Some C&R Information

Looking for some information on some different waters to fish during the
Clave, I came upon the following link:

http://visitmt.com/falcon/Fishing_Ma...iver_final.htm

Montana Fish and Game did a study comparing a C&R section of the Madison
to one that was closed for fishing. Although the section with C&R did
have a higher population of fish than it had before C&R was instituted,
the population was 20% lower than in the section that was closed to
fishing. I don't have a URL for the original study.

Willi

I was talking to my wife last night about C&R. I mentioned that fish
get caught more than once and that they may "learn" that that fly is bad
for them, so you have to use lighter tippets and better flies to catch
the big fish. She simply said that if you didn't release them, they
wouldn't get so damn smart.
--
Frank Reid
Reverse Email to reply

From: Willi

Montana Fish and Game did a study comparing a C&R section of the Madison
to one that was closed for fishing.

Although the section with C&R did
have a higher population of fish than it had before C&R was instituted,
the population was 20% lower than in the section that was closed to
fishing. I don't have a URL for the original study.

Not really surprising. Obviously there will be some mortality from stress and
handling, and since these are wild fish, the fishing pressure might cause some
of them to move out of the C&R area, and they might eventually wind up in the
closed area.

Education of prospective anglers on playing and releasing fish might help, but
with the trend to lighter rods and tippets, motality percentages from C&R will
likely remain constant. IMO, one weight rods and 9x tippets are not "sporting"
when you're fishing C&R. I've caught many difficult fish on a midges using a
five weight rod and 7x tippet.

The key numbers, I think, are the dramatic increase in population and size in
the C&R area.


George Adams

"All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only dream of
youth that doth not grow stale with age."
---- J.W Muller

George Adams wrote:

... IMO, one weight rods and 9x tippets are not "sporting"
when you're fishing C&R. I've caught many difficult fish on a midges using a
five weight rod and 7x tippet. ...

There's nothing wrong with a one weight in the hands of a skilled
angler and there'e no guarantee that a klutz won't play a fish to
death with a 7 weight.

I've never owned any 9X tippet and I can count on my fingers and
toes the times I've ever had to go smaller than 6X, but I do use
a one weight frequently. Out west on small feeders where the beast
of the stream is an 8" cutthroat, and it's my favorite rod for those
pockets behind the house-sized boulders in North Cackalacky that
are home to beautiful 6" wild brookies.

I wouldn't recommend a one weight for steelhead, ;-) but for small
fish in small places it's a very fun tool and not at all unsporting.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Willi wrote in news:40bca470$0$206$75868355
@news.frii.net:

http://visitmt.com/falcon/Fishing_Ma...iver_final.htm

From that page

"The success of the catch-and-release regulations has created a new
problem on the Madison, namely, "handling mortality." Vincent documented
this occurrence by comparing trout populations in the catch-and-release
section to those in a research area of the Madison, which had been closed
to fishing for five years. Populations in the closed section were about
20 percent higher than in the catch-and-release area, indicating that
many of the trout handled by anglers were not surviving after release.
Biologists now recommend that fish be brought to net or hand quickly, not
played to exhaustion. A tired fish will have extreme difficulty regaining
its equilibrium in the swift Madison current, especially when the water
is at summer temperatures. If a fish has been played out, it should be
held upright in calm water and moved back and forth gently until it has
recovered its strength. The cavalier "fish drop" release so commonly seen
may prove a deathblow to trout in the rushing waters of the Madison
River."

Boy, I'd love to see the original paper. Just to lend a scientists eye
to this paragraph, I've seen the techniques used by the NYS DEC, and
frankly question such an organization's ability to quantify the fish
population to within 20%. You'd have a hard time convincing me that
Montana can do much better. When I see a 20% difference in this context,
my thought process brings me to "about the same". Could be that the data
collectors just had a better day of shocking in their control region.

Next, you'd have to show me some convincing data that fish populations in
the C and R area were EVER the same as in the closed section, given the
same techniques for population assessment. How far apart are they? Is
the forage base the same? Water chemistry? Bank and bed conditions?
Bird predation? Pollution?

Now, having demonstrated that a) the population difference is real, and
b) the population difference (if any) is not a natural manifestation of
the habitat (i.e., that their "control" no-fishing region is a valid
comparison), you've still got a long way to go to establish that the
difference is due to release mortality. At the very least, you'd have to
provide me with a good harvest estimate, a good population estimate, a
ballpark release mortality estimate, and then show me that the numbers
would add up to a 20% population hit.

Not that I have any problem believing that C and R fishing access can
cause a 20% population hit, I just have a hard time believing that a DNR
can prove it.

Scott

From: Ken Fortenberry

There's nothing wrong with a one weight in the hands of a skilled
angler

Depends where you're fishing, and the size of the fish.

and there'e no guarantee that a klutz won't play a fish to
death with a 7 weight.

Sad, but true.

Out west on small feeders where the beast
of the stream is an 8" cutthroat, and it's my favorite rod for those
pockets behind the house-sized boulders in North Cackalacky that
are home to beautiful 6" wild brookies.

