Catch and Release - Why?

The "catch and release" policy is potentially harmful due to bass overcrowding. "Bass removal is necessary" to improve the potential yield of this lake. STATE CREEL LIMITS APPLY

In the July issue of Fish Alaska on page 46 the writer Pudge Kleinkauf wrote "Catch & Release Rainbows get big in the Mat-Su Valley at three Treasured Lakes".

What's going on here? How can C&R be a failure in one state and wonderful in another? Is there a difference between the species or the water bodies or is the difference between the two state's employees?

What are the facts here? In the Alaska article the free-lance author who said she had not fished either lake spoke to three guys and a biologist who had fished the lakes. Alaska stocks these lakes with fingerlings once every 5 years and does not measure mortality, growth or track any fisherman response due to lack of budget funding! The Alabama sign uses the weasel word "Potential" twice in the sign itself which means they do not know what is going on!

OK what's the conclusion? In Alaska 1/2 the population is near Anchorage. Local lakes have long ago been fished out and voters whined about stocking which the F&G did but others whined about tiny fish so F&G set aside three hard to get to lakes for C&R without any study, justification or follow-up. My guess is the Alabama lakes are NOT stocked but are out of balance for some reason and F&G is guessing that catch and kill is the quick fix without any meaningful study or research.

IMHO these are two great examples of state F&G incompetence and mismanagement of our fisheries. These F&G politicians manage our fisheries to maximize their salaries and minimize our votes. They need to be watched, monitored and told to spend our tax money to optimize fisheries science for the betterment of us all. Go to their meetings, write them and stand up to them and I'll do the same.

Good luck! John

I supposed that fishing pressure in any one area is to be examined.

Our SoCal lakes are so highly fished that if most of us didn't practice C&R, we'd have nothing left to fish in just a few short years.

One of my local lakes made a complete turnaround in "fishability" within five years. At the start, you caught very few, but within that time frame, bass population grew enough to provide ten fish days on a regular basis.

If you live in any other state, consider yourself a fortunate bass angler...for more reasons that just this.

-- "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." - Hillary Clinton

Again I kept a few for the pan and by the third year of fishing the same lake I was catching a fair number of 3 lb bass with an occasional 5 pounder. After 5 years, presently, larger fish are common though my total count is down. Small bait fish are frequently visible in the shallows. That lake was simply over crowded with fish and keeping a few of the smaller ones was beneficial. I always did release the larger fish. I am not a biologist but applied common since to the situation and I believe it paid off. This lake is only about 150 feet wide and 1/3 mile long located behind a diversion dam in an overgrown jungle.

C&R is beneficial if fish size is considered. Keep the small and always release the big mature producers. If you catch an abundance of small fish it might be wise to keep a few for dinner.

Ken

In an ideally balanced habitat (ecosystem) all the environmental factors are in check, working perfectly, & populations sustain themselves for long periods of time. A balanced food chain is a beautiful thing.

Unfortunately, perfectly balanced ecosystems are few & far between. Signs promoting the capture & harvest of bass are placed in places where the bass population has grown way out of balance. This happens alot in relatively "new" & private waters. You'll have near-ideal conditions for a few years. Forage will be abundant & bass spawns will be heavy & successful. The original bass will grow big & robust. But as the bass population grows the forage declines for a number of reasons, resulting in a water full of slow-growing, undersize, hungry bass & a strong shortage of food for them to eat.

Sadly though, in most cases even efforts like the one you mention to support harvest of these small bass don't succeed in reviving the waterway, because generally the root of the problem is at some other level in the food chain or some other factor (environmental, habitat, etc), not with the top-predator (bass).

As for Catch-and-Release, on healthy waters its an invaluable tool for sustaining quality bass fishing.

Warren

Ken

<snipped for brevity>

...... and from what I saw > the French are way beyond us in game management. The only allow harvesting > of juvenile of the specie, leaving the fittest to reproduce.

Yes we call that type of fishery management technique "slot limit." Would you implement that technique in North America to the exclusion of all else with or without scientific study to support it?

From what you described it is not clear that French fishery bureaucrats are smarter managers than North American fishery bureaucrats. But it is clear that they are good businessmen. By keeping divers from killing the big fish, divers come from all over the world to see and photograph the big fish. <g>. Who will pay big francs to see tiny underwater fish?

But seriously you made my point another way. C&R - Only, C&K - Only, Slot limits, Posted - No Fishing, etc. should be used on specific water bodies for specified purposes based upon research and with public participation. "One size fits all" is not the best IMHO. Neither is "Squeaky wheel gets the grease" always the best way to go.

John

Are you 100% certain that the esox critters you're catching are pike and not pickerel? Muskellunge, Northern Pike and several sub-species of Pickerel are all members of the family Esox. They all look similar, muskies are the largest, northern pike run second and pickerel rarely get larger than what you describe.

Harry J aka Thundercat Brooklyn Bill's Tackle Shop Fishing Team http://www.geocities.com/brooklynbill2003/products.html Share the knowledge, compete on execution.

An independent posting by Citizen Bob

Citizen Bob

(I love guys who try to be internet police, who try to tell other what they should read, and from who,, let them make up their own minds, or you just smarter than they are?)

