how?

so on to the big picture. as a small group, us fly anglers can only do so much in getting bans on nets etc... that will take a majority of the population, not a majority of anglers. but we can make alot more of a difference by educating anglers that wouldnt otherwise know any better. and as far as wasting energy, why waste it telling people here that they dont need to be careful. where was the harm in the report that started this post, telling people they should be more careful. so why would you want to try and divide a group of anglers, except to justify mishandling fish? it is only diverting people from the real issues, when you argue that its ok to be careless, that it doesnt matter anyway?
the big picture problem remains, and will for a long time to come.
have you ever heard of the phrase "think globally, act locally" i think, true or false, the creator of the report was acting locally, and either way, thanks to him/her for actually caring enough. and you have, with your post here , attempted to help wild steelhead how?
 
#32 ·
all thats needed is a simple test to find out if you have read them
We didn't need a course, class, or test to change the saltwater (from a boat) handling rules and it's worked just fine. Not all agree with that new reg either but it's keeping fish from flopping around on the bottom of peoples boats.

TEST: "Is it lawful to completely remove a fish from the water that is unlawful to keep?"
ANSWER: "No."

Wow, that helped.

I'm with Charles, let's keep talking about things that have almost no impact on the fish.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top