slimy trout, dry leaves

[Wulff-Man]

thedude1534 wrote:
Seeing as I'm still pretty new flyfishing (or trout fishing more specifically), I may not be handling the fish right when I'm taking out the hook, snaping a photo, and releasing. I'd like to run by my catch and release procedure, so you all could tell me if I'm doing anything stupid or harmful to the fish....

For small fish (less than 10") - when I bring them in close enough I stick my hand in the water and slowly cup them. I bring them about 6" out of the water to take the hook out. This usually lasts about 5-30 seconds depending on where the hook is, how small, etc. I feel that 30 secs is too long, so I've been making a concious effort to have all my equipement in hand (or mouth) before I bring them out of the water so I don't have to fondle around trying to get out my forcepts and such. Once the hook is out, and I feel like taking a picture, I will keep the fish lightly cupped in my hand, applying just enough grip to not let it dart off, and submerge it back in the water. Once my camera stuff is ready, I'll lift it back up out of the water, about 6", take the picture, and put it back in. Once I let go they almost always dart off, which I hope is a sign that they weren't too beat up by the expirience.

For bigger fish - The process is pretty much the same, except I get them in the net and don't hold them with my hands. Also, when I take the hook out, I try to just lift the head out of the water and not the whole body. However, when some insist on thrashing around in the net, I have to lift them out so they'll calm down. The only other time I will lift the whole body out is when I'm ready for a picture. When I release them I shake their tail a little bit and they'll swim away (the big ones don't dart off like the little ones will).

Please let me know if there's anything in that process which I'm doing wrong. Thanks,

It sounds like you're doing a good job, dude. It's already been mentioned that they shouldn't be handled with dry hands and you may know this. Actually, I think it would be hard to have dry hands when handling a trout while flyfishing, unless you "craned" the fish up out of the water by lifting it with the line only, but I doubt anyone who cares about carefully handling fish before releasing them would do this. Keeping the trout in the water as much as possible while getting your equipment ready is an excellent practice, whether you cup it in your hands, leave it submerged while in a net, or leave it hooked and in the water while getting a camera ready. One thing you didn't mention is revivng the fish if necessary. You may have to hold the fish in the water for a while if it's exhausted and doesn't swim off on its own. Cradle it around its belly until it swims off. If it takes a while you can move it back and forth to get more water flowing over its gills. This is often needed for larger fish who take a while to land. If they're released too soon when exhausted, they may end up belly-up downstream.

 

[Squaretail]

I believe Trout-preserver hit most of us right where we live. Got me to re-assess my catch and release methods anyway. Fortunatley theres just nothing to assess. I'm sure most of us have caught enough trout to know how to best ensure their survival even when taking pictures. From my understanding and experiences the biggest danger is time out of water.
Never heard of leaves or anything natural along the stream bank doing trout harm. Are there not leaves in the water? Are there not rocks in the water? Truth is we're just never going to hit 100% survival rate upon release even though from what I can tell thats what most of the posters on this board shoots for. As a flyfisherman develops, all aspects of his fishing tactics, morals, and ethics tend to graduate more toward the success of the the fish than the fishing itself. Maybe thats where the elitist tag comes from. That and spending enough money every month to cover a payment on a rather nice vehicle.
TP- I respect your concern and admire your passion. I'll tell you your barking up the wrong tree at this particular board, but you are barkin'.

 

[CaptMatt]

Okay, so what about advertising fishing spots on the inter net? Thats the discussion I want to see. Im not talking about stream locations, Im talking about "I caught 50 fish from Hole X on whatever stream". Im really curious where you all stand on this.

 

[Maurice]

Squaretail wrote:
I believe Trout-preserver hit most of us right where we live. Got me to re-assess my catch and release methods anyway. Fortunatley theres just nothing to assess. I'm sure most of us have caught enough trout to know how to best ensure their survival even when taking pictures. From my understanding and experiences the biggest danger is time out of water.
Never heard of leaves or anything natural along the stream bank doing trout harm. Are there not leaves in the water? Are there not rocks in the water? Truth is we're just never going to hit 100% survival rate upon release even though from what I can tell thats what most of the posters on this board shoots for. As a flyfisherman develops, all aspects of his fishing tactics, morals, and ethics tend to graduate more toward the success of the the fish than the fishing itself. Maybe thats where the elitist tag comes from. That and spending enough money every month to cover a payment on a rather nice vehicle.
TP- I respect your concern and admire your passion. I'll tell you your barking up the wrong tree at this particular board, but you are barkin'.

