Catch and Release vs Catch and Kill?

First off…I could post this question on any forum and it would fit…but I choose MN Trout Streams because of the other posts simialar in content.

For the folks that don’t know me, I take pictures of fish and release them (even more so if they are large…I also take pictures of fish….and eat them.

Here’s my question:

Many of us practice catch and release fishing. Many reasons why we do this. We have large amounts of fish in our lakes and streams, yet everyone from boat manufactures to lure makers promote c&r…

Now let’s take a look at duck hunting (we could insert most any hunting here). It seems like the duck population is more fragile than the fish populations, but you don’t hear about catch and release from shot shell companys…or anyone for that matter.

Yes, it may sound silly…but think about it. If our duck population is healthy without c&r…why wouldn’t our fish population? Or on the other hand, if our fish benifit from it…wouldn’t our duck population? (umm…strike that last question)

I have to quit thinking out loud…otherwise I’ll be joining PETA!

I think I better comparison could be made between trout fishing (or any fishing) to deer hunting than duck hunting. Ducks have this special ability to get up and fly away if they are getting over pressured. Fish can’t relocate themselves to another stream/lake just because a lot of people fish there .

But deer hunting on the other hand coud be a reasonable comparison. If you keep shooting all the little bucks out of a certain area, you aren’t going to see very many larger bucks, just for the fact that the deer don’t have an opportunity to grow to a respectable size before being “harvested”. But if you were to manage a certain peice of property for bigger bucks by putting antler restrictions on or something simlar, it only makes sense that eventually you’ll have more and bigger bucks.

The same goes for trout fishing. If everyone and there brother is fishing a stream and keeping every fish they catch over 12″, it’s no suprise that there aren’t many fish over 12″ left in the stream. It seems like common sense to me .

I’m not sure if that’s what you were getting at, because that last post kinda seemed like a bunch of random rambling jibberish to me……but I couldn’t let my buddy BrianK hang out there all by himself like that

Very good point “whipper”.

I think the deer hunting analogy is a good one. Both area trout and deer populations are very high, but a conscious effort has been made as of late for some trophy deer management (not that dissimilar to what’s going on here in southeast MN). To equate larger bucks to larger trout is not much of a stretch – if both species are given the ample time to grow large enough (and pass on their genetic traits) without being harvested, then you will have better quality, that is if larger means better. As an avid bow hunter, I have access to property that is trophy managed – does can be taken at any time, but all bucks must have 8 points or more (no basket bucks). There’s a reason why I’ve seen 6-8 different deer this fall that are in that wall mounting category – because they’ve been protected and given enough time to get large. Kind of like how you could easily manage a trout resource.

By the way, I have seen the list of streams that will be under new regulations for 2005, as well as the ones that did not make the cut. I cannot comment as of yet as the official DNR press release is slated for tomorrow (Tuesday). I’m sure that list will foster some off season discussion.

Hey guys, I was thinking. When you look at a large group of deer in an area you often see and weed out the lesser (genetically speaking) bucks, nontypicals, and so on. Fish, just by looking at them, all apear to be genetically the same. Do some fish have better genetics and grow faster and grow larger than others. My point is that management in fish may be a lot more effective than deer.

Also BrianK, it’s kinda hard to catch and release ducks. But, seasons and limits are adjusted according to the duck populations. I myself do my “catch and release” duck hunting with a camera in the early spring. Fall is harvest time. I also believe that fishing brings in much more $$$ than duck hunting, so there is a lot more $$$ to lose if there are no more fish.

Ahhhh the almight buck (sorry for the pun) comes into play…

It’s been documented many times that genetics do come into play for the larger fish…and environmental factors like “growing season” food availability ect. One fishereies expert felt that if you could trace all world record fish back to their fry stages, you would see a longer summer (growing) season.

I hear what your saying about money….but ducks are more visable not only to the hunters but anyone who can see.

You bring up a good point. Why do we release the larger say…trout…walleyes, but shoot the biggest deer? I don’t hang around many deer hunters..and I’m certainly not picking on them..just trying to get educated.
I saw pictures of an albino deer harvested last year…maybe a bad comparison…If I caught an albino trout…well, to be honest… I would shoot it with a camera and release it.

