Keep it or Release it? POLL Recordbook fish

[fishngamereaper]

If legal I woulda kept it, doesnt really look that big to me to be 200years old, if sent back down with a proper descending device it woulda had a fairly good chance of survival, and 900 ft isnt really that deep. My drifts for hali often start at 750ft and end up into the 900's...and with the yellow eye protection areas on the coast Ive sent many fish back down to over 700ft with good success.

[Skillet]

The more I think about this, the funnier it becomes to me that some hunters here are even considering giving a guy grief about not releasing a big fish.  I think woodman hit the nail on the head earlier here somewhere when he talked about shooting a big bull.  Are archers, who would kill the bull before it breeds that season, unethical for doing so?  Are rifle hunters more ethical for killing it after it had a chance to pass on more of its genetic code?

The fact is, every BIG fish was a small fish first.  99% of the guys that are giving this guy crap about keeping it would have considered a smaller (younger) version of it a good "eater" and would have bonked it.  Not every small fish becomes a big fish, but bonk a small fish and I guarantee it won't become a big fish later.  What I will also guarantee is that it if it did have the big fish genetics, it won't get the chance to pass on big fish genetics. 

Big fish don't make big fish.  They make small fish that given time, proper genetics, enough feed and a good dose of luck can turn into big fish.  A big fish has already passed on those genes many times over - so it's "mission accomplished" for them.  Nobody should be made to feel a bit bad about keeping a fish of a lifetime for the wall or the fryer.

  

[headshot5]

Yep I'd keep it.  Could care less about the record.  He'd look nice on the dinner plate though. 

[Button Nubbs]

The more I think about this, the funnier it becomes to me that some hunters here are even considering giving a guy grief about not releasing a big fish.  I think woodman hit the nail on the head earlier here somewhere when he talked about shooting a big bull.  Are archers, who would kill the bull before it breeds that season, unethical for doing so?  Are rifle hunters more ethical for killing it after it had a chance to pass on more of its genetic code?

The fact is, every BIG fish was a small fish first.  99% of the guys that are giving this guy crap about keeping it would have considered a smaller (younger) version of it a good "eater" and would have bonked it.  Not every small fish becomes a big fish, but bonk a small fish and I guarantee it won't become a big fish later.  What I will also guarantee is that it if it did have the big fish genetics, it won't get the chance to pass on big fish genetics. 

Big fish don't make big fish.  They make small fish that given time, proper genetics, enough feed and a good dose of luck can turn into big fish.  A big fish has already passed on those genes many times over - so it's "mission accomplished" for them.  Nobody should be made to feel a bit bad about keeping a fish of a lifetime for the wall or the fryer.

 

I hope your not refwring to me as I never was giving the guy any grief.

I have caught a lot of big fish most people would have whacked but instead I put them back. I would shoot a record bull in a heart beat. Maybe I'm just weird.

[Skillet]

The more I think about this, the funnier it becomes to me that some hunters here are even considering giving a guy grief about not releasing a big fish.  I think woodman hit the nail on the head earlier here somewhere when he talked about shooting a big bull.  Are archers, who would kill the bull before it breeds that season, unethical for doing so?  Are rifle hunters more ethical for killing it after it had a chance to pass on more of its genetic code?

The fact is, every BIG fish was a small fish first.  99% of the guys that are giving this guy crap about keeping it would have considered a smaller (younger) version of it a good "eater" and would have bonked it.  Not every small fish becomes a big fish, but bonk a small fish and I guarantee it won't become a big fish later.  What I will also guarantee is that it if it did have the big fish genetics, it won't get the chance to pass on big fish genetics. 

Big fish don't make big fish.  They make small fish that given time, proper genetics, enough feed and a good dose of luck can turn into big fish.  A big fish has already passed on those genes many times over - so it's "mission accomplished" for them.  Nobody should be made to feel a bit bad about keeping a fish of a lifetime for the wall or the fryer.

 

I hope your not refwring to me as I never was giving the guy any grief.

I have caught a lot of big fish most people would have whacked but instead I put them back. I would shoot a record bull in a heart beat. Maybe I'm just weird.

