I am not trying to start flaming wars here. [angelic] Everyone please stay calm. There is a time and place for both C&R and harvest. [cool]
This is an article from the Upper Snake River Region Newsletter. I received it by email, but I imagine that it is probably on the F&G site too. I thought it was a good article.
The Role of Angler Harvest in Fisheries Management
By Dan Garren
Many anglers routinely practice “catch and release” when fishing, with the thought that it’s better to release a fish to be caught again as opposed to harvesting the fish. The intention of well-meaning anglers is clear – they want to improve the fisheries in the waters they frequent. But is catch and release the best way to achieve this objective? The answer is not as clear as anglers intentions are, and involves a couple considerations.
It’s easy to examine a few of the more common fishery regulations to help an angler determine the fate of the fish they catch. In highly productive water and where fish have good natural reproduction, fish populations can generally replace themselves quickly when harvest occurs. In these instances, liberal fishing regulations are applied, and may include no limits on the number of fish you can harvest, or a six fish limit. In less productive waters or where fish populations are not as robust, a more restrictive regulation may be used; such as a two fish limit. In waters where fish populations are struggling, catch and release regulations may be applied. These regulations are developed after biologists look closely at each fishery to determine the amount of harvest the population can withstand and still provide a desirable fishery.
When deciding if you want to harvest a fish, keep in mind that any river or lake can only support a certain amount of fish, much the way an aquarium can only sustain a certain amount of fish. For instance, a small lake may be able to support and feed 1,000 pounds of trout over the entire year. This may mean there are 4,000 trout that weigh a quarter pound each, or 500 trout that weigh two pounds each. When fish densities get so high that food resources are spread across a large number of fish, growth of the individual fish slows to the point where they do not reach the large size many anglers find desirable. In these instances, the primary tool available to a fisheries biologist is angler harvest. We rely on anglers to remove the surplus of fish, which then improves the growth rates on the remaining fish.
With the increase in anglers practicing catch and release, it’s more difficult to balance fish populations. The best way to determine if you are doing the right thing for the fishery, by practicing catch and release, is to look at the fishing rules for the water you are on. If the limit is liberal, it’s probably OK or even desirable for you to take some fish home to eat. If regulations are more restrictive, consider releasing your healthy fish. Anglers can better improve their local waters by shifting away from catch and release for all fish and adopt a selective harvest approach. When anglers actively engage in managing their waters, biologists retain a valuable tool for balancing fish populations and meeting angler expectations.
[signature]
Very interesting, thanks for posting.
[signature]
Thanks for posting CP. Over the years you all know I'm a catch and eat kinda guy. And that's why I fish areas with average fish with liberal limits. Just doing what I can to help out.
[signature]
Thank you for the post . The only place I can think of that this is not being done is Henry's . 2 fish limit and too many fish . There was a post earlier , the guy fished 48 hours and caught almost 50 fish and only 2 reached 20" . I am not a biologist , but if I was making the choices up there I would stop planting cutthroughts , and only plant hybrids and brookies . Cutthroughts don't fight as hard or taste as good .
[signature]
I think this quote sums it up the best for me: " adopt a selective harvest approach"
The big breeders don't taste good, and are more likely to have accumulated some nasty mercury or farm chemicals. But on the other hand strict C&R when the fish are stunting or over populating isn't good either.
Moderation and selection in what we harvest.
Fish and Game walk a tightrope of public opinion. Maybe the ones you have dealt with don't care, but the ones I know do. Many of our reservoirs don't have any kind of spawning areas for the trout, so they need to be planted. In order not to interfere with the native fish, they plant sterile ones. It is easier to adjust and plan for how many are in a lake if they aren't reproducing.
That maybe part of the problem at Henry's right now, more cutts are spawning. On the other hand the warm water species reproduce too well some years and can over populate if the predators to prey relationship isn't in balance.
You can never please everyone, so once again .... moderation.
[signature]
This topic usually fires me up a bit. First off I will say that I am not an advocate of planting fish. To me it is throwing sportsmans dollars away. Those dollars would be better spent improving spawning areas that have been destroyed, improving habitat, ect. If people want easy put and take trout set it up in ponds like Ryder park and charge people for the fish they keep. Don't waste sportsmans dollars on places like that.
[signature]
Natural spawning conditions are hard and expensive to provide or all fish in all waters. Someday maybe we will have more. We can hope anyway.
