# Catch & Release is bad...?????



## Erterbass (Jul 4, 2005)

I read this interesting article online concerning catch & release - and how in some lakes C&R has gone too far.

I know we've had this 'discussion' on this board before but this concerns bass in particular.

What do you think?

The Case Against Catch & Release

Bob


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

i think it's spot on.i've been trying for years to get some of those points across to the people who insist that c&r is "the way".those who belittle others for keeping a few fish for the table,and try to beat their own misguided beliefs into people's heads.we've seen a lot of that on this site,which has had a negative impact on how/what people on both sides post.
hopefully people will take a close look at the last part of that article("what can i do?")and learn to rethink things a little.maybe it won't change everyone's approach to fishing,but at least change their approach/thoughts towards others who are not of the same mindset.
a few parts of the article sum it up pretty well.


> "We need to tell people that eating bass is not a sin,"





> "By keeping fish under the slot, you're improving the quality of fish in the lake," he says. "However, if you get a mountable fish, that is a personal choice whether you keep it or get a replica mount so it can be caught another day. Either way, you're not crossing any moral or legal lines."





> Keeping a few fish should never have become as demonized as it is today. It is a necessary part of our sport. Teaching new anglers to keep a fish or two within the legal limit will go a long way toward preserving the quality of our fisheries. As Gene Gilliland puts it, "We need more catch and grease."


----------



## RareVos (Jul 29, 2007)

As always, it really depends on the fishery. Some of the people who are so seriously agitated by the folks who have raised c&r issues here just can't make the distinction.


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

exactly,rarevos.i trust the dnr more than a bunch of people who for the most part,base their opinions/beliefs on personal feelings instead of facts.which is why it's so unsettling to hear people push it so much as a general approach to all waters,just because the subject is bass.but there are also those who push the same agenda for other species,which can be just as harmful.
ray scott created a monster 
i doubt he dreamed it would be carried to such extremes by so many people who just kinda missed the real message.


----------



## Buick Riviera (Jul 15, 2007)

Al Linder and In-Fisherman began promoting "Selective Harvest" years ago. It hasn't caught on with the bass guys.

I think the answer is very simple. Guys these days don't want the hassle of taking and cleaning their catch and C&R gives them a convenient "ethical" excuse to avoid the chore. Plus greenies don't taste that good.

Buick


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

> I think the answer is very simple. Guys these days don't want the hassle of taking and cleaning their catch and C&R gives them a convenient "ethical" excuse to avoid the chore. Plus greenies don't taste that good.


based on the attitude of very many adamant c&r proponents i've run across,i have to disagree with most of that.they may not want to clean/eat those fish,but they are more into the "sport" aspesct,and just despise people who could even think of eating a bass from any water.the stream fis arguement may have some merit in some cases,but most use that to push their true c&r message.i also think they are fairly good table fair.i've eaten plenty of them in the past.only reason i quit was i prefer the fun and taste of eyes and crappies more.if not for that.i'd still be stringing up those bass


----------



## ohiou_98 (Mar 19, 2007)

According to Bill Dance, one of the reasons "slot" lakes fail is because people do not keep the short fish. (I thought thats what I heard?)

Speaking of selective harvest, when a person keeps a small fish, how do they know its not a young fish with great genes as opposed to a genetically inferior adult fish?


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

> Speaking of selective harvest, when a person keeps a small fish, how do they know its not a young fish with great genes as opposed to a genetically inferior adult fish?


i don't think genes really are a factor.the object of slots is to keep the most productive fish in the pool.i may be off base,but in my opinion,fish in the typical slots will produce many more eggs for more seasons than the smaller fish.my guess is that is giving more of a chance to pass on good genes.besides,like you said,how are you gonna figure out which one of those 12 inchers has the best genes when you're just looking at him hanging on your hook? 
also,as for bill's reasoning,he may have a point because aside from so many people releasing fish,many also have a problem keeping what they consider "dinks".


----------



## Nipididdee (Apr 19, 2004)

I read through the thread and glad to see the importance stressed about ODNR regs. and specifics to each watershed. 

C&R isn't "bad" or "good"... it's really up to the fishery and what the science tells us to do for each body of water. To C&R or not to C&R shouldn't be a blanket.

