Article Catch and Release Mortality (or lack thereof)

#16
Nice try troll, but there are thousands and thousands of catch and release fisheres that have been going on for decades that have next too or zero effects on the fish populations. Be it salmon, steelhead, trout or pelagic species.
Im not sure how you can seriously claim near or zero effects. I will admit that most in this forum seem very conscious and concerned about limiting the stress to a fish about to be released and that is great. However, this group and those who are like minded represent only a fraction of those with a rod in their hand. In this group, I would agree that the effects are probably low but still real and measurable. Considering all fishermen as one group, I would say the effects are much greater
 

bennysbuddy

the sultan of swing
#18
Like the average fishermen who represent the majority of sport fishing or tribal and commercial nets which do not lovingly release native fish...gill nets are non-selective
Gill nets are somewhat selective, the mesh size will determine the size of fish caught in most cases,true a few undersized fish will tooth tangle in the net. and most sport caught native fish are released properly.
 

Jake Watrous

(not really a sea otter)
#19
Im not sure how you can seriously claim near or zero effects. I will admit that most in this forum seem very conscious and concerned about limiting the stress to a fish about to be released and that is great. However, this group and those who are like minded represent only a fraction of those with a rod in their hand. In this group, I would agree that the effects are probably low but still real and measurable. Considering all fishermen as one group, I would say the effects are much greater
Agreed. The fish my uncle c&r have a much lower chance. I’d say it’s more like 30%. Their method, which I cannot disabuse him of, is to grab the hook with pliers, suspend the fish by the hook, and shake until it comes off.
 
#20
Gill nets are somewhat selective, the mesh size will determine the size of fish caught in most cases,true a few undersized fish will tooth tangle in the net. and most sport caught native fish are released properly.
Gill nets may lose efficiency for undersize fish but do nothing whatsoever to reject wild or ESA fish, they all die.
 

bk paige

Wishin I was on the Sauk
#21
Im not sure how you can seriously claim near or zero effects. I will admit that most in this forum seem very conscious and concerned about limiting the stress to a fish about to be released and that is great. However, this group and those who are like minded represent only a fraction of those with a rod in their hand. In this group, I would agree that the effects are probably low but still real and measurable. Considering all fishermen as one group, I would say the effects are much greater

By the fact that there is thousands of CnR fisheies where the act of CnR has had no impact to the health or population abundance. Considering all miners are the same hows that Mt Polly clean up going?
 
#22
Agreed. The fish my uncle c&r have a much lower chance. I’d say it’s more like 30%. Their method, which I cannot disabuse him of, is to grab the hook with pliers, suspend the fish by the hook, and shake until it comes off.
Yes....and outside this group, that is exactly the method still used by the majority of fishermen today
 
#23
By the fact that there is thousands of CnR fisheies where the act of CnR has had no impact to the health or population abundance. Considering all miners are the same hows that Mt Polly clean up going?
Seriously? You have never seen a modern gold dredge at work, have you?
Comparing small scale suction dredging to Mt Polly is like comparing apples to a truck load of watermelons.
But I see what you are doing. Sport tribal and commercial fishers all compete for the same resource and the rules change depending on where the fish happens to be. Small scale and commercial mining have vastly different effects in the resource and environment. Mining in general is one of the most highly regulated industries out there.
Oh and FYI...the EPA controlled Gold King Mine in Colorado just had another spill. As a reminder, this mines discharge was in complete compliance with EPA standards before the EPA took over.
https://navajotimes.com/reznews/gol...xypz2RNtEIxNOHdxQGwZ3DraI2D6OU-lebccBE1P_xdW0
 
#25
It is important to remember that there are studies reaching different conclusions on catch and release. When it comes to ESA listed native fish, I would encourage everyone here to follow Washington State Law and keep the fish in the water the whole time. It's better to be overly protective of these fish.
I agree
The point I am making is that the act of catching, regardless of how careful you release, has a negative impact on fish.
As a comparable...small scale mining work windows are specifically designed to prevent all interaction with spawning fish and it is also not an activity that requires the careful release of caught fish.
 
