Author Topic: catch and release fishing makes it harder for fish to eat (Read 4664 times)

Tuma · « **Reply #30 on:** Dec 27, 2018, 07:33 AM »

Nice Slickice

Let them go, let them grow.

BlueDuck · « **Reply #31 on:** Dec 27, 2018, 09:30 AM »

Pretty touchy feely thread. If I felt bad about hooking a fish, I think I would stay home.

hoofer · « **Reply #32 on:** Dec 27, 2018, 10:36 AM »

catch em ,kill em,eat um. size does not matter.

NateD · « **Reply #33 on:** Dec 27, 2018, 10:58 AM »

Did anyone read it? There is quote that says these people aren't advocating to stop people from fishing, but to maybe use smaller diameter/barbless hooks if you know you will be catching and releasing a bunch of fish. The study is pretty crap but that makes sense.

slickice · « **Reply #34 on:** Dec 27, 2018, 09:05 PM »

If you're going to be catching and releasing a "bunch" of undersized fish, you don't know much about the species you're after. For purists who strictly catch and release, accept the collateral damage you created. Those who are into "table fare", focus on fewer and larger fish. Use baits & lures (includes size) conducive for your targeted species. Smaller and barbless hooks isn't a solution . . . it's an excuse leading to further regulations (most FWP's love this concept because they're bureaucrats). Release undesirable fish and be done with it. This isn't rocket science guys.

lspower · « **Reply #35 on:** Dec 28, 2018, 08:07 AM »

Ill bet taking them home reduces their suction by 100%

NateD · « **Reply #36 on:** Dec 28, 2018, 10:22 AM »

Quote from: slickice on Dec 27, 2018, 09:05 PM

If you're going to be catching and releasing a "bunch" of undersized fish, you don't know much about the species you're after. For purists who strictly catch and release, accept the collateral damage you created. Those who are into "table fare", focus on fewer and larger fish. Use baits & lures (includes size) conducive for your targeted species. Smaller and barbless hooks isn't a solution . . . it's an excuse leading to further regulations (most FWP's love this concept because they're bureaucrats). Release undesirable fish and be done with it. This isn't rocket science guys.

Who ever said undersized? Smaller and barbless hooks will do less damage whether the fish are big or small, that's a fact.

Quantoson · « **Reply #37 on:** Dec 28, 2018, 10:50 AM »

Quote from: NateD on Dec 28, 2018, 10:22 AM

Who ever said undersized? Smaller and barbless hooks will do less damage whether the fish are big or small, that's a fact.

Well then, work that hypothesis in your State first. Get it passed into regulations. Then come and tell us how it works out.

NateD · « **Reply #38 on:** Dec 28, 2018, 11:03 AM »

Quote from: Quantoson on Dec 28, 2018, 10:50 AM

Well then, work that hypothesis in your State first. Get it passed into regulations. Then come and tell us how it works out.

Don't know what you are talking about, just stating facts, none of this really even applies to ice fishing because the tackle is pretty damn tiny anyway. When you get into big 8/0 hooks for stripers crushing the barb definitely helps to reduce the harm you cause when catching and releasing.

Quantoson · « **Reply #39 on:** Dec 28, 2018, 11:11 AM »

Well take up the issue in your State first. Lead by example. Worry about it over there and work on it to get it accepted as law. Then you can show us how great it went over.

NateD · « **Reply #40 on:** Dec 28, 2018, 11:47 AM »

I'm not taking the issue up with anyone. Did I say that somwhere? Obviously there is no way to enforce a law like that. Anything we can do to reduce mortality is a good thing right?

slickice · « **Reply #41 on:** Dec 28, 2018, 12:32 PM »

Move onto a more sensible thread because this one is going nowhere fast. Most Montana outdoorsmen are sensible stewards of our precious and unparalleled resource. We pride ourselves on common sense rather than allowing outsiders to influence our thought processes and values . . . especially when it comes to the outdoors. We're very independent out here and like it that way. I suggest we move on from this worthless dribble.

PazzoCorso · « **Reply #42 on:** Dec 28, 2018, 12:35 PM »

We're still talking about fish...Right??
My understanding is that if it dies something will eat it.. other fish or as fertilizer.

slim_shanty · « **Reply #43 on:** Dec 28, 2018, 04:16 PM »

I'd highly recommend actually reading through this paper before drawing your conclusions.
The goal of this study wasn't to show that catch and release is bad, but to quantify how much it affects a fish's feeding performance.

It actually states right in the abstract: "Fishing injuries in nature are likely to depress feeding performance of fish after they have been released, although it is currently unclear whether this has a significant impact on survival."