If we don't plant any more fish, then your are going to see fewer cats in some waters and hardly any sturgeon anywhere in the upper Snake R.
[signature]
Because of the dams that fracture the river into small sections, there is very little sturgeon natural reproduction in most of the areas.
Here is the Management Plan for the Sturgeon.
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/fish...urgeon.pdf
Lots of problems to overcome. Obviously no intentional harvest is allowed, but a lot of angling mortality. Without the stocking there couldn't be any angling without decimating the population.
[signature]
There is some truth that some of the species we have wouldn't be here and to be honest I'm fine with that. They also keep the need to plant in place because of over harvest. Ririe is a good example they allow large amounts of kokes to be harvested and if they dropped the limit you would see better runs up willow in the fall and possibly a self sustaining fishery.
Back to spawning habit . If they put resources into rehabilitating the heads of watersheds it produces a better long term fishery. There is a lot of potential to improve stream habit by using sportsmans funds. Instead we put it to wards public ponds. Long term you get more out of the funds by fencing out streams and developing watering areas for live stock so the whole stream isn't fowelledup. Let bever ponds develop ect. Instead we essentially flush it down the proverbial toilet every time we stock a bunch of hatchery raised fish. It also adds the potential to destroy a fishery that's doing well by stocking fish that can be infected. End of the day the long term quality of our fisheries depends on looking at how we spend funds now and getting the best results with our spending.
[signature]
The sturgeon are spawning fine, but they are hungry. They need to raise and dump more fish in the river below filer. They haul in the eggs from hells canyon th state and federal hatcheries there, but there are empty raceways. Think of the million of tradtional salmon and stealhead in rock creek and salmon falls. Sturgeon above Shoshone falls just ain't natural.
A 3 lb smb is 10 years old, please don't eat the brood stock. Takes to long to grow em.
Is it to hot to fish?
[signature]
Lots of good facts and statements! Once again it comes back to US! We are the people that have the ability to control and sustain fish populations on all bodies of waters. I for one think ALL of our waters are (over harvested). Ron nailed it on the head, IDFG has no interests except for trout! They will blow all the smoke up your butt as they think they can get away with! They say trout fisherman bring way more money into the state! I say that is BS!
Protect (bass) under 12 inches but not bigger fish?
No limit on crappie at CJ or Brownlee (size & qty)?
No limits on cats (size & qty)?
Why not specific limits on specific bodies of water?
CJ 25 crappie or none under 10 inches like some southern states!
25 perch per person on CJ as well!
How good could CJ be and REMAIN GOOD if every boat on it didn't keep 200 crappie two years ago and every ice fisherman that kept every single perch they caught this last winter!
I watched a guy for a few days at Brownlee and he kept close to a 1000 crappie and had over 400 lbs of catfish in his coolers at the same time!
Is this really necessary???????
No walleye under 14 inches and only one per day over 24!!
That way if you get a wall hanger you can keep one but you won't have the jackass that kills 5 of them over 6 lbs in one night!
[signature]
I leave to IDFG to make the decision about how many and of what size the creel limit should be. They are the biologists. I don't always keep fish but I'm not a strict catch and release guy either.
I agree that the focus should be on habitat improvement to increase natural production. Such an approach would surely reduce the costs of the put and take style of stocking. I can't say that I agree with the assertion that the IDFG stocks triploids for the purpose of making us dependent on them for fishing opportunity. Typically when stocking fish that are non-native to a drainage the IDFG will stock triploids to prevent the establishment of a reproducing population that could displace or hybridize with native fish.
Some fisheries currently do not have the necessary habitat to provide productive spawning and I believe it's fine to continue stocking to support a fishery. I fish both stocked and natural production waters and prefer the natural fisheries but I enjoy both. I would like to see more fisheries become self sustaining both for budget reasons and for long term health of the fisheries.
I also would prefer it if every non-native species was eliminated from the state. I realize that sets me at odds with a few people here but I can state my preference just as others have done. I do enjoy fishing for the warmwater species once or twice a year but if those options went away, I would not miss them. As long as the non-natives are restricted to water bodies that are not conneted to other systems and prevent unwanted establishment in new systems I am fine. If we stopped stocking non-natives we could use the money to improve habitat for the species that belong in Idaho.
[signature]
I replied to myself as my comments and opinions are just that my opinions.