In small compounds C&R, can cause an unbalanced population, small compounds (under 1.000 acres), can only support so many fish poundage, (actually this is true of all fisheries, but rarely do you find a over population in bigger lakes) you can support 50,000 dinks, or 5,000 good heavy fish

A certain number of Fish, must be removed to get decent weights in the other fish that are left, this is true in all game management programs from deer to turkey, if you remove the natural predators, then man must take their place to have healthy animals, otherwise over populations occur, sickness, and stunted growth follow.

Many state game and fish biologist try to balance everything to get the proper number of fish, and proper growth rates,, in some of our impoundment's they want a slot removed, or a slot left, to improve the balance. Most biologist agree down here, that you C&R bass over 2 lbs in small compounds, and keep everything under 2 lbs you catch,, this will grow you some real trophies, and you will still have plenty of fish to catch each time out, as the bigger females lay more eggs at each spawn, so there will be a constant supply of smaller fish to keep and eat.

It's all a numbers game,, we have preached catch and release, and most bass fishermen have started using it', in some areas though, they have carried it too far now, it's time to harvest, but harvest the "right" size fish so everyone benefits. This is why we have Limits of how many fish to keep, is to keep the population balanced.

--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.714 / Virus Database: 470 - Release Date: 7/2/04

Also his close made my point again.

> As for Catch-and-Release, on healthy waters its an invaluable tool for > sustaining quality bass fishing.

On UNhealthy waters C&R may be a stupid tool, the correct tool or just one of many tools needed in attempting to recover bass limnology. My point was that many F&G organizations take action in a vacuum or based upon political reasons instead of knowing specifically what is wrong in a fishery and addressing the problem (not symptoms) in a scientific manner. They often take the cheap, easy way out by merely changing fishing regulations instead of fixing the problem.

My original point was that both Alaska and Alabama F&G are totally clueless as to what is going on in those 6 lakes! Both diddled with the C&R regulations instead of fixing their respective problems. I don't know about Alabama's three lakes but in Alaska's Mat-su Valley they have no plan whatsoever for those three lakes so they can never be held accountable for doing anything right OR wrong! What is Alabama's definition of yield? How will they measure the success of yield by C&K? Does Alabama F&G have a measurable recovery plan for their three lakes or they just wishing and hoping C&K will make the public complaints go away?

Our Bass and all fishing resources are far too important to be managed by lackadaisical F&G practices.

John

If not, is it possible that they have budget limitations, more pressing agendas or other problems that you don't know about? To say their practices appear misguided, in your opinion, is fine, but to say they are lackadaisical without knowing their side of the story seems a bit harsh. They may have a very well thought out plan, of which you only know a small portion. On the other hand, they might be totally lost. My point is, you can't make the call unless you have all the facts, or have walked a mile in their shoes...

My two cents...

Why not stop C&R altogether and keep what you want, when you want. You can even organize C&K events -- similar to bass tournements -- to drive home the point to the DNR and F&G people.

After a few organized events -- and arrests (look what it's done for Martin Sheen and PETA) you'll really drive the point home.

C'mon now, who's gonna be the first?

--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.714 / Virus Database: 470 - Release Date: 7/2/04

I am a little familiar with the Alabama Game and Fish department - they don' t do a lot of fishery management based on politics - they do it on studies of the lakes. Ronnie fishing.guide@about.com http://fishing.about.com

civil disobedience has worked to change many rulesand of all days, Independence Day, what a great day to bring it up. Boston Tea partyand others......

Yep we do have a few cool areas to fish but very few. You have reinforced the methods of the French by identifying that we have a FEW places that practice selective culling.

Ken

Yes, 200% certain. Although I have no musky experience, I have extensive pike and pickerel experience. As a matter of fact, in our Finger Lakes, I have caught pickerel up to 4.5 pounds, with many in the 20-23" range, and I believe they fight better than largemouth. I have not seen any pickerel in the small ponds around here, while pike are commonly present in them.

I know nothing about biology, but there is obviously something going on in this pond to produce normal bass and anemic pike.

Which reminds me of a story. A friend of mine never fished around here, but took a trip to Canada once or twice a year. He said he always caught smallmouth and pickerel. One day he fished here with me, and as he was bringing a pickerel into the boat, he said, "what the hell is that?" I said, "Mark, what do you mean, you said you always caught pickerel in Canada?" Of course, it turned out that where he went, they reversed the two species names, and what he was catching there were pike.

You'll no doubt get slammed for saying that, but I agree with you.

RichZ© www.richz.com/fishing

Luckily you have big, robust bass in your lake! Why are the pike small? There could be many reasons, but if I had to guess the most likely it would be a climate/habitat factor like mean water temperature. Obviously there's not a forage problem,unless the pike can't catch & utilize the prey the bass are eating.

Pike require lower water temps than bass, that's why we find them for North of the bass' uppermost range. Your lake may be too shallow for them to find desireable temps in the heat of the summer, and although they may indeed survive & even reproduce, the stress they get from the hot water doesn't promote good growth rates.

Keep in mind that I know nothing about your lake, but this is just one of several possible explanations. All species have upper & lower levels of any given environmental factor that they can tolerate, but generally the further they get from the "ideal" level the worse off they are.

Hope that helps!

Warren