Catch and release obviously isn't harmless, so the goal of this paper was to try and figure out just how much harm it does. Now keep in mind that a 35% reduction in feeding "performance" does not equal a 35% reduction in feeding, it just means their suctioning power is less efficient, which is pretty intuitive. Clearly not all released fish will survive, but I see this paper as a small step toward understanding how much a particular fishery could be affected by heavy catch and release angling.

Wenger · « **Reply #44 on:** Dec 28, 2018, 04:39 PM »

If you read the actual study, it is FAR from scientific. It is simply something to have published. That is how academics works these days. Nobody is claiming every fish released will make it, but it was claimed if you have been following along that this study was reason the poster said fish should not be released. Please go back and read the complete thread.

Be aware that simular studies in Europe have indeed resulted in no release regulations.

slim_shanty · « **Reply #45 on:** Dec 28, 2018, 05:02 PM »

What is your definition of "scientific"?
The implications of a study don't determine it's validity. Just because something can be subject to improper interpretation doesn't make it bad work.
This is a functional morphology paper, not a fisheries paper and unless you can find specific faults with their fluid dynamics modeling or their statistics, I think it's a valid study as such.

Wenger · « **Reply #46 on:** Dec 28, 2018, 05:21 PM »

Have you read the whole thread? Do so and get back with me.

Back when I got my degree science was about using methodology and standards that could reasonably be expected to come to an undetermined conclusion. A study which had a test sample of ten each and is authored by group of academics as far flung as these folks and each hops on to get their names on papers is not science.

slim_shanty · « **Reply #47 on:** Dec 28, 2018, 05:29 PM »

Yes, I read the whole thread.
I agree that this study shouldn't be used to support the claim that catch and release angling is harmful. There is a lot of data out there (even beyond your extensive personal observations) that show that it really does work.
My point is that it's not actually bad science.

Wenger · « **Reply #48 on:** Dec 28, 2018, 05:31 PM »

Well I disagree for the reasons I stated. Bad science is bad science.

slim_shanty · « **Reply #49 on:** Dec 28, 2018, 05:49 PM »

You stated a sample size of 10 individuals as a problem, but sample size is only a problem when it limits your statistical inference. In this case, they actually had 20 individual fish (10 control specimens) and then performed 60 trials. That's more than adequate (in terms of statistical power) for the analyses they used.

These were a marine species "shiner perch," but it is well documented that percomorph fishes (including bass, walleye, yellow perch, etc) use the same type of suction feeding. However, the authors don't claim that their results should could be generalized for all fishes.

The only other problem you mention is that the authors "cannot come to a conclusion." But, the paper has a section titled "Conclusions" where they explicitly state "the injury caused by the hook causes a reduction in suction feeding performance."

Again, I'm not sure what your definition of "scientific" is, but this paper certainly would qualify. It takes something we all should find intuitive - that a puncture interfere's with a chamber's ability to produce a vacuum and quantitatively tests it in living animals.

esox_xtm · « **Reply #50 on:** Dec 28, 2018, 06:03 PM »

From a guy that spent years analyzing process data, creating and implementing sampling plans and finding improvements to save literally millions of dollars over those years... I wouldn't hang my dirty underwear on that study much less my hat or reputation.

Because a study supports what we want to believe anyway doesn't make it "good" anything.

Study aside... Anytime we introduce a line with bait or lure to be eaten by any fish there is a possibility of death or damage. I've caught emaciated fish with mouths wired shut by lures as well as fish that look like they've been in a dogfight all torn up by their own during the spawning process.Either way, my inflicting additional stress probably is not the best thing in the world for them. Don't need a study to tell me that. Really, when I read this kind of stuff, I get the sense that it's the choice between being a resource abusing jackwagon or a planet loving non-fisherperson.

I love to fish and I'll do so as I please within the confines of the law. Had to leave a 38" musky float after 3+ hours of trying to revive it when I would have been happy to eat it because the minimum size limit said I can't keep it. It was a shame and it bothered me for days. Still does kinda. Lost a buck this year, one of two deer lost in a 50 year hunting career. Yep. That bothers me too. Release a fish after taking all the care I know how... I hope they make it but I'm pretty sure that somewhere along the line I implemented delayed mortality. I understand that this can and does happen but because I love to fish so much I accept the collateral damage.

Release is the right thing to do if that is your choice. Educate yourself on proper techniques and own proper tools to enhance survival. After all, that is the object of release, to have the fish live. Otherwise it's take it home, carve it up and flip it into a pan of hot grease. Yum! But that is not every fish for me.

I don't need a study to tell me that there is risk to the resource in release. That... is a given. It's up to us to make those choices and learn those skills to minimize that risk.

