Catch and release - reminders

[Foxsea]

Admin. rightly noted that this discussion should be taken away from the Nanoose/French Creek Reports. The topic has been discussed before but apparently some reminders are necessary. The science is clear and this is the distillation of the findings concerning catch and release and reducing fish mortality.
1 ) Use tackle that minimizes deep hooking and injury. Barbless are regulation and circle hooks do less damage than J hooks.
2) Don't play a fish to exhaustion. Use equipment that allows you to bring the fish to the boat quickly.
3) Leave the fish in the water. Use a measuring stick and take pictures at the side of the boat. Release the fish with minimal handling. Use a gaff to aid in release if you are proficient with it.
4) If you must net the fish, use a knotless or coated net with fine mesh. Remove the hook gently using forceps or pliers.
5) If you must handle the fish, use wet hands and cradle the fish. Do not squeeze or touch eyes or gills. Do not remove slime or scales by manhandling the fish. This is critical to survival.
6) Keep the time the fish is out of the water very short. This is critical to survival.
7) Return the fish to the water gently and hold into the current to revive if necessary.
Fish treated as above stand an excellent chance of surviving and returning to their spawning beds.

 

[ab1752]

During C&R, I wonder why anyone has a net on board at all. And ok, if you have to get that pic, make damn sure to hold the fish in the right spots, if you grab near the belly its almost guaranteed mortality due to internal bleeding.

 

[Whitebuck]

Most of the C and R pics on this site with the springs are horrible. Its even worse when you see the leaders in our industry netting and bringing every 8-10lb smiley on board to get a pic. You would think these people would be setting the bar on how release fish properly...

With that being said every hatchery spring we get right now.should be wacked. **** DFO

 

[Foxsea]

During C&R, I wonder why anyone has a net on board at all. And ok, if you have to get that pic, make damn sure to hold the fish in the right spots, if you grab near the belly its almost guaranteed mortality due to internal bleeding.

Just me but I avoid deliberate catch and release fishing because of the risk for unintentional injury to the fish. When retention is allowed, I also release the biggest, healthy fish after taking a quick picture of them alongside the boat. When fishing is open and I'm looking for salmon for the freezer, damned right I'll bonk a nice teener. The rest, I try to be quick and gentle with.

 

[trophywife]

dont play with your food.

 

[ab1752]

I try and be kind all season and ya, I go out for C&R a handful of times a year. Same program, in retention or not, single 4/0 siwash hook, that's it. Nothing touches a net unless it's about to feel the bonk too. Let's be clear, I was not always so evolved but I want to be able to keep fishing down the line and try to do my part.

 

[ericl]

I am most certainly guilty of having committed stupidity with fishing; mostly keeping more than I need. Looks like many here know what to do and DO IT. The "pro-picture" posts from the Nanoose/French Creek Reports thread are disappointing at the least - I remember a post last year on how a 50#-ish fish up in Haida "deserved to be hauled out of the water & have it's picture taken." I would be remiss if I didn't slam treble hooks........

 

[Ripperoflips]

As Foxsea says, don't take the fish out of the water if you are going to C&R, you can grab them by the tail and get the hook out. When mooching I always use bronze hooks, if the fish is hooked where it's hard to remove the hook without harming the fish I just cut the leader. Seeing that I mostly use 8lb-10lb leaders cutting it short so's not to interfere with the fish feeding, the bronze hook rusts out quickly.

 

[Powerset]

So just as a rule of thumb, Pros shouldn’t be bringing 75-100 Springs to the boat each week with pics of many? That’s a bad thing I would say right? I know there is a massive run of springs between Nanaimo all the way up to CR. In places it’s hard to keep lures in the water long enough to find a hatchery coho because of those pesky springs. In spite of Dfo reports to the contrary there a sh%£ load of springs out there. I don’t like a bunch of C & R when it’s closed for conservation reasons but my heart goes out to guides and outfitters who have been crapped on by a bs closure. So what’s the right thing as far as C& R , have fun for a few hours, let em all go regardless of the number or be more cautious, don’t troll an area that’s really banging them out to avoid killing a few accidentally because of deep hookups etc?

 

[ericl]

So what’s the right thing as far as C& R , have fun for a few hours, let em all go regardless of the number or be more cautious, don’t troll an area that’s really banging them out to avoid killing a few accidentally because of deep hookups etc?

