Catch and Release?

[steve98]

Do you ALL! practice "Catch and Relese"?
I do.
But in the past I did not.
To be honest some of those fish tasted mighty good after a nice day of fishing.

Is there anything wrong in your all opinion with keeping 1 or 2?
Depending on where u catch these fish I.E. The protected or posted waters of NC PA concerning Brook Trout.

As far as your practice of catch and release be HONEST with your respnse.

Steve98

 

[steve98]

Just to add.

I am not talking about those stocked trout.
Steve98

 

[TimMurphy]

Dear Steve,

The two largest wild brook trout I ever caught were eaten by my brother and myself for breakfast. We didn't feel the least bit guilty either because they were mighty tasty.

I have no problem with people who keep and eat wild trout so long as they aren't poaching them or keeping more than the limit. The reality is that the intended purpose of a fish is to provide protein and not amusement.

But I haven't kept a freshwater fish for eating except for a couple of perch and walleye since that brook trout breakfast in 1994. I just don't really care to go through the trouble to keep the catch fresh and clean it. You really need to put fish on ice immediately to keep them their freshest and when I am trout fishing that is rarely an option.

Saltwater fish are a different story. If it's legal sized I generally keep it and eat it. Nothing gets between me and a flounder. They go straight into the icy beer cooler if they are legal.

Regards,
Tim Murphy

 

[Bamboozle]

I'm with Tim on this one. I haven't kept a fresh water fish since I first started fishing but I don't care care who does or doesn't.

But to somewhat hijack this thread I have another question to add to this discussion and PLEASE don't take this as an anti-hunting stance on my part; I don't hunt but I have NO problem with hunters, hunting, guns and death .

OK here's my added question: How many of those that practice fishing C&R also hunt? And if you do both; why do you do the C&R thing when you fish?

 

[tomgamber]

When I lived in Idaho and hiked by butt up 5000 feet just get to a lake I would eat a trout every trip. There is in my opinion, nothing better tasting on earth. I have eaten very few since...only because I can't beleive how terrible they are compared to those wild Idaho fish. There are also very few places in Pa that support wild fish in the manner those places do. When I was younger I used to keep trout and eat it, occasionally. But Idaho ruined it for me. Kind of like farm raised salmon from Chile. Just not the same as wild pacific salmon. If I found a place that I thought would not be harmed in any way by the occasional keeping and eating of a fish or two, first: I would eat it at camp...and second I would tell no one. Unfortunately, there arent; many places like that left.

 

[MKern]

All catch and release here. But I don't like fish.
Bam to answer your question. I used to hun but have horendous hunter's remorse, that is why I switched to fly fishing: where I can be successful often, but not kill an animal in the process.

IMO harvesting for eating or trophy(mounting) I am okay with as long as it isn't disrespectful (not to sound like Ted Nudget). I can't imagine any members of this site that would harvest 5 fish every trip.

Although I can't stand those who catch 5 drop them off at the truck and catch 5 more; only to wrap them in foil and stick them in the freezer only to eventually throw them away.

 

[Gone4Day]

Bamboozle wrote:
OK here's my added question: How many of those that practice fishing C&R also hunt? And if you do both; why do you do the C&R thing when you fish?

Because I can? I love fishing and on an average day I can usually C&R a limit or two. A good day might be five or six limits or more. What fun would it be if I was done for the day after only an hour? Hunting of course is a bit different. Varmints aside, I'll shoot grouse, pheasant, turkey or deer because I like to eat them. I'm less fond of squirrel, rabbit or duck so I don't bother unless I know somebody that wants them. I'm not against harvesting fish and will keep fish that are good filleted, like bass, walleye or crappie but seldom keep trout unless I intend to eat them the same day.

 

[JackM]

I haven't kept any fish I caught for the past 7 years or so, but if I wanted to do so, it wouldn't cause me any guilt. Then again, not much does.

 

[Sparce]

Hello from WV and I might as well step right in it. I will, rarely, keep a stocker. I think it was Lee Wulff who said, "“A good gamefish is too valuable to be caught only once,” .that was in 1938. Don't think we've learned a lot in that time period.
With Brookies in decline and their future not looking a whole lot brighter, the fish I once feasted on while backpacking will never be eaten again.
In WV we have some great C&R waters and the size of the fish prove it works. Works better if only fingerlings are stocked. We also have many Brown and Bow streams that are "unknown" to the general public.
All that said, if the stream is marginal, meaning holdovers are rare or nonexistent, I say go for it. Chase the trucks (guess you have that in PA.) and take your legal limit.
As for the wild streams, have a fish now and then, but remember others use the water too. I think we'd all like to see or kids and grandkids get on wild trout instead of fish that were put in the water hours or minutes before.
How's that for an entrance?