ST,

The deal with the leaves and rocks are more to the point that they are dry not the objects themselves. Fish live in water, they excrete lactic acid to produce a slimy covering when stressed to defend against bacterial infection. If the slime is removed the odds of contracting a bacterial disease increases. Leaves and rocks in the water that atr wet will not remove the slime. Dry ones on land that are the backdrop for a photo can remove the slime.

That said, I try not to do things that can damage the fish either through handling or release. I try not sto squeeze them too hard removing a hook, lie them down too hard, drop them on the ground, etc. But I do take them out of the water for a short time and if I want to take a picture I'll lie them in the grass. Then flip them back into the water. I don't get too worked up over the whole thing. I feel pretty bad when I feel that I've hurt a fish I released. The last one was using a #8 Wolly Bugger when the hook came out through its eye socket. Made the iris all red. Bumbed me out pretty bad. Another time I played a stocked fish at Neshannock in June and when I released it after reviving it it swam to the middle, drifted up and went belly up...Like you and others have said...its gonna happen sometimes, all we can do is try to prevent it.

Personally, I like this post because even though plenty are both sides of this argument, it creates awareness. And awareness and education are the best things to accomplish any goal...which in this case is to save the fish.

Maurice

 

[Stone_Fly]

Where's the data that any of what you say is true, I've never seen any studies that say one way or the other that laying a trout on the ground does any harm. You'll notice ona few photos I've loaded to the site that the trout laying on leaves are in the water, not on the ground on dry leaves. I don't advocate laying trout on the ground to take pics, I usually am holding the trout or laying them in the water.
If you quickly unhook a fish and lay it down to take a picture and place it back in the water I'll bet 99.9% of the fish live. If you have to "revive a trout, I'd almost garrentee it's a dead fish even though it might swim away. That's where the real problem arises, playing fish until they are near death with a rod too light for the job on tippet too light for the job and not using a net.

 

[Stone_Fly]

I'll preface this with a qualification, the anglers involved knew how to handle trout and how to catch great quanities of trout, in studies trout mortality by fly fishing is low on BT the mortality was so low as to be neglegible, on BRT it is between 1 and 2 percent, most likely do to the fact that brookies tend to be caught more often, not because the are mishandled. Again I won't say that handling trout is not important, I believe it is, but unless there is no proof as far as I know that says laying a trout on the ground to take a few photos is going to kill it, again I don't do this and won't, but show me the proof it does harm.

 

[Squaretail]

I've known about slime and lactic acids for probably 25 yrs now and how improper handling can harm fish. Twice saw trout with Ich the shape of a human hand. However I'm not quite biologist status yet. I already know I'm probably gonna splash some water on the spot where I'll take the photo. Couldnt hurt. Better than draggin the trout around looking for a better spot to lay it if one isnt present.

 

[Wulff-Man]

Stone_Fly wrote:
.... If you have to "revive a trout, I'd almost garrentee it's a dead fish even though it might swim away. That's where the real problem arises, playing fish until they are near death with a rod too light for the job on tippet too light for the job and not using a net.

I sure hope that's not true, because if it is then at least 50% of the trout I catch die. And I don't use a rod that's too light or too light tippet, and I usually use a net for large fish unless I can easily land and release it without one. Maybe our definitions of "reviving" are different. If a trout doesn't quickly swim off as soon as I place it back in the water, I hold onto it until it does. This might take from a few second to "a while". I consider that reviving it. I'm not necessarily talking about a trout who goes belly up or gets carried away by the current when I place it back into the water.

 

[troutpreserver]

I'm not saying and never meant to imply that improper handling is a meaningful factor in overall trout mortality. There's plenty of trout swimming around in places like Clarks and the LL FFO stretch that have probably been yanked out of the water, squeezed, dropped, and tossed back. It's the principle.

...but show me the proof it does harm.

I don't believe there's ever been a specific study. It is fact that damage to a fish's mucous layer makes it more suceptible to disease and infection, and it is fact that contact with dry materials causes damage to this layer. It's not an unreasonable conclusion...

Personally, I like this post because even though plenty are both sides of this argument, it creates awareness. And awareness and education are the best things to accomplish any goal...which in this case is to save the fish.

