Halfordian Golfer wrote:


You are citing the mortality rate per capture. As I mentioned this is
cumulative and increases as exploitation increases which is why they
referred to the 1981 study.

It is per capture and that seems VERY meaningful to me. If the study is
accurate, it seems that in some situations, C&R has EXTREMELY low
mortality rate.



The slot limit is definitely preferable to pure Catch and Release,
which can never be justified. I really, really appreciate and respect
that you recognize this difference. As I've often stated, mortality is
not a litmus of ethicity. Of all the fish caught and released in all
studies 100% of them suffer some form of injury and stress that is
unequaled in all other man/animal relationship management.


I'm not a fan of C&R except in some limited situations, but for very
different reasons than you. All types of regulations are tools for
biologist to manage their fisheries. Different anglers seek different
things from angling and the DOW's weigh this in making regulation
decisions. Whether "pure" C&R can be justified to YOUR mind is
irrelevant. C&R is a tool that biologists find useful in managing some
fisheries.

Personally, what I have trouble with are regulations and policies that
ignore the biology of the fishery in favor of "politics".

(Not looking to get in a C&R debate with you. Just thought you'd be
interested in some studies that show such a small mortality rate. They
were news to me.)

Willi