Catch and Release - Why?

I fish in a small secluded lake. I pretty much have it to myself. When I
first discovered it bass were plentiful but small, most were no larger than
1.5 lbs. . A strike was to be had on nearly every cast. There were few
small bait fish in the lake and my guess is that they were consumed by the
numerous bass as fast as they were spawned. I began keeping a few bass on
every trip for the pan. A year later the bass were notably larger and
still plentiful but not in the same numbers. Every third cast would produce
a strike.

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


"bassrecord" wrote in message
...
Rodney posted a picture entitled For you C&R Guys he took of a very
expensive metal sign designed to last multiple years and/or be moved
around
from lake to lake on alt binaries pictures fish that he said had been
posted
on three Alabama lakes that read:

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