One thing is certain accross the board...overharvest will destroy a fishery. However the means that overharvest might occur.

The paradigm shift for the majority of bass anglers in the mid late 70's and most prevelant for the entire group in the 80's until now of C&R bassers, could be tallied as a foremost reason many reservoirs have flourished for bass fishing the past 20 years.

I do get a chuckle though from the gasps of the ladue cult when the infamous ramp stories of the Amish are going home with a "cooler full" of 5lbrs. I have always argued that it is most likely just as much a benefit to the health of the fishery as opposed to hurting it as there is such a strong bass C&R ethic there among the majority of true bass consumers.

When you look at large groups though...say per chance  a tournament organization that may clear out 3-500 fish in a single day, multiple times during the year, C&R and everything that goes with it to reduce mortality is a must to prevent overharvest...UNLESS... the science would tell us otherwise.

Gilliland (the same guy in this one) had an excellent article further about this in BASS Times a couple of months ago...I'll try to dig it up.

nip


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

> When you look at large groups though...say per chance a tournament organization that may clear out 3-500 fish in a single day, multiple times during the year, C&R and everything that goes with it to reduce mortality is a must to prevent overharvest...UNLESS... the science would tell us otherwise.


i'm in total agreement there.tourney fishing could decimate a lot of waters if it was c&k.that was fairly standard practice if i'm not mistaken,in early tourneys.when ray and the boys got it going,they understood the damage that could be done,and changed it all.what i said on this before stands.c&r caught on and eventually everyone and his second cousin decided it was the only way,and have carried to to a new level.i know you've witnessed as much as me,the tendency of so many to push it beyond the limits.they actually get downright nasty about others keeping a bass from anywhere.they worship those fish like they're some kind of god.just like fewer numbers do with carp,catfish,steelhead,etc.
they just can't fathom that c&r in some cases can be just as detrimental as overharvesting.


> The paradigm shift for the majority of bass anglers in the mid late 70's and most prevalent for the entire group in the 80's of C&R bassers could be tallied as a foremost reason many reservoirs have flourished for bass fishing the past 20 years


i would substitute tourney fishers for bass anglers in that statement,though they seem synonymous for the most part,nowadays 
my point is your basic everyday bass fisherman couldn't/wouldn't do the damage that the enormous numbers of tourney guys beating the water annually are capable of.


----------



## BassCrazy (Oct 11, 2007)

Fish populations and growth rates depend on habitat and fisheries management as much as harvest. I always exercise catch and release for two reasons:

1. I catch fish for the sport, not the food.
2. Buick is right! I don't feel like cleaning them.

However, there is nothing wrong with keeping fish for the dinner table if you're so inclined. Anglers keeping a couple of fish is not going to decimate a fish population unless habitat is not suitable or management is inneffective or nonexistent.

As long as we treat our lakes as a valuable natural resource and act accordingly (no litter, keep only enough to eat), nature will take care of the rest to a certain extent.

One exception, I don't think it is ever acceptable to fish for bedding fish.

Just my opinion.

Good Fishin'


Joe


----------



## pizza (Apr 4, 2008)

I don't believe there to be a single _public_ fishery in _Ohio_(reservoir, pond, river, or creek) where catch and release would be bad. Argue all you want, you won't change my mind. I mean is the article trying to say that 5,000 years ago, mother nature didn't know what's up?

There are a lot of fisherman in Ohio (a lot of people period) and it is a small state. Fishing pressure is much higher than in the states mentioned (Oklahoma and NE Georgia). Not to mention the article is written by B.A.S.S.(who cares more about making money than conservation, simple as that)......

Having said that, to each his/her own. Just follow regs. I'd prefer someone keep their limits every time out and not drive a Hummer, than C&R and drive a Hummer (tools). Substitute "have a large carbon footprint" for "drive a Hummer" if you prefer. There was a great editorial in Field and Stream earlier this year about this and how the guy was proud of his F-150 (good for him, he mentioned all the other things he did to keep his carbon footprint small)


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

> I don't believe there to be a single public fishery in Ohio(reservoir, pond, river, or creek) where catch and release would be bad. Argue all you want, you won't change my mind. I mean is the article trying to say that 5,000 years ago, mother nature didn't know what's up?


