Catch & Release ... WHO & WHY?

[DBV]

I keep enough to eat and have a couple meals in the freezer and let everything else go.  I think you have to catch and release or there will be nothing left for our future. 

Love doing that ice fishing and having people ask me why letting them go.  Same with walleye fishing - so funny. 

No one needs freezers full of fish and giving fish to everyone they know.  Horrible for future generations.  Plus, fish tastes so much better fresh! 

[badbrad2186]

I keep enough to eat and have a couple meals in the freezer and let everything else go.  I think you have to catch and release or there will be nothing left for our future. 

Love doing that ice fishing and having people ask me why letting them go.  Same with walleye fishing - so funny. 

No one needs freezers full of fish and giving fish to everyone they know.  Horrible for future generations.  Plus, fish tastes so much better fresh! 

I do need a freezer full of fish. I have a family of 6 to feed. Then again they go out and help catch them so. But we really only ice fish so we fill freezer for a few short months.

[stuckinohio]

I keep enough to eat and have a couple meals in the freezer and let everything else go.  I think you have to catch and release or there will be nothing left for our future. 

Love doing that ice fishing and having people ask me why letting them go.  Same with walleye fishing - so funny. 

No one needs freezers full of fish and giving fish to everyone they know.  Horrible for future generations. Plus, fish tastes so much better fresh! 

I am not disagreeing but let me play Devils advocate 

Selective harvest / catch and release is a modern concept in the big picture. Maybe 30 years ago it caught on and I didnt see it taking off till maybe 20 years ago.
With that said...

Before then, there were far more sportsmen doing far more fishing than is the case today.Back in the day (before C&R) people would keep everything and limits were certainly liberal where I grew up.

If it is a fact that there will be no future without C&R.... We would already be there, due to the fact that there was never a C&R mindset just 60 years ago.

My belief and what I have seen is that the health of a body of water will dictate the amount of pressure it gets and when conditions are poor, pressure will drop and numbers will regain. So in the big picture.... while bodies of water can see periods of gain and decline in fish populations, they cannot (generally) be fished out and therefore, they will rebound.
The opportunity for the individual (during rebound) is/can be greater as fish numbers/sizes increase without the high fishing pressure and competition. This affords a "next generation" to have opportunity even greater than the previous.

Another reason for not limiting catch (staying within the law) is the results that come from under fishing, which is the same basic effect that is achieved through catch and release. The end result (we have all seen it) is a stunted growth of all fish within the body of water due to their food chain being depleted by overly large hatches.... which eventually leads to the elimination of the slower maturing fish in that body of water, leaving only fast growing dinks.

Finally, there are bodies of water that cannot be effected with a rod and reel. Waters so large (such as the Mississippi) that area's just cannot be approached by the average person. Area's that have no access or hard access are effectively nurseries for the surround waters. I live very near such a body of water where 1/3 of the lake cannot be accessed but is the best area of the lake.
This lake has extreme pressure (bordering on insane) and yet, fish numbers and sizes continue to increase. Selective harvest on this particular lake is basically worthless to the health of the lake itself.
While this nursery area comes about due to management (prohibited access) there are many waters which have the same situation going on without specific restrictions, due to their size or difficulty of access.

[Doeslayer]

Depends on species and body of water for me.... I love to eat fish... So if i cstch a walleye or a few perch or crappie they are coming home with me.... Bluegills i like to eat but i find on some lakes they have grubs in the meat which grosses me out.... So it varies.... I dont eat largemouth though i have and it isnt much different from any other fried fish... I eat catfish caught in the northern lower peninsula but not too msny from down around home.... Pike i dont bother to eat cuz they are a pain to clean... I like to go sucker fishing in the spring but thats just to enjoy the outdoors a little.... And because catching a double on a crappie rig is one of the funnest things out there lol... But all the suckers go back....so yea..... Just depends i guess.... I will say im not one of those guys that lets the great big ones go... Tell me how bad it is i dont care... If i catch a big ol wally shes mine for keeps!

[kasilofchrisn]

I am not disagreeing but let me play Devils advocate 

Selective harvest / catch and release is a modern concept in the big picture. Maybe 30 years ago it caught on and I didnt see it taking off till maybe 20 years ago.
With that said...

Before then, there were far more sportsmen doing far more fishing than is the case today.Back in the day (before C&R) people would keep everything and limits were certainly liberal where I grew up.

If it is a fact that there will be no future without C&R.... We would already be there, due to the fact that there was never a C&R mindset just 60 years ago.