Nope - not singling you out by any means. 
Edited to add:  I've had this discussion with my walleye buddies many times.  Most of the guys I like to fish with are 100% C&R on the "overs".  When I'm in their boats, I am too - captain's rules.  Best argument I ever heard for releasing all overs was "I have respect for a survivor like that, and I honor that by releasing it".  Fair enough!
Truthfully, I release most of my big fish as well.  Sometimes it's because I already have filets in the freezer, sometimes it is because the fishing is good and I want to keep on fishing, sometimes it's because I'm feeling just too lazy to deal with the mess and packaging that day.  That happened on the last day of ling this year - the only fish I caught was a 35" that I hauled around in my livewell for 4+ hours before I decided to let it go.

Just found this pic of the fish-


And this comment, which I think is the funniest thing I've read in a while:

"sabrina33540  8 minutes ago
What a shame this fisherman had to kill this creature - any type of hunting (fishing, arrow, gun) should be outlawed. He could buy his fish in the nearest market!"

LOL... man.  There is a response to this that says "Do you think this fish would be any less dead if he bought it in a market?"
Good laugh. 

[jackmaster]

that is awesome.... way to go leaf licker 

[boneaddict]

People like that are the ones that don't realize where their burgers come from.

I haven't seen anyone here giving him crap, and I ddin't want anyone too or mean too.  Just a discussion of different thoughts.  Buttonnubbs and I seem to be alike in thought.  I honestly don't compare fish to elk.   Honestly I think I have the same thoughts as the Captain.....a survivor like that deserves to swim another day.  I am niave to a certain extent on his survivability.  I have greatly enjoyed the conversation and knowledge presented here.   

[Alchase]

The theory is that if you get it up fast from a moderate depth, then get it back down fast to a moderate depth, there is "X" % of survival.  I dont think anybody considers 900 feet a moderate depth, tho.  In the Puget Sound, we are restricted from fishing below 120 feet for this very reason.

At 50 ft of depth there is 37 PSI of pressure, at 900 ft there is 1353 psi of pressure.

My eyes would bug out as well, LOL

[bearpaw]

Might as well eat it....

[Fishaholic]

look  at the eyes. They looked popped out. No way that fish would have lived. Looks like he has some crab bait now.

[fishngamereaper]

My drifts for hali often start at 750ft and end up into the 900's...and with the yellow eye protection areas on the coast Ive sent many fish back down to over 700ft with good success.

How are you measuring "good success"? Based on the fact that you didn't see the fish re-surface? The fact that people are getting these fish to sink is not proof that the fish will enjoy long term survival. 700 feet is well beyond the accepted range of survival for descended rockfish. Not saying people shouldn't attempt to release these fish if they are not legal to keep, but I can't understand why anyone would take issue with this fish being retained! It is very probable that rockfish brought up from such depths will not survive.

Now Im not a scientist by no means, but I am a sportsman. Yes, I measure success because the fish do not re surface, and when sent back down to the depths seem to come back to life without hesitation. Obviously someone somewhere feels the survival rate is good and I hope they are right. Washingtons coastal deep water fishing seasons depend on the survival of by-catch like yellow eye, and proper releasing of those fish. Descending devices where required on the coast this year. If the survival is long term or short term, its better than seeing a 100 orange dots floating on the surface for the birds to eat. Like I said, I would have kept the fish if legal, but since washington is focusing on Yellow eye revovery and our seasons and species retention are becoming limited, I also have some belief in descended fish survival rates.

[Sneaky]

 

[sirmissalot]

Fisheries is giving a much lower mortality rate on fish released with a descending device.  You'd think someone like NOAA would research something like this before just guessing and throwing out a new number. Mortality rates on fish like yelloweye caught while halibut fishing at depths of 500-800 feet were around 99% without a descending device. I don't know the number now but I know it's drastically improved with it.

Also I've never heard of the bulging eyes as being lethal to the fish... Maybe though. I know I catch china rockfish at depths of just 50-80 feet and they have bulging eyes already. You'd think the mortality rate of these rockfish would be 100% across the board if the bulging eyes played a roll.

[RadSav]

There is a difference between bulging eyes and ruptured eyes.  When the eye is almost all gas and every layer of tissue is separated with gas in between there is no long term recovery.  Simply compressing the gas back to the original state is not going to fix that.  Even if by some stroke of luck the fish survived ascending and descending blind fish can't eat.

[mrmoskillz]

This one was released with a descending devise, it would be cool to know if it lived I would have kept that or any other record fish if legal to do so.