Obviously there is no way to please everyones' fisheries wants even on this forum. There will always be differences of opinions and priorities. Throughout the state there are many different fishing needs for all kinds of people.
As the restoration of the trout in the stream projects continue, I think we will see more native trout stocking and the establishment of healthy reproducing fish. It takes time and LOTS of money. You can't correct abuses to the system overnight. You have to focus on the priority projects first.
Stocking of rainbows has stopped on some areas in the Bear River drainage, because they now have native Bonneville Cutts that are getting established. They are reestablishing the Bonnevilles that are from that close local area in spawning streams to replace the rainbow fishery in the river.
The non-native rainbows, brooke trout, and browns of the Henry's Fork have also benefited from several projects, such as the reconnection of the Buffalo River, and the negotiation of winter water levels in the Box Canyon. Silver Cr browns etc have also benefited from stream projects. It isn't all about just the native fish. It is very much about fixing our resource to work in a more natural manner. That is a hard thing to do and still honor the agricultural and power rights to the water.
Some of the on going projects illustrate how much is going on. There are cooperative groups of farmers, sportsmen, govenment, large companies like Pacificore and many others that are spending millions of dollars to fix our spawning streams. They are fixing culverts, screening irrigation, putting fish ladders on diversions, and dams, negotiating water rights, conservation easements, fencing, and even working to get water releases from the dams regulated for the fish. They are working very hard to restore things, but frequently I hear complaining that all F&G cares about are the trout. Yet many of you want the natural spawning which is exactly what they are working and focusing on. Without repairing the trout streams first to allow for spawning they can't just stop stocking [crazy]
Sure F&G doesn't stock the warm water fish yearly, but that doesn't mean they don't care about keeping healthy populations of them. Once stocked hopefully they will be able to reproduce and spawn naturally. Studies are done yearly to assess the year's spawn in many of our large impoundments. F&G has little control over the reservoirs and lack water in many of our lakes. They struggle to keep fishing opportunities for a variety of species in our waters. Projects for our warm water fish are also going on such as the ones on Cascade Lake to restore the perch fishery there.
Without at least initial stocking there would be no fishing in most of our water impoundments and high mountain lakes. I hope that there will always be stocking.
Many people like to fish in our lakes that have no spawning areas. Some of those lakes are also too cold etc for warm water species. Should we just leave those waters fishless?
Most of our high mountain lakes have been surveyed and those that have established reproducing populations are no longer stocked, but that isn't all of the lakes. So they supplement the ones that are weak, and fully stock the ones where the fish can't spawn. I love hiking into a lake and finding nice healthy fish. It is really a bummer to hit the ones that have winter killed or are almost fishless because they missed being stocked.
What about the ponds that provide a little fishing for kids and old people. Without stocking they would be fishless in two weeks. Sure maybe that is "welfare stocking" but that is the only chance to fish for many people. Should they be denied that opportunity, because it isn't something that you or I need?
I could go on, but what I would say is find out what is going on in your region and help out if you can. I think that the more you find out, the more you will begin to understand the projects and problems. Certainly express your concerns, and in some areas maybe an occasional recognition wouldn't hurt either. But remember that whether it is trout, bass, catfish, crappie or whatever that you like, there are thousands of people out there that have different wants and needs too. Don't get tunnel vision. There has to be moderation in most of our fisheries.
[signature]
Don't get tunnel vision is right! Not sure there are any people on this forum that want (planting of fish) to end!!!!!
If you think IDFG cares at all about warm water fish, then why are there very few regs on them?
To the guy that wants only native fish! That is a pretty weird thing to say!
I for one would play golf or sit at home and watch the corn grow if the only thing I could fish for was trout! Don't purge those of us that have 40-60 thousand dollar boats and thousands of dollars worth of gear, poles electronics etc, out of the equation! Instead realize how much we as sportsman, spend in our state and local economies!
Until WE THE PEOPLE control ourselves and our behavior problems, this state will always be over harvested! I'm not saying don't take some fish home and eat them!!!!!! I'm saying limit the take when there are NO LIMITS on the fish you are catching! If you catch 100 crappie go, be selective on what you keep! Let a few big ones to to breed again or let all the little ones go to get bigger! Salmon Dam could be a great crappie & perch fishery if people wouldn't kill every crappie & perch they catch!
[signature]