My belief and what I have seen is that the health of a body of water will dictate the amount of pressure it gets and when conditions are poor, pressure will drop and numbers will regain. So in the big picture.... while bodies of water can see periods of gain and decline in fish populations, they cannot (generally) be fished out and therefore, they will rebound.
The opportunity for the individual (during rebound) is/can be greater as fish numbers/sizes increase without the high fishing pressure and competition. This affords a "next generation" to have opportunity even greater than the previous.

Another reason for not limiting catch (staying within the law) is the results that come from under fishing, which is the same basic effect that is achieved through catch and release. The end result (we have all seen it) is a stunted growth of all fish within the body of water due to their food chain being depleted by overly large hatches.... which eventually leads to the elimination of the slower maturing fish in that body of water, leaving only fast growing dinks.


Finally, there are bodies of water that cannot be effected with a rod and reel. Waters so large (such as the Mississippi) that area's just cannot be approached by the average person. Area's that have no access or hard access are effectively nurseries for the surround waters. I live very near such a body of water where 1/3 of the lake cannot be accessed but is the best area of the lake.
This lake has extreme pressure (bordering on insane) and yet, fish numbers and sizes continue to increase. Selective harvest on this particular lake is basically worthless to the health of the lake itself.
While this nursery area comes about due to management (prohibited access) there are many waters which have the same situation going on without specific restrictions, due to their size or difficulty of access.

I'll have to disagree with some of your thoughts there.
First I see more ice anglers today than I did years ago.
Why? Well modern technology of course.
We now have the gear to stay warmer and dryer. The clothes and the heated shacks.
30+ years ago we didn't have nearly as many guys with 4 wheelers and snowmobiles.
Power augers were not as prevalent neither were electronics.
I catch way more fish now days compared to when I was a kid because of all of those things.
I move more when I'm not catching because moving is much easier. Both in the transportation and the hole drilling.
And we all know how electronics help us catch more fish.
And I'll stay out longer because I'm not so cold or hungry(buddy heater cooking).
Hence I may catch a limits worth ,kept or c&r, and still keep fishing because it's fun.
I'm willing to bet it takes fewer angler hours to catch a limit today vs 30 years ago or further back.

[Gunflint]

But there were more fish back then...could even things out a bit.

[stuckinohio]

But there were more fish back then...could even things out a bit.

Were there? I am asking seriously.
In the late 1800's and early 1900's there were commercial fishermen providing fish to the country without regulation (for the most part) and that fishing practice simply destroyed waters and rivers by the time real regulation came into existence.
I personally have not seen anything more than a rise and fall in numbers of fish in certain bodies of water and changes in fish in a given lake, due to ecological changes which have nothing at all to do with man. Simple Eutrophication.

[Handy]

For me this is a very easy answer, I can't clean them. I have tried and I get queezy doing it so if I keep anything I have to take them to my dad or brother. I only keep them IF they are in the mood to clean fish.

[stuckinohio]

For me this is a very easy answer, I can't clean them. I have tried and I get queezy doing it so if I keep anything I have to take them to my dad or brother. I only keep them IF they are in the mood to clean fish.

Now THIS is interesting!
I get that some people have a simple guttural reaction to any number of things but I have never heard of your condition before.
I take it eating fish isn't the issue here?  Just the processing...Yes?

[badbrad2186]

Now THIS is interesting!
I get that some people have a simple guttural reaction to any number of things but I have never heard of your condition before.
I take it eating fish isn't the issue here?  Just the processing...Yes?

Then you have people like me and my kids and they want to play in the fish guts. They also can't wait to see the dead deer every year

[stuckinohio]

Then you have people like me and my kids and they want to play in the fish guts. They also can't wait to see the dead deer every year

 

[Gunflint]

Were there? I am asking seriously.
In the late 1800's and early 1900's there were commercial fishermen providing fish to the country without regulation (for the most part) and that fishing practice simply destroyed waters and rivers by the time real regulation came into existence.
I personally have not seen anything more than a rise and fall in numbers of fish in certain bodies of water and changes in fish in a given lake, due to ecological changes which have nothing at all to do with man. Simple Eutrophication.

In the lakes I fish in (Northern Minnesota) there were certainly more fish in the 1800s and 1900s.  Commercial fishing may have impacted Lake Superior, but not nearly as much as the Lamprey Eel (invasive).

Even more than that for many epic lakes in Central Minnesota like Mille Lacs, Leech and Red Lakes, the current commercial netting by the Native American Tribes has reduced the current fish populations here to levels far below the early 1900s.

Perhaps your place is different or special, but where I fish your facts would not hold.

[kayl]

I fish because I love to fish. Keeping a few fish now and again is just a perk a couple of times a season.

The only fish that I keep 100% of legal ones I catch are salmon when I'm kayak fishing for them on Lake Michigan.