That is up to the individual; it is legal to C&R, and take them out of the water in BC.
We all draw the line, just in different locations.
Down in WA in most areas it is illegal to take a fish being released out of the water. There are set seasons for both Coho & Chinook - if neither Coho or Chinook is open, there is no Salmon fishing. WA, as well as very state on the West Coast make treble hooks illegal. BC make treble hooks illegal in some terminal areas. There are those that deny that treble hooks are more lethal than regular hooks.
The REAL problem with what is going on now in BC is that along with catching fin-clipped Chinook, wild fish are also caught. There is an associated mortality associated with catching & releasing Salmon. It has been studied to death down here in WA because our Inland Chinook fisheries are all for clipped fish, and the catch quota of these clipped fish is determined by how many wild fish will die from being caught. The most common percentage for this mortality seems to be 15% with an additional 5% for "drop-off" mortality (5% of fish that are hooked but get loose will die) for a total of 20%. It is commonly accepted that bringing the fish on the boat and when doing so the time of which the fish out of the water increase mortality rates. What I do not know is whether the 15% number is for fish released while still in the water or not. As in most cases, real common sense goes a long way.

IMO the right thing would be for DFO to not have C&R fisheries.

 

[agentaqua]

Good post, Eric. Good points on the wild mortality, as well. Thanks also for being brave & honest enough to open the discussion on what can be a contentious issue for some.

Following suit in the honesty department – I only see C&R defensible in very specific conditions where it is a conservation tool rather than a directed fishery. We release female crabs for that same reason and hunt bucks verses does also for that same reason – which everyone appears to agree with.

If one is out targeting a species or stock that is NOT at risk and one inadvertently catches either a species, stock or sex that is either “at risk” or has some other conservation need that by gently releasing it (and taking care to ensure this by suitable strategies recommended above by other posters) – then it makes sense.

Fishing @ a time/place where there is a high likelihood of intercepting a species, stock or sex that is either “at risk” or has some other conservation need – and sometimes explicitly so – makes absolutely no sense to me.

As others said - “don’t play with you food”. If you limit out – go home or stop fishing. If you truly want to bond with fish – put on a dry suit and float down a river @ spawning time – or get an underwater camera – or whatever. Bonding does not require that you bring a fish out of the water simply for bragging rights for a picture. We should all of grown out of that about 17-19YO.

 

[OldBlackDog]

Then you must give up all fishing now and in the future till it is proven all at risk species are fine.




Fishing @ a time/place where there is a high likelihood of intercepting a species, stock or sex that is either “at risk” or has some other conservation need – and sometimes explicitly so – makes absolutely no sense to me.

 

[agentaqua]

You have a very different understanding of what "at risk" means, OBD. Looks like sockeye is in the tank this year, ECVI coho and some summer runs in the Fraser are "at risk". Many species and stocks of salmon are ok. Are there are other species of freshwater trout and saltwater finfish that are ok, as well. As I said, fishing @ a time/place EXPLICITLY where there is a high likelihood of intercepting a species, stock or sex that is either “at risk” for that species, stock or sex that is either “at risk” or some conservation concern - makes absolutely no sense to me.

I think most reasonable people on this forum would agree with that.

 

[OldBlackDog]

No I do not.

At risk, show me what stocks are not at risk and where they are at any given time.
Show me the science on this as you would say.

Do you really think science really knows exactly what stocks are at risk and exactly where they are at any given time?

The west coast rivers are at risk as well so be sure you cover them.

So, you personally are ok with not really knowing?

It is only in the last couple of years that Canada actually looked out in the ocean for where the fish go.
They still do not know everything.

Many species of salmon stocks are NOT ok.


So saying that we know what is going on is just BS.
We know a little, but far from everything.

You have a very different understanding of what "at risk" means, OBD. Looks like sockeye is in the tank this year, ECVI coho and some summer runs in the Fraser are "at risk". Many species and stocks of salmon are ok. Are there are other species of freshwater trout and saltwater finfish that are ok, as well. As I said, fishing @ a time/place EXPLICITLY where there is a high likelihood of intercepting a species, stock or sex that is either “at risk” for that species, stock or sex that is either “at risk” or some conservation concern - makes absolutely no sense to me.

I think most reasonable people on this forum would agree with that.

 

[agentaqua]

Lots to know agreed. We do know the stocks in the worst conditions. Let's not target specifically on them - esp. for catch and release besides retention fisheries. I think you're trying to make this more complicated than it needs to be.

 

[wildmanyeah]

Lots to know agreed. We do know the stocks in the worst conditions. Let's not target specifically on them - esp. for catch and release besides retention fisheries. I think you're trying to make this more complicated than it needs to be.

