The Net Result Is...

[FarmerDave]

geebee wrote:
each to their own, but I don't get why you guys think a net is a PITA to carry -

It is in small brushy streams, but I'll concede that less so when using the rubberized... since I haven't tried one yet.

Fortunately I have never needed a net when on a small brushy stream.

If I am throwing them all back, and not photographing them, no need. But that is just me.

 

[wildtrout2]

I never use a net, never have. I find that simply leading the trout to a real shallow area, where you are able to remove the fly works well. I think they don't feel that sense of containment that a net provides, and are easier to deal with. Most of my fish are barely even touched, unless I'm taking a pic. Nix the net.

 

[shakey]

I do not use a net and I usually don't take pictures of fish .

I like to bring a fish in asap, then,without bringing it out of the water,or touching the fish at all, I punch the fly and remove it .

Easy.

 

[Troy]

I have a rubber net. Love it. Never has a fly got tangled. It benefits me and fish while getting hook out. Win, win situation. It does suck carrying though. I need a better system hanging it from my vest.

 

[ryansheehan]

So I just read the study, so you "hold" a bluegill out of water presumably dangling from a line, the study is not crystal clear( maybe in someone's wet hands) for 30 seconds. Then you drop a bluegill into a net out of water where it flops around against the net's surface for 30 seconds causing some abrasions. Then we are surprised that some of the protective slime was gone leading to some issues. Well, no sh**! I use a net when I need to, it stays in the water while I unhook the fish, nothing like this "study". Please don't think you're doing the fish a favor by not carrying a net because of this study. Maybe you are, maybe you aren't, I don't know but this tells you nothing. The net result is your study sucks.

 

[ryansheehan]

So I wandered around the site and found some great info on fish mortality for being played too long. It says their death rate goes up to 60 percent at 4 seconds but back down to 50 percent if fought for 5 seconds....because that makes sense to me.
fish fought to exhaustion

 

[dryflyguy]

I carry a rubber net on streams where I have a good chance to catch big fish. And by that, I mean 20" range.
For me, that is pretty much only on the clarion and delaware rivers.

When landing fish that size, a net really helps reduce the landing time. And that outweighs any possible damage from flopping around in the mesh IMO

 

[pcray1231]

each to their own, but I don't get why you guys think a net is a PITA to carry - you know you can attach them magnetically to the D loop on the back of your vest or jacket right ?

I wear no vest, nor jacket. That in itself would be a PITA. I probably could affix a D ring to the back of my Richardson straps.

And then it gets caught on brush and branches and so forth. When you get down to crawl under some rhodo it drags on the ground.

And for 95% of the fish, there's zero need. Pull fish up to legs, lift mouth out of water, grab fly with forceps, twist, fishy gone.

But, of course, that other 5% of fish are the ones you hate to lose, are more likely to take pictures of, and where lack of a net will indeed lead to a significantly longer fight. So I get the upside, I really do. But it is a PITA to carry.

 

[ryguyfi]

I have gone back and forth carrying nets in the past few years. I think the linked study is probably a bit biased but may hold some truth as well.

I carry a net for a few reasons. First, I can fight a fish quicker if I net it, rather than playing it until it's tired for me to just pick it up or just insert some hemostats and unhook it. I also feel more confident in the catch and release ESPECIALLY when using tandem flies. We've all done it, go to grab a fish and have the 2nd fly bury in our hand and we're being pulled around by the fish. Isn't it supposed to be the other way around? I've had that happen on a few occasions and when I net a fish I know both hooks are out of the fish/me and can release safely.

With big fish, I think it's easier on the fish to net it then to beach it. Goes without saying in dragging a big fish up on the shore than to keep him in the net/water.

Cons. It's awkward, gets in the way, snags on branches when you're walking around, etc.

The days you don't need it you regret taking it and the days you need it and don't have it you regret it as well.

 

[DGC]

Reservations about the applicability to trout of the study. Note a recent thread about electroshocking. In a survey, the shocked trout get NETTED, tossed in a holding tank, handled on a wetted wood measuring jig, and tossed back.

Though there certainly is some mortality during/after a survey, if a net was as harmful as the cited study suggests, we would have many floating fish after PFBC and other state's DNR surveys.

 

[Eccles]

Well the study is somewhat limited in terms of sample size and concrete results. Knotless mesh does as little damage to the fins and body of the bluegills as the control treatment, there's no difference between the two. Rubber mesh is similarly benign except that it causes as much damage to tail fins as both fine knotted and coarse knotted mesh, which, in the jargon, cause significantly more damage than either controls or knotless mesh. So, choose the knotless mesh if you're worried about damaging the fish. According to this study.

As for the mortality data - it's difficult to draw much from them. Not enough fish died to do proper statistics so it is just inference. The difference between 4 and 6% for the rubber and knotless mesh in comparison to control might be important but at a sample size of 50 fish per treatment that means only 2 and 3 fish died respectively. Perhaps the finding would strengthen with larger sample sizes but you can't really claim much from these data - do the experiment again and the numbers might go the other way.

That's if you actually want to know what the data say, not what the website wants them to say. If not - as you were.

 

[ryansheehan]

ryguyfi wrote:
I have gone back and forth carrying nets in the past few years. I think the linked study is probably a bit biased but may hold some truth as well.

If you find any truth in that "report" please share it.

 

[jeremymcon]

Anybody ever tried handypaknet? It's a collapsible/foldable net made in PA. I bought one a while back, and have found it's a lot easier to carry than a traditional net. Folds up and fits in a holster on my wading belt, with no exposed net. I have one with the fine woven nylon netting because it was cheaper, but they also sell some with the rubber netting. The whole net is basically a piece of spring steel that you can fold on itself a bit like a bandsaw blade. Pretty neat once you get the hang of it.

http://www.handypaknetco.com/


P.s. I have no affiliation with the company. Just like the product.

 

[The_Sasquatch]

I always have a net w/ me. I have a Richardson like Pcray, but I use a Downs harness and I attached the magnetic holder thing to the back of the harness. So the net is always w/ me, but I rarely use it. I just broke (sat in the truck w/ my harness on...net snapped under the weight of a squatch) the mesh net, so I bought my first plastic net. Seems a little heavier. I only used it once so far. I do like nets for landing larger fish. Easier for me to get the hooks out of their mouths w/out having them out of the water.