[fishinator]

Someone may have mentioned this already,  but to answer the OP question,  I think the reason you see so much catch and release on youtube is because a lot of those guys make youtube videos for a living. All they do is fish. I keep a lot of fish but if I got to fish every day I'm sure I would release a lot more.

[DucksAndDogs]

I am not disagreeing but let me play Devils advocate 

Selective harvest / catch and release is a modern concept in the big picture. Maybe 30 years ago it caught on and I didnt see it taking off till maybe 20 years ago.
With that said...

Before then, there were far more sportsmen doing far more fishing than is the case today.Back in the day (before C&R) people would keep everything and limits were certainly liberal where I grew up.

If it is a fact that there will be no future without C&R.... We would already be there, due to the fact that there was never a C&R mindset just 60 years ago.

My belief and what I have seen is that the health of a body of water will dictate the amount of pressure it gets and when conditions are poor, pressure will drop and numbers will regain. So in the big picture.... while bodies of water can see periods of gain and decline in fish populations, they cannot (generally) be fished out and therefore, they will rebound.
The opportunity for the individual (during rebound) is/can be greater as fish numbers/sizes increase without the high fishing pressure and competition. This affords a "next generation" to have opportunity even greater than the previous.

Another reason for not limiting catch (staying within the law) is the results that come from under fishing, which is the same basic effect that is achieved through catch and release. The end result (we have all seen it) is a stunted growth of all fish within the body of water due to their food chain being depleted by overly large hatches.... which eventually leads to the elimination of the slower maturing fish in that body of water, leaving only fast growing dinks.

Finally, there are bodies of water that cannot be effected with a rod and reel. Waters so large (such as the Mississippi) that area's just cannot be approached by the average person. Area's that have no access or hard access are effectively nurseries for the surround waters. I live very near such a body of water where 1/3 of the lake cannot be accessed but is the best area of the lake.
This lake has extreme pressure (bordering on insane) and yet, fish numbers and sizes continue to increase. Selective harvest on this particular lake is basically worthless to the health of the lake itself.
While this nursery area comes about due to management (prohibited access) there are many waters which have the same situation going on without specific restrictions, due to their size or difficulty of access.

There were not far more sportsmen catching/keeping far more fish.  The data is there.  Review it.

I wonder how the Atlantic Cod population feels about selective harvest?

[stuckinohio]

Someone may have mentioned this already,  but to answer the OP question,  I think the reason you see so much catch and release on youtube is because a lot of those guys make youtube videos for a living. All they do is fish. I keep a lot of fish but if I got to fish every day I'm sure I would release a lot more.

Totally get that.
That said...
I watch (subscribe) to a lot of people and a large majority keep maybe 1 fish for every 3-5 videos or none at all.
I am not hating on them... I just cant believe they are that burnt out on fish, as pertains to eating them.
If I didnt keep something to eat (every time) I would just quit. I like fishing but I fish for more than enjoyment.

[stuckinohio]

There were not far more sportsmen catching/keeping far more fish.  The data is there.  Review it.

I wonder how the Atlantic Cod population feels about selective harvest?

I have done the reviews  LOL
A simple review of the great depression can point straight away to over fishing, in light of the alternative to starvation. 
Thats just one example.


Atlantic Cod issues are based on commercial fishing. Not what we are speaking of. Not what I am speaking of in this thread.

[zcm_82]

Totally get that.
That said...
I watch (subscribe) to a lot of people and a large majority keep maybe 1 fish for every 3-5 videos or none at all.
I am not hating on them... I just cant believe they are that burnt out on fish, as pertains to eating them.
If I didnt keep something to eat (every time) I would just quit. I like fishing but I fish for more than enjoyment.

Not everyone likes eating fish that much. I generally spend 50-80 days year on the boat, depending on weather and other things, but might keep 3-4 fish all year. It's purely recreational for a lot of people these days.

[stuckinohio]

Not everyone likes eating fish that much. I generally spend 50-80 days year on the boat, depending on weather and other things, but might keep 3-4 fish all year. It's purely recreational for a lot of people these days.

I dont get that but I dont have to, is my opinion
This is what I was asking in the O.P.

Best to you   Catch 'em up!

[Stickhick86]

Well sometimes I am lazy and just don't want to clean the fish when I get home.

[zcm_82]

I dont get that but I dont have to, is my opinion
This is what I was asking in the O.P.

Best to you   Catch 'em up!

Hoping so. This wasnt a very good year, at all. We are into a drought pretty badly around here. I mostly river fish for rough fish, and the water was so low I couldn't even float my jon off the trailer at any of the local boat ramps for a good part of the season this year.

[stuckinohio]

Hoping so. This wasnt a very good year, at all. We are into a drought pretty badly around here. I mostly river fish for rough fish, and the water was so low I couldn't even float my jon off the trailer at any of the local boat ramps for a good part of the season this year.

