Catch and Release - Why?

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

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

It's very simple John, allow me to explain.

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


"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

IMHO these are two great examples of state F&G incompetence

You are comparing trout in Alaska and bass in Alabama and calling state Game
and Fish folks incompetent?
Ronnie

http://fishing.about.com

As much as I hate to give the French any credit there is one area they could
teach USA a few things. In this country we fish and hunt for the biggest
and best of the stock. We eliminate the superior of the specie. I
traveled to new Caledonia a few years ago and learned that there, under
French law, the mature and adapted superior of the game species are
protected even in their vast ocean resource. The results are a great
experience to observe. I dove their reefs and was astounded at the numbers
and size of all species present. Every coral head had it's resident 400
pound grouper, giant spiny lobster and the surrounding sea was overflowing
with other large fish. They protect the mature of the specie believing
that they are the fittest which have survived disease and predation. The
Mature of the specie are the producers of quality stock 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.

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

"go-bassn" wrote in message
...
It's very simple John, allow me to explain.

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.

Hey Warren, let me embark on a little side trip. I fish a natural pond of 4
or 5 acres. There is a decent population of bass, which are reasonably
proportioned and grow to a reasonable size for western NY. But the majority
of the pike that I've seen are not only small (most run from 16-20", with a
few larger), but significantly skinnier than average. Can you speculate what
might be going on in that water to allow for normal bass but skinny pike?
For what it's worth, I catch maybe 7-10 bass per pike.

IMKen said:

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

"Marty" wrote in messageSNIP

Hey Warren, let me embark on a little side trip. I fish a natural pond of
4
or 5 acres. There is a decent population of bass, which are reasonably
proportioned and grow to a reasonable size for western NY. But the
majority
of the pike that I've seen are not only small (most run from 16-20", with
a
few larger), but significantly skinnier than average. Can you speculate
what
might be going on in that water to allow for normal bass but skinny pike?
For what it's worth, I catch maybe 7-10 bass per pike.

Marty,

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.
--
Steve @ OutdoorFrontiers
http://www.outdoorfrontiers.com
G & S Guide Service and Custom Rods
http://www.herefishyfishy.com

On Sun, 4 Jul 2004 07:01:50 -0500, "Steve @ OutdoorFrontiers"
wrote:


"Marty" wrote in messageSNIP

Hey Warren, let me embark on a little side trip. I fish a natural pond of
4
or 5 acres. There is a decent population of bass, which are reasonably
proportioned and grow to a reasonable size for western NY. But the
majority
of the pike that I've seen are not only small (most run from 16-20", with
a
few larger), but significantly skinnier than average. Can you speculate
what
might be going on in that water to allow for normal bass but skinny pike?
For what it's worth, I catch maybe 7-10 bass per pike.

Marty,

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.

Pickerel was the first thing to come to my mind also, especially in a
pond of that size.


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

Trying to be properly sensitive and Politically Correct, is it not possible
that the "Pike" are simply oppressed and depressed due to being repressed by
the Right?

An independent posting by Citizen Bob

"Marty" wrote in message
...

"go-bassn" wrote in message
...
It's very simple John, allow me to explain.

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.

Hey Warren, let me embark on a little side trip. I fish a natural pond of
4
or 5 acres. There is a decent population of bass, which are reasonably
proportioned and grow to a reasonable size for western NY. But the
majority
of the pike that I've seen are not only small (most run from 16-20", with
a
few larger), but significantly skinnier than average. Can you speculate
what
might be going on in that water to allow for normal bass but skinny pike?
For what it's worth, I catch maybe 7-10 bass per pike.