#26
I agree
The point I am making is that the act of catching, regardless of how careful you release, has a negative impact on fish.
As a comparable...small scale mining work windows are specifically designed to prevent all interaction with spawning fish and it is also not an activity that requires the careful release of caught fish.
Digging up and destroying spawning gravel in a sensitive stream that is critical for ESA listed steelhead causes significant damage to the species on a population level. Catching a fish may impact that fish (maybe), digging up it's spawning grounds can kill all of it's offspring. In the Columbia Basin specifically, juvenile anadromous fish can be incubating in the gravel much of the time from spring through fall.
 
#27
Digging up and destroying spawning gravel in a sensitive stream that is critical for ESA listed steelhead causes significant damage to the species on a population level. Catching a fish may impact that fish (maybe), digging up it's spawning grounds can kill all of it's offspring. In the Columbia Basin specifically, juvenile anadromous fish can be incubating in the gravel much of the time from spring through fall.
Matt, digging up is true but destroying is opinion and pretty far fetched. There are no studies that support this and actually, WDFW biologists and uncountable studies disagree with you. Various watercourses all differ and have been studied in depth, our timing restrictions, tailored stream by stream, reflect that. Our work windows shut us down before spawning takes place. Dredging cannot kill offspring that are not yet laid or hatched.
 

jamma

Active Member
#28
Im not sure how you can seriously claim near or zero effects. I will admit that most in this forum seem very conscious and concerned about limiting the stress to a fish about to be released and that is great. However, this group and those who are like minded represent only a fraction of those with a rod in their hand. In this group, I would agree that the effects are probably low but still real and measurable. Considering all fishermen as one group, I would say the effects are much greater
The zero effect is possible because they make babies at a way larger ratio than one out of ten and/or restocking schedules.The numbers only diminish when the habitat can not support a certain number of fish.Lakes go through boom and bust cycles because they usually do not have spawning habitat.When you have populations of one or two thousand fish per mile, 10% is pretty small potatoes.The Bighorn,for example, has an estimated 6000 per mile which would amount to 600 fish if every fish was hooked and released. You can see how these numbers can be negligible if say even only half the fish were hooked.That would amount to 300 of 6000 fish, an amount that wouldn't even be noticeable. This is particularly obvious with brookies who are prolific spawners.
 
Last edited:
#29
The zero effect is possible because they make babies at a way larger ratio than one out of ten and/or restocking schedules.The numbers only diminish when the habitat can not support a certain number of fish.Lakes go through boom and bust cycles because they usually do not have spawning habitat.When you have populations of one or two thousand fish per mile, 10% is pretty small potatoes.
Only percentage of juveniles survive a spawning cycle due to natural reasons. Does it not make sense that the number of survivors who return to spawn directly effect the number of potential surviving juveniles? Furthermore, considering a mating pair of adults will produce thousands of viable juveniles, I would like you to show me and report that proves small scale mining reduces the number of returning spawning adults, please.

FYI...I can prove that fishing reduces the number of surviving adults ...with ease
 
#30
Matt, digging up is true but destroying is opinion and pretty far fetched. There are no studies that support this and actually, WDFW biologists and uncountable studies disagree with you. Various watercourses all differ and have been studied in depth, our timing restrictions, tailored stream by stream, reflect that. Our work windows shut us down before spawning takes place. Dredging cannot kill offspring that are not yet laid or hatched.
We've been through this. You cannot produce a single study that supports the claim that suction dredge mining doesn't harm the fish during their incubation stage (when they're still in the gravel). The mining windows do not avoid all times when eggs or incubating salmonids are in the stream. Lying about science repeatedly doesn't make your argument accurate.

You might want to go back to mining. The only thing you'll accomplish here is rallying more angler's against you.
 

Latest posts