Quote:

---

My point is that management in fish may be a lot more effective than deer

---

Here’s a general statement…I hope it’s not too general!
ALL the fisherman I know release the larger fish (including trout)…All the deer hunters I know are dreaming of the day the “big” one comes into their sights….

I’m going to say this again…because I just read what I typed and I don’t want to give anyone the wrong imprssion. I’m not bashing anything here…just trying to understand the selective harvest of fish..but not ducks and deer. Or maybe it should be called selective management?

(Oh jez…now i’m bashing the dnr! )

There’s a lot of selective harvest in hunting too. Bucks more often than does. No does at all if the population is low. Drakes and roosters rather than hens. Too bad the ducks get over slaughtered when they make it down south though.

Shouldn’t you be in the “whiskered trout” forum by the way?

I think what we are trying to do here is compare apples to oranges – hunting and fishing. You can choose whether to throw back a fish (not necessarily a trout), but you can’t bring your slug or arrow back. I could go on a huge rant (which may be better served for a hunting forum) about how people who get a doe tag for gun hunting should HAVE TO HARVEST a doe and not have the option to shoot either sex, but it’s a fishing forum. Fising and hunting have one parallel: you cannot continue to harvest the smaller ones (fish or trout) all the time and never give them the chance to grow to a larger, mature, trophy state where they can pass on their genetics. The reality is that the seasons and the rules to your shotgun season for deer are a joke.

The testosterone machismo that is involved with “shooting a deer that has antlers” whether it be two points or twelve transcends into a fishing a litle bit from the idea that in order to be successful, that means you either harvest your limit, or harvest a trophy fish, or both. I don’t get it.

I’ve actually shot ducks with the Black Duck, and while the guy is not yet an old timer by any stretch of the imagination, he has grown up on the mighty River coming from gnerations of duck hunters who do things “the right way.”

The bottom line is that you have 290 million people in this country as we speak and that number is projected to be 400 million fifty years from now. If you think things are bad now…give it some time.

I am far from a hunting expert, but I thought that ducks are mature in a year and a 2-3 year old deer can be as large as a 10 year old. Fish, on the other hand, grow rather slowly in MN (I am clueless on trout), but most trophy fish are 6+ for river eyes and 20-30 years or more for cats and sturgeon.

So, unless I am off base w/ my assumptions, harvesting trophy game or foul is less of an issue since they can be replaced much faster. Once a large number of big fish are gone, it can take a very long time to recover, if they ever do (stunting by overpop of younger fish).

So many questions but so little time…

Steve W “whiskered trout”?…oh sturgeon! Don’t have a forum for that…yet!

DA…take a step back on the “bring the arrow back” . Just don’t shoot at a monster buck…is what I was getting at….sort of…

You have a choice when you land any fish, release it…or have it for dinner. Same with deer, you have a choice when you pull or don’t pull the trigger…

Some have mentioned bucks, roosters and drakes only…so wouldn’t that help the fish too.

Blackduck…DA kinda put you on a pedistal…(so to speak) What do you do differantly than most duck hunters? (maybe this would better be answered in a pm)

I have to run but I just want to get one opinion in here before the wife forgets about her no shooting in the house rule…

Your comments above made be think of this DA. For most of us it was our Dad’s that taught us how to hunt and fish. They were growing up in the 20’s 03′ and 40’s (the fathers of the boomers). Don’t know much about the deer herds except around Hutchinson you bragged if you saw ONE in the 60’s. But with fish and duck’s they were so plentiful that reports of the whole lake rising off the water, limits of walleyes and after you took them home, cleaned them went out for your second (and some times third limit), people from the Twin Cities were caught smuggling pheasants in their hub caps.

All of this break throughs with selective harvest, catch and release is new. I think there will be more and more profound break throughs in the next twenty years. I think we all need to think out of the box to grow our fish and game so not only we can see the benefits, but our sons and daughters. (Did I just say “do it for the kids”? Paul, you would be proud of me )