LOL.why do people try to make comparisons between today and 5000 years ago? 
there is a night and day difference.


----------



## andyman (Jul 12, 2005)

I agree with the article 10,000%.

_"Chris Horton, director of BASS Conservation, says that catch and release has contributed greatly to the sustainability of fisheries over the last thirty years, but he also admits that on certain waters there needs to be more harvest."_

And I will continue to promote 100% Catch and Release for LOTIC smallmouth bass. A river environment is completely different than a lake environment.
However, I can think of MANY lakes that could use a whole bunch of selective harvest.

And just as Misfit says "i've been trying for years to get some of those points across to the people who insist that c&r is "the way".those who belittle others for keeping a few fish for the table,and try to beat their own misguided beliefs into people's heads.we've seen a lot of that on this site,which has had a negative impact on how/what people on both sides post."
The reverse holds true, also. There are those who intentionally flaunt dead fish and speak of "cleaning out" ponds and streams, just for a reaction.
That too grows tired.

It would be great to see more people gain a better understanding of biology and resource conservation so they could tell the difference between harming or helping their fishery.


----------



## Wannabitawerm (Apr 13, 2004)

There are always gonna be differing opinions on this subject, no matter how many experts, scientists, biologists, present facts or people present their opinions. Some people will always look down on everyone for keeping fish, others will defend the crisco disco until their dying day. I'll keep a legally caught bass for the fryer if I'm out fishing as I normally do not target them. The amount of bass I keep in a year certainly won't hurt any populations in the lakes I fish. If I came home without fish for dinner, my wife would soon convince me there is no point to it. (The only reason she tolerates my fishing Erie is because we would not pay that much per pound for 'eyes and perch at the store. She sees it as a resource for our family to benefit from.) The best you can do for OUR sport is be responsible and follow the limits and regs the ODNR sets for us.


----------



## Erterbass (Jul 4, 2005)

I'll defend B.A.S.S. from the standpoint of conservation - it is one of the primary activities conducted by BASS. The organization has been active since the mid-70s in promoting conservation and protection of our natural resources as well as our right to access to those resources.

The difference between 5000 years ago and now? Now we stock and create resources that wouldn't exist naturally - for example, most of the lakes in this and virtually every other state are actually reservoirs. There are VERY FEW natural lakes of any size in Ohio and virtually all of the big lakes in the southeast and southwest are river-fed reservoirs. And they are all managed fisheries (and probably stocked, too) that are regulated to one degree or another.

BTW, Pizza, don't get started with the 'carbon footprint' concept. All life on earth is a carbon footprint and I can point you to plenty of resources that debunk the 'man-made global warming' hoax. I for one want to stay with the C&R discussion...

Bob


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

> The reverse holds true, also. There are those who intentionally flaunt dead fish and speak of "cleaning out" ponds and streams, just for a reaction.
> That too grows tired.


while that is true,it is a whole other discussion,with no relevance in this discussion,so please stick to the message.


----------



## andyman (Jul 12, 2005)

Rick,
My point was that there are not just those on the C&R side who "belitte" and try to "beat their own misguided beliefs into people's heads"....but also there are those on the catch and keep side who do the same.
Certainly there's relevance in examining both sides of the issue and the behavior of both. No?


----------



## Eugene (Jun 23, 2004)

I've been arguing that for years. The data are out there for anybody willing to consider. Nobody should be ostracized for activities that fall within regulation.


----------



## Eugene (Jun 23, 2004)

As Andy offers, lotic populations are often structured quite differently than lentic populations. Lotic populations tend to be limited by habitat, so knowing how to target limited lotic habitat makes those populations easily exploited. However, there tends to be pretty little harvest from lotic bass populations.

Lentic populations tend to be driven by predator-prey interactions. Harvesting from either side is how managers tend to arrive at the kind of population structure desired in lentic habitats. All this stuff is pretty commonly taught by any fisheries management program at any university that offers such things.

There were a couple subsequent threads on this article launched in "The Lounge." While it appears this thread should have precedent, I don't think it's really most at home in (or "I missed it because it's in") "NE OH Fishing Reports." As interesting as the article might be to those in the NE, the article at hand doesn't seem much like a NE OH fishing report to me, eh?