 

[Crotalus]

I practice C&R most of the time. It is very rare that i get hungry enough for trout to keep one. If i do then we will occasionally keep a few stockies when i have the kids out fishing.

Bam, to answer your question I would have to say that it is because i like to eat deer a lot more than fish. Over the years i have cut my hunting back only to what i will eat. Sorry no groundhogs, crows or coons for me.

I guess it all falls under responsible use of the resource. I dont shoot deer just for the antlers, they are a bonus in my mind, and i dont see the point in filling a freezer full of fish that i only like to eat once in a blue moon.

I dont preach my views on other though, if you catch a legal fish and want to keep it then i have no problem with it. i might suggest tossing it back but i wont make a big issue over it.

 

[Padraic]

Bamboozle wrote:
OK here's my added question: How many of those that practice fishing C&R also hunt? And if you do both; why do you do the C&R thing when you fish?

I don't hunt either, but your question seems to show an ignorance of how hunting licenses are handled and game managed. The game commission limits the number of licenses sold, so that the game population is managed according to goals. If hunters bought licenses and went out with cameras, we'd have to pay professional shooters to reduce the deer herd.

I'm somewhat offended on behalf of the hunters, who I see as performing a valuable service to the residents of the state.

 

[Padraic]

I've never kept a trout I caught. I've thought about it, but I just don't feel like it. I suppose when I look at all the money I spent on gear to go fishing, turning that investment into a way to get food would be laughable. Might as well fill up on belugia caviar for as much as a a bargain as a trout would be.

Where wild trout are concerned, I agree with Sparce that they are too valuable to be caught only once.

Where stocked trout are concerned I like another Lee Wulff quote, "The fish you release may be a gift to another fisherman as it may have been a gift to you." I genereally fish Clarks Creek, which is a heavily pressured stocked trout stream. I like to release my fish even when the regs allow you to kill a couple (they don't anymore) because the stream can hold fish all summer, because most guys seem to and because the stream usually has a good number of fish as a result. C&R works for extending the recreational fishing opportunities along with preserving wild fish stocks.

I've walked past guys with creels, or stringers with fish on them. It doesn't upset me, and I don't resent the guy for taking fish. My decisions are mine. I don't expect anyone else to fish like me or think like me. I'm sure they can do better than that.

 

[dryflyguy]

I don't eat trout, but my mom likes them.
So, once or twice a year, I'll keep a limit for her - always stockies though - I would never kill a wild or holdover trout.
And I dread it - wading around with fish hanging from a stringer - yuch! But she really appreciates them.
I also fish with a few guys who keep some to eat while camping - I have no problem with it.

 

[Bamboozle]

Padraic wrote:
I don't hunt either, but your question seems to show an ignorance of how hunting licenses are handled and game managed. The game commission limits the number of licenses sold, so that the game population is managed according to goals. If hunters bought licenses and went out with cameras, we'd have to pay professional shooters to reduce the deer herd.

I'm somewhat offended on behalf of the hunters, who I see as performing a valuable service to the residents of the state.

Pad:

You are reading something into my question that ISN'T there? I have ABSOLUTELY nothing but respect for hunters and I would fight for their rights as hard as mine as a non hunter. I watch Call of the Wild and have even sent letters of support to Ted Nugent. Am I ignorant about hunting, absolutely that's why I asked the question.

I was just wondering why harvest is considered so taboo among some fly fishermen while hunting wasn't. Most responders mentioned eating which to me, explains it all.

I also want to add to those that have a problem with harvest; I have a friend who used to harvest when I had my holier than thou attitude about C&R. Many years later he admitted to me that when he USED to keep a few; cash was tight and those trout meant dinner to him a few days a week. I also have an older friend that told me that his father's trapping, hunting & fishing kept his family in meat during the Depression. So I guess what I'm getting at here is not everybody with a stringer of fish can afford to buy it from the supermarket.

 

[Stone_Fly]

Why would you think that anyone would be dishonest about whether they keep a few trout? It's a message board and even though it seems as though we all know each other we don't. Some wish to remain anonymous which is fine. I don't blame them. BTW you don't have to answer, my question is rhetorical!
Anyway, to answer your question I keep a couple of trout a year if I'm fishing stocked streams, which I seldom fish, I'll fish Pine Creek and a couple of tributaries, but not much else. So I keep a couple of trout once in a while when I know they are stocked fish. 99% of my fishing is on wild trout streams so I don't have much occasion to keep any fish. Just my preference, you do after all have to keep them fresh, and I don't have that opportunity very often since when I'm out I'm usually out all day.

 

[troutbert]

I look at harvest in terms of populations. That is the original reason for C&R. Early advocates like Lee Wullf, the early TU guys etc. pushed C&R and limiting harvest because of concern about populations getting hammered down. Not because of any PETA type issues or personal issues about killing fish. Or because they didn't like the taste of fish!