We had that (drought) a few years back. I am with you when it comes to catfishing.
I love to target big flatheads and I wont keep any of them. It's just a cool sport for me.
If "rough fish" (that you mention) includes cats, I would be right there with you

[zcm_82]

I catfish once in a while, but most of the time I'm after carp, buffalo, suckers, and redhorse. I go after bass or bowfin once in a while, too, depending on which river I'm fishing.

[badbrad2186]

If I could fish everyday I would and I would keep my limit everyday if I could. I would eat fish and venison 365 days a year

[stuckinohio]

If your could fish everyday I would and I would keep my limit everyday if I could. I would eat fish and venison 365 days a year

[/b]

Maybe I dont get it because I (like you) think the natural meats are the best meats.
Jen and I pretty much dont buy any meat unless it is chicken or shrimp and not too often those two.
I appreciate funding my life style and what keeps me alive. I dont appreciate paying over and again what I am totally capable of providing for myself.
I dont go to restaurants or eat fast food, making my catches and kills all the more important and enjoyable.

[kasilofchrisn]

I love eating fish.
And catching them is a ton of fun.
But having worked on a commercial fishing boat I'll say this.
I've eaten fish three meals a day. I've eaten fish seven days a week.
But I will not eat fish three times a day seven days a week.
I love fish but one can only eat so much and you become tired of it.
I think most people would too if they ate it every day.
And I'm talking fresh from the ocean fish everyday at that.

[badbrad2186]

[/b]

Maybe I dont get it because I (like you) think the natural meats are the best meats.
Jen and I pretty much dont buy any meat unless it is chicken or shrimp and not too often those two.
I appreciate funding my life style and what keeps me alive. I dont appreciate paying over and again what I am totally capable of providing for myself.
I dont go to restaurants or eat fast food, making my catches and kills all the more important and enjoyable.

 


I agree

[Doeslayer]

If I could fish everyday I would and I would keep my limit everyday if I could. I would eat fish and venison 365 days a year

This x25.... I do eat venison all year we dont eat much beef... But the fish part is a lot harder lol

[zcm_82]

[/b]

Maybe I dont get it because I (like you) think the natural meats are the best meats.
Jen and I pretty much dont buy any meat unless it is chicken or shrimp and not too often those two.
I appreciate funding my life style and what keeps me alive. I dont appreciate paying over and again what I am totally capable of providing for myself.
I dont go to restaurants or eat fast food, making my catches and kills all the more important and enjoyable.

We just don't eat that much meat, either, which could be part of it. Mostly buy chicken or pork, a bit of beef to grill. I get a deer once every so many years, or a pop a few squirrel, rabbit, or pheasant, but overall meat really isn't our dietary centerpiece.

[DucksAndDogs]

I have done the reviews  LOL
A simple review of the great depression can point straight away to over fishing, in light of the alternative to starvation. 
Thats just one example.


Atlantic Cod issues are based on commercial fishing. Not what we are speaking of. Not what I am speaking of in this thread.

The principle is the same.  A fishery was overfished almost to the point of extinction and a management plan is bringing them back.

There were not far more fishermen.  Management plans restored those fisheries.  Restriction of take restored those fisheries.  How is C&R not an extension of restriction of take?

I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with taking fish.  Perhaps that’s the disconnect.  I’m saying to do so under the idea that the fisheries managers have given you limits under which you can operate however you’d like while simultaneously saying the managers routinely put out bogus data is hypocritical, at best.  I’m saying that you want to discuss how fisheries were essentially destroyed and management plans brought them back while also saying C&R is garbage and has no impact.

You’re basically spinning up each of your replies to fit a specific narrative that doesn’t remain intact throughout the thread.

If their data and management plans are bogus, why not take it upon yourself to do your part?  If the management plans don’t work, how do you explain the examples where they have?  If C&R mimics nature where only “fast-growing dinks” end up becoming prevalent, how do you explain monster fish caught up here in bodies of water that rarely see fishermen?  If harvesting fish from fisheries has no impact on populations, why do limits change/adjust?  Why is that take used as a management tool if it has no measurable impact?

I’m just trying to figure out your position on all of this.  You’re clearly in favor of taking fish, which is totally fine.  But it’s like you’re almost opposed to C&R.  But the confounding thing, in my opinion anyways, is that you’re alright with taking fish because the biologists or managers who set limits have allowed you to do so and you trust their work (when it pertains to you taking fish).  Yet you also say they’re incapable and routinely put out bad information using inadequate methods to get their data.  So I’m just having a hard time connecting the dots between how you condone taking limits of fish on every outing when you’ve stated the mechanisms that set those limits are erroneous, in your opinion.