----------



## Erterbass (Jul 4, 2005)

Eugene said:


> ...There were a couple subsequent threads on this article launched in "The Lounge." While it appears this thread should have precedent, I don't think it's really most at home in (or "I missed it because it's in") "NE OH Fishing Reports." As interesting as the article might be to those in the NE, the article at hand doesn't seem much like a NE OH fishing report to me, eh?


Good point, Eugene. I'll post it in the Lounge as well.

My trigger finger always goes to NE Ohio - habit I guess  

Bob


----------



## Eugene (Jun 23, 2004)

Erterbass said:


> The difference between 5000 years ago and now? Now we stock and create resources that wouldn't exist naturally - for example, most of the lakes in this and virtually every other state are actually reservoirs. There are VERY FEW natural lakes of any size in Ohio and virtually all of the big lakes in the southeast and southwest are river-fed reservoirs. And they are all managed fisheries (and probably stocked, too) that are regulated to one degree or another.


Another big difference is there are a lot more people having a much bigger impact (not only through direct harvest but also through habitat modifications, introduced non-natives, etc.). Expecting all resources to nourish the world's current human population to come from wild animal populations is no longer possible.

Regarding slot limits, they are excellent tools for improving growth when anglers actually harvest substantial numbers below the slot. However, they are totally defeated when anglers refuse to do so and only harvest above...or not at all. Unfortunately, there's a stigma against harvesting "baby" fish. That stigma just shouldn't be; little fish are the most abundant and most disposable in most situations.

Regarding stocking large public reservoirs, Ohio doesn't stock the biggest staples of reservoir fisheries: the centrarchids (black basses, sunfishes, or crappies). Those populations are wild-reproducing and have to be managed as such. With the black basses (especially largemouth) in the top levels of reservoir food webs, they will be the rarest and least prolific of that group and thus require the most management to sustain. Most stocking in Ohio reservoirs will be of hybrid saugeye, sometimes walleye, and muskie. Of course, a few others are also stocked to a lesser extent (like hybrid striped bass).


----------



## Eugene (Jun 23, 2004)

Erterbass said:


> Good point, Eugene. I'll post it in the Lounge as well.
> 
> My trigger finger always goes to NE Ohio - habit I guess
> 
> Bob


Hold on! It was shut down twice in the lounge because you already launched a perfectly good thread here. Perhaps we should wait for moderators to move it or not at their discretion.


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

no need to make another post in the lounge on the same subject.this one will be moved.

thanks eugene,for bringing it up.in dealing with several other issues,i completely missed the fact this was in the wrong forum
in fact,it should go in the bass forum as it is specifically addressing bass.


----------



## pizza (Apr 4, 2008)

I hear ya (except for the 3rd paragraph of #16).


----------



## Nipididdee (Apr 19, 2004)

I think a missed point in the article is the presumption (when regulators place slots or reduce size limits for keeping) that a certain percentage of fish will be kept... 

...and they are not meeting those numbers as previously anticipated due to the broad philosophy that is common place by a majority of those who actually catch most of the bass- call 'em tourney guys, bass anglers, etc.

The article's argument isn't so much about C&R or not, as MUCH AS IT IS ABOUT FOLLOWING THE PERSCRIBED SCIENCE behind their recs.

I watched a similar scenerio with Kentuckies (spots) on Lake Cumberland. You could keep any size at one time. My grandfather thouroughly enjoyed doing his part...and some of the best eatn' fish you could muster!  

I think it is a misconception and stereotype of weekend warrior "tourney guys" that we are the hell wrathed upon fisheries- we can't win..."we" are either catching and killing the lake or "we" are now turning too many back.

It's the big picture here fellas- bass fisherpeople as a whole, and following prescribed recs.

nip


----------



## fishymcgoo (Jul 20, 2005)

read this thread under sw ohio forum and give me your opinion:
lmr 9-4-08 no shovels but huge channels!


----------



## Bill-H (Apr 13, 2008)

i think that catch and release is good i don't like to spend all day on a lake fishing and not catch no fish because there is no fish to catch i think the limit to keep from 14 in. to 18 in. that my opinion have a great day fishing.


----------