Bluegill populations are pretty robust so harvesting them is fine, as long as it's not overdone.

Wild trout populations are quite vulnerable to overharvest. It doesn't take much harvest to significantly alter the population of a wild trout stream.

So I kill and eat panfish, but I don't kill wild trout.

 

[Padraic]

Bamboozle wrote:

Pad:

You are reading something into my question that ISN'T there? I have ABSOLUTELY nothing but respect for hunters and I would fight for their rights as hard as mine as a non hunter. I watch Call of the Wild and have even sent letters of support to Ted Nugent. Am I ignorant about hunting, absolutely that's why I asked the question.

I was just wondering why harvest is considered so taboo among some fly fishermen while hunting wasn't. Most responders mentioned eating which to me, explains it all.

I also want to add to those that have a problem with harvest; I have a friend who used to harvest when I had my holier than thou attitude about C&R. Many years later he admitted to me that when he USED to keep a few; cash was tight and those trout meant dinner to him a few days a week. I also have an older friend that told me that his father's trapping, hunting & fishing kept his family in meat during the Depression. So I guess what I'm getting at here is not everybody with a stringer of fish can afford to buy it from the supermarket.

Well, I am glad to hear that. And if I over-reacted, I apologize.

I think C&R is taboo while fishing, and not while hunting because the purpose of hunting is to harvest/kill an animal. If it were not, then you would call it photography or stalking or walking in the woods or something else. The sale of hunting licenses is tied to game population management goals.

But fishing does not require the taking of a fish, and the sale of fishing licenses is not tied to population goals. It's not even tied to stocking levels or anything else. I've heard several accounts of large sections of streams being fished out by anglers. Voluntarilly limited one's harvest is the only way to ensure that good fishing opportunities are preserved for others.

 

[FarmerDave]

I didn't have time to read all the responses, but will add mine anyway. First let me say that hunting and fishing are apples to oranges. With hunting, harvesting of animals is a management tool. With fishing, no harvest is a management tool. Yes, they both have their roots in feeding the family, but in today's world,they are not the same.

To answer your question:

I haven't kept a wild trout in years except for the occasional one that is hooked deep. Doesn't happen very often, but when it does, I keep them. I'm not real fond of eating trout, but my wife is. That said, I don't have a problem with keeping a few as long as they are eaten. I do have a problem with people keeping them just for the sake of keeping them. I have even more of a problem with people who fill their freezer and then toss them all out then next year all freezer burnt so they can make room for the new ones.

I hunt. With the exception of varmints, I only shoot what I intend to eat. I even practice C&R hunting quite a bit. In other words, I often hunt, but don't shoot, and sometimes I don't even take a gun along. If I have venison in the freezer, I don't shoot another, but I will still hunt. for some reason the deer seem to know that. Had an 8 point under my tree stand for a good 15 minutes a couple years ago. that was kinda neat. He stood broad side exactly where I had earlier set up my target for practice (bow season). Last year I passed up several deer within 30 yards in both gun and bow season. I even had one standing broad side and looking the other way at 12 feet during the gun season.

Some people have said that isn't the same thing. They say that there are too many variables and I don't really know if I would have actually bagged a deer. I say I don't care. I don't feel a need to shoot an animal just to prove to someone else that I can. To me there is more to hunting than just killing.

By the way, the last deer I actually shot?? I hit it exactly where I was aiming (the right eye with a 12 gauge slug). Of course it was only about 30 feet away.

 

[FarmerDave]

troutbert wrote:


Bluegill populations are pretty robust so harvesting them is fine, as long as it's not overdone.

Troutbert, that would be really hard to do. :-D

 

[FarmerDave]

Padraic wrote:
I've never kept a trout I caught. I've thought about it, but I just don't feel like it. I suppose when I look at all the money I spent on gear to go fishing, turning that investment into a way to get food would be laughable. Might as well fill up on belugia caviar for as much as a a bargain as a trout would be.

You know Pad, the same could be said about hunting. Everyone who claims they hunt to feed their family should first figure out what it costs them a pound figuring in all expenses. Beef is usually much cheaper, and you don't have to field dress a pot roast.

Before somone jumps down my throat claiming they can hunt cheaply, I already know that it can be done. I do it myself, but I hunt on my own land (no travel required), don't need a license (Ohio), deer are bigger here, guns last forever if you take care of them, and I butcher my own (because i am a cheapskate). Venison is actually cheaper than beef for me, but only because i haven't started raising my own beef yet. :lol:

When I was a kid, we used to do it cheaply too. although we had to actually buy licenses, we made up for it by making sure all tags were used at least once. :lol: OK, I'm joking. In all honesty, we rarely filled out a tag. ;-)