Free: Contests & Raffles.
The amazing part is all the professionals you see miss handling them. Its pretty common, and not all that hard to just do it the right way.
I find it odd also that many who argue against C&R in the first place seem to be the worst fish handlers. Avoiding handling altogether is safest for the fish.
Quote from: Bullkllr on March 27, 2014, 08:25:55 AMI find it odd also that many who argue against C&R in the first place seem to be the worst fish handlers. Avoiding handling altogether is safest for the fish.Wouldn't not catching them in the first place actually be the "safest for the fish"?
Quote from: huntnphool on March 27, 2014, 12:34:30 PMQuote from: Bullkllr on March 27, 2014, 08:25:55 AMI find it odd also that many who argue against C&R in the first place seem to be the worst fish handlers. Avoiding handling altogether is safest for the fish.Wouldn't not catching them in the first place actually be the "safest for the fish"? It's the same as hunters. We all argue that hunting is good for wildlife. By your logic, shouldn't we all stop hunting since it would be the safest for the wildlife?
Quote from: WSU on March 27, 2014, 12:47:37 PMQuote from: huntnphool on March 27, 2014, 12:34:30 PMQuote from: Bullkllr on March 27, 2014, 08:25:55 AMI find it odd also that many who argue against C&R in the first place seem to be the worst fish handlers. Avoiding handling altogether is safest for the fish.Wouldn't not catching them in the first place actually be the "safest for the fish"? Except the only ones that care about fish and fight for them are fisherman. It's the same as hunters. We all argue that hunting is good for wildlife. By your logic, shouldn't we all stop hunting since it would be the safest for the wildlife?Actually it's not. Hunting is a tool used to maintain the balance.
Quote from: huntnphool on March 27, 2014, 12:34:30 PMQuote from: Bullkllr on March 27, 2014, 08:25:55 AMI find it odd also that many who argue against C&R in the first place seem to be the worst fish handlers. Avoiding handling altogether is safest for the fish.Wouldn't not catching them in the first place actually be the "safest for the fish"? Except the only ones that care about fish and fight for them are fisherman. It's the same as hunters. We all argue that hunting is good for wildlife. By your logic, shouldn't we all stop hunting since it would be the safest for the wildlife?
Quote from: huntnphool on March 27, 2014, 12:49:44 PMQuote from: WSU on March 27, 2014, 12:47:37 PMQuote from: huntnphool on March 27, 2014, 12:34:30 PMQuote from: Bullkllr on March 27, 2014, 08:25:55 AMI find it odd also that many who argue against C&R in the first place seem to be the worst fish handlers. Avoiding handling altogether is safest for the fish.Wouldn't not catching them in the first place actually be the "safest for the fish"? Except the only ones that care about fish and fight for them are fisherman. It's the same as hunters. We all argue that hunting is good for wildlife. By your logic, shouldn't we all stop hunting since it would be the safest for the wildlife?Actually it's not. Hunting is a tool used to maintain the