🙂

 

[Fishidiot]

Captmatt,
Like handling fish, "naming streams" has also been a subject well worked over on this forum and I have expressed my opinion before but, for what it's worth, here it is again. My view is that posters should err on the conservative side when "naming" streams. The standard I basically follow is that I will talk about streams that are essentially nationally known. Examples would probably be Delaware, Penns, Letort, Falling Springs, Spring Creek, Little Lehigh, Yellow Breeches, etc etc. Large waters that are somewhat less known, like the Clarion, Lehigh, Pine, Yough, Little Juniata and similar waters are probably fine too. Describing hatches coming off or insect activity may be okay in some circumstances. I certainly wouldn't say exactly where a large fish resides regardless of the water involved. I won't discuss small "local" streams or small, wild trout streams except in general terms like perhaps mentioning a county. I am also very protective of my favorite bass creeks. I don't like to see small waters discussed by name and location on the internet but I realise some folks like to discuss this sort of thing on sites such as this one. It is a matter of personal preference.

 

[Wulff-Man]

CaptMatt wrote:
Okay, so what about advertising fishing spots on the inter net? Thats the discussion I want to see. Im not talking about stream locations, Im talking about "I caught 50 fish from Hole X on whatever stream". Im really curious where you all stand on this.

No matter what the stream size, I think it's kind of goofy to advertise exactly what hole you found a lot of fish in. I mean, why would you want to have a bunch of guys fish it out or crowd you out so you can't enjoy it yourself anymore? Even if you don't plan on fishing it again because you're not from the area, it's not nice to the local guys who found it on their own. And reading the water and finding fish is supposed to be an important part of the sport. Having said that, I didn't have a problem with one of the guys reporting on here that there was a breakout from the hatchery on the upper Tulpehocken. I guess because it was an unusual and unnatural event and there might as well be a lot of guys having a good time enjoying the situation. I do wonder sometimes how much posting a good fishing spot actually results in a lot of extra fishing at the location. I know there are a lot of variables, like population in the area, size of stream, hiking distance, etc. It would be interesting to try an experiment by posting a false report about a particular hole and staking it out to see how many extra fishermen show up over a period of time.

I certainly see no problem with reporting general conditions or success on well-known streams. But I hate to see small wild trout streams that can't handle much pressure given glowing reviews that will attract a lot of attention, complete with detailed instructions on how to get to the most productive spots. At the most, give out general info that you may be able to find some decent fishing at Wild Trout Run, and leave out the flashing neon signs and arrows that say "FISH HERE!" or next time you go there you might not want to anymore. The people who like to "fish" might try it because they like to explore. The people who just like to "catch" probably won't bother. And there are a lot more of them.

 

[JackM]

Personally, I think selfish behavior is unbecoming, particularly of a fly angler. As for handling fish, I think some of the precautions taken and the "carefuller-than-thou" attitude can go overboard.

However, keep in mind I have no idea what I am talking about.

 

[tomgamber]

Boy, how 'bout that snow huh?

Look, If someone wants to tell everyone where he fishes, thats his business. Stupid, but its his business...he could PM and then the person he is telling would be the only one to know...but if he does it on a message board, he's inviting everyone who reads the board along on his next trip. Whether what he says affects how many people are on the stream the next time anyone else goes fishing is collateral damage. It sucks but you can't force someone to keep their mouth shut. Sometimes posters give away good fishing spots just as a side effect of bragging. Its a self control thing.

As for releasing fish, everyone knows what they should and shouldn't do. Its a matter of minimizing the damage to the fish. Getting all "I do it better than you" is getting boring. Anything that touches a fish should be wet. Hey, its a fish, it lives in the water.Its not always possible, but you do the best you can.

 

[Maurice]

tomgamber wrote:


...As for releasing fish, everyone knows what they should and shouldn't do.

Tom, I'd say its closer to 20% of the people who fish, maybe higher for those that fly fish but overall...that is a risky statement.

Its a matter of minimizing the damage to the fish. Getting all "I do it better than you" is getting boring. Anything that touches a fish should be wet. Hey, its a fish, it lives in the water.Its not always possible, but you do the best you can.

Now there is a simple-stupid guideline that should come with every fishing rod you buy.

 

[MKern]

I have a question about releasing a fish just by bringing it hip-side and popping the hook out and letting it drop back into the water. I know that a lot of catch and release anglers do this to minimize time out of water. But my question is that if the fish is tired and you don't revive it, won't it certainly go belly up?