PS: Just read the last post. 60 trials/samples is the barest of minimums to accept as a statistical model, so not "more than adequate". That only meets the minimum data set that would be acceptable as, well, anything.

slim_shanty · « **Reply #51 on:** Dec 28, 2018, 06:07 PM »

There is actually no established minimum for sample sizes. Good scientists use the best numbers they can get in a timely fashion. Accepted standards vary dramatically across different fields. Statistical power is the only relevant metric, not arbitrary thresholds.

esox_xtm · « **Reply #52 on:** Dec 28, 2018, 06:44 PM »

Quote from: slim_shanty on Dec 28, 2018, 06:07 PM

There is actually no established minimum for sample sizes. Good scientists use the best numbers they can get in a timely fashion. Accepted standards vary dramatically across different fields. Statistical power is the only relevant metric, not arbitrary thresholds.

I disagree. A marginally minimal statistically worthy data set is 60 samples. Really 100 samples if you wish to draw any meaningful conclusions from the study. I guess since the conclusion of this study was inconclusive it really doesn't matter.

Can I add my signature and be "published" too?

Please, have the last word now slim. I know a pointless discussion when I see one.

Quantoson · « **Reply #53 on:** Dec 28, 2018, 08:09 PM »

chartreusealltheway, NateD, slim_shanty
if you guys feel so guilty of fishing, please just stay home and off the boards. I have no guilt when I catch and release. Go find a nice tree no one is gonna use for firewood and hug it. It will love you back. Leave the fishing to people who enjoy it without the guilt of setting a fishy free after hooking on to it.

I will get banned for this, but I gotta say you guys must be cross dressers in real life.

oldschoolben · « **Reply #54 on:** Dec 28, 2018, 08:15 PM »

Lol too dam funny

bootstrap · « **Reply #55 on:** Dec 28, 2018, 08:19 PM »

they wouldnt want to go bow fishing with me.

Quantoson · « **Reply #56 on:** Dec 28, 2018, 08:22 PM »

Quote from: bootstrap on Dec 28, 2018, 08:19 PM

they wouldnt want to go bow fishing with me.

Catch and release ROFLMAO in real life.

G fish · « **Reply #57 on:** Dec 29, 2018, 08:02 PM »

Got a new hook that will solve all the problems. LOL. A chicken coop mite be better conversion.

coldcreekchris · « **Reply #58 on:** Dec 30, 2018, 12:10 AM »

yep......

Wenger · « **Reply #59 on:** Dec 30, 2018, 11:08 AM »

Quote from: slim_shanty on Dec 28, 2018, 05:49 PM

You stated a sample size of 10 individuals as a problem, but sample size is only a problem when it limits your statistical inference. In this case, they actually had 20 individual fish (10 control specimens) and then performed 60 trials. That's more than adequate (in terms of statistical power) for the analyses they used.

These were a marine species "shiner perch," but it is well documented that percomorph fishes (including bass, walleye, yellow perch, etc) use the same type of suction feeding. However, the authors don't claim that their results should could be generalized for all fishes.

The only other problem you mention is that the authors "cannot come to a conclusion." But, the paper has a section titled "Conclusions" where they explicitly state "the injury caused by the hook causes a reduction in suction feeding performance."

Again, I'm not sure what your definition of "scientific" is, but this paper certainly would qualify. It takes something we all should find intuitive - that a puncture interfere's with a chamber's ability to produce a vacuum and quantitatively tests it in living animals.

You keep repeating things that I and others have already stated and pointed out. Please read both threads to avoid redundancy.

This contributes nothing whatsoever to the subject of catch and release fish mortality. This "study" is simply basic physics afterall. Yes it is intuitive or should be and it contributes zilch to actual science. I would have been embarrassed to even propose such a simplistic study proposal to my fisheries biology professor back in the day. (Like I pointed out before I suggest you click on the "authors" publication history and you will see that they tend to crank out studies like a puppy mill). For this study to be of any use they would have had to create a puncture wound with a hook as they did, but then allow the subject fish to feed while allowing the wounds to heal and record any mortality while being able to determine the exact cause of death. They could also have measured growth rates of each group post puncture.Thing is there are at least a hundred such studies that have been done already. What they did produce what half assed science at best because it was never designed to be useful science. It is about funding and publication. Obviously they could not reach a conclusion, nor was there any chance they could have given the way they conducted it. Therefore what do YOU think their point was?

But in the end you seem to have missed the whole point of the thread. The poster was claiming we should not be releasing fish because most die and used this study as evidence to support his claim. I was refuting that and in doing so also pointed out the flaws in the study. I also pointed out that such "studies" have been used in Europe, especially Germany to ban catch and release fishing. The claim made in the original post also flies in the face of well established science concerning both catch and release and slot limit effectiveness.

Have a great new year.

News:

Author Topic: catch and release fishing makes it harder for fish to eat (Read 4664 times)

oldschoolben