Wcvi stocks are at risk, Fraser stocks are at risk, many small unnamed mainland stocks are at risk, Nanaimo stocks are at risk.

OBD is right this rabbit whole only has one ending and it’s full closures all the time in the ocean.

Something the the MCC is already pushing for. They only want in river fisheries or terminal fisheries.

 

[ericl]

Here is a thread on the costs of raising Hatchery fish; FYI it looks like the cost is per returning fish versus released fish:
https://www.gamefishin.com/threads/the-cost-to-produce-hatchery-fish.18424/

So, it appears that the hatchery fish which seem to be held in such low regard and taken for granted by some on here are quite expensive; if you had to "pay your own way" for these fish would you do it? Pretty sure that habitat restoration needs to bring back wild runs will be expensive as well. Having a $50 tag for every fish is certainly an alternative.
There are other bad alternatives. Down in WA, to protect Yelloweye Rockfish in inside waters you cannot bottom fish deeper than 120' except during Halibut Season, and if you are Halibut fishing deeper that 120', and Ling cod is also open, any Ling cod must be released.

IMO we down here in WA got to this point by putting the wants of Fishers above conservation.

Something the the MCC is already pushing for. They only want in river fisheries or terminal fisheries.

Yet another bad alternative for Fishers and consumers as IMO these terminal area "boots" aren't much good for eating.

I had a conversation with Dave Murphy who is active in Salmon politics back in 2017 or so on the subject of conservation of wild stocks & the upcoming 2019 Salmon Treaty. According to Dave, the scientists on the Pacific Salmon Commission now realize that the science behind the AABM (Aggregate Abundance Based Management) fishery's "is broken". The theory behind AABM is that using the predicted return of indicator stocks (as an example many Columbia River stocks are indicator stocks because the number of Jacks counted at dam fish ladders can be used to predict the return of returning mature fish) can be used to determine the overall harvest of mixed stocks (intermingled indicator stocks as well as endangered stocks).
Sadly, the needs of Fishers (IMO primarily the SEAK commercial troll fleet) won. FYI the SEAK fishery occurs at least 3 miles offshore so they can limit the number of AK fish caught; as they have virtually no wild fish of their own left.

In conclusion we should realize the cost of paying for past mistakes, and that these mistakes incur a costly interest rate for each year we continue the mistakes.

 

[G-Auto]

Here is a thread on the costs of raising Hatchery fish; FYI it looks like the cost is per returning fish versus released fish:
https://www.gamefishin.com/threads/the-cost-to-produce-hatchery-fish.18424/

Not only does the real article not exist anymore, it is nearly 20 years old.... and also based on Oregon hatcheries... Next to zero relevance to BC hatcheries.

 

[Whole in the Water]

The current varied and complex situations that salmon populations have on the west coast of North America are both long term and legion. To say that just doing one thing, or another will solve the problem is simplistic and naïve. It will take a multi-sector, multi-region, multi-govt, long term, costly in both terms of $ and effort and continued long term support to increase salmon populations. That is why it is so hard to do and hasn't been done on a large scale to any large degree of success yet. For anyone to say that the multi-faceted solutions that need to be done does NOT include hatcheries is the medium term is idealistic, close minded and again naïve. Yes hatcheries do have their issues, but many of the criticisms are based upon the 1970's style hatcheries management that DFO still stubbornly and myopically still practices. There have been advances that solve some of the problems with hatcheries that need to be put into practice to mitigate some of the concerns with hatcheries.

The bottom line IMO is good luck to anyone with trying to bring salmon back with just habitat restoration and conservation efforts. Why - because there has not been in the past, or currently, or most likely in the future the long term public and political will to provide the long term support, funding and sacrifices to private and corporate profits (due to less development opportunities, etc.) to make this successful. This is why there are very little wild salmon populations left in other places they once were abundant like NW Europe and the NE of North America. History and current experience has been pretty clear that an ever increasing human population and accompanying development and healthy, vibrant wild salmon populations do not mix. The end result is always the salmon populations lose out like many other organisms world wide. IMO hatcheries whether you like them or not, need to be part of the solution to bring back salmon populations. My 2 bits.

 

[agentaqua]

I know there has been several threads already on the hatchery debate - so I won't post to much detail except to ask: how do we measure the success of hatcheries and when do we get out of the ER ward - and what steps are we taking to benchmark how we are doing towards that end?