Agreed, but we were discussing sizeable fish on the Madison, IIRC. And would a
one weight be all that much less sporting than a three weight. On the
Farmington River in CT, the two weight rod seems to be the new favorite. This
is a sizeable stream where the average trout is probably 10" to 12", but there
are a considerable number of 16" to 20"+ fish as well. The same guys that have
fallen in love with the two weights also will tell you that if you are using
tippet larger than 9x you won't catch a thing. I have seen a number of good
fish played to complete exhaustion on these rigs. My outfit of choice here is
an 8-1/2 foot five weight Orvis Henry's Fork rod, and generally 6x tippet, 7x
if I'm fishing flies smaller than size 20. It is a very soft rod that protects
a light tippet, and is capable of landing a big fish without playing it till
it's gills are white. And I usually do quite well there.

I wouldn't recommend a one weight for steelhead, ;-) but for small
fish in small places it's a very fun tool and not at all unsporting.

Point taken. I wasn't really considering tiny streams and small fish, I was
taking the Madison situation as a point of reference.

BTW, does your one weight actually take a one weight line, or is it one of
these "one weights" that's actually a two or three weight?


George Adams

"All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only dream of
youth that doth not grow stale with age."
---- J.W Muller

George Adams wrote:
From: Ken Fortenberry
I wouldn't recommend a one weight for steelhead, ;-) but for small
fish in small places it's a very fun tool and not at all unsporting.

Point taken. I wasn't really considering tiny streams and small fish, I was
taking the Madison situation as a point of reference.

BTW, does your one weight actually take a one weight line, or is it one of
these "one weights" that's actually a two or three weight?

It's a 7'6" Orvis SuperFine, it's a "real" one weight and will cast a
one weight line, but since I hardly ever cast more than 30 ft of line
with it I overline it with a two weight line so that it casts better
in close.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Willi wrote:

Looking for some information on some different waters to fish during the
Clave,

i've also been studying a map of the madison area for "different"
waters. there are a lot of small lakes and streams just west of the
cabin creek wildlife mgmt area and potomgeton park. anybody fished that
area?

jeff

I don't get it. If you're using, say, 5x tippet, then any rod,
regardless of weight, that can break 5x tippet without itself breaking
will do the job of landing the fish. Not so? You can put just so many
pounds of tension on the tippet.

So the question is: Can a good quality 1-weight rod break 5x tippet? I
have no idea. I've never used one, and I probably never will. I know my
workhorse 5-weight will (break 5x tippet, that is). It makes no sense to
me to use a rod so light that it can't break the tippet without self
destructing.

When I hook a small fish I horse it in and let it go ASAP. The only fish
I play out, or nearly play out, a (1) large fish I want to keep, and
(2) memorable trophy fish that require a photo.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Scott Seidman wrote:


Boy, I'd love to see the original paper. Just to lend a scientists eye
to this paragraph, I've seen the techniques used by the NYS DEC, and
frankly question such an organization's ability to quantify the fish
population to within 20%. You'd have a hard time convincing me that
Montana can do much better. When I see a 20% difference in this context,
my thought process brings me to "about the same". Could be that the data
collectors just had a better day of shocking in their control region.

Next, you'd have to show me some convincing data that fish populations in
the C and R area were EVER the same as in the closed section, given the
same techniques for population assessment. How far apart are they? Is
the forage base the same? Water chemistry? Bank and bed conditions?
Bird predation? Pollution?

Now, having demonstrated that a) the population difference is real, and
b) the population difference (if any) is not a natural manifestation of
the habitat (i.e., that their "control" no-fishing region is a valid
comparison), you've still got a long way to go to establish that the
difference is due to release mortality. At the very least, you'd have to
provide me with a good harvest estimate, a good population estimate, a
ballpark release mortality estimate, and then show me that the numbers
would add up to a 20% population hit.

Not that I have any problem believing that C and R fishing access can
cause a 20% population hit, I just have a hard time believing that a DNR
can prove it.


I was interested too, but I wasn't able to find the original paper. I'll
look some more when I have time. You make some good points, but in a
natural system like a river, it is extremely difficult/impossible to
control all the variables. The results you get are from a survey, not an
experiment.

A couple things:

The two sections of river are contiguous sections of the Madison and
they are VERY similar (part of the "fifty mile riffle"). I'm "sure" they
measured fish populations in both pre and post. There was no legal
harvest on either section. Before the study, they both had the same
regulations.

Montana has the most professional state fish and game department that
I'm aware of. During one of the Claves we ran into State workers doing
fish counts and measurements. They actually try and manage their
fisheries based on SCIENCE. I wish Colorado even approached their
philosophy. They're the State that showed that the introduction of
catchable trout into a system that has a self sustaining trout
population, actually reduces the trout holding capacity of the system.
They followed that up by stopping the stocking of catchable in most? of
their streams and rivers, although, at the time, I'm sure it was a very
unpopular decision. That study is on the internet and I'm guessed that
the methodology is similar.

You're right the study isn't perfect but it's the best that we have for
measuring C&R mortality over time. IMO, it is MUCH better than the C&R
mortality "experiments" that have been done. I think that more
significant variables are controlled in this type of study than in the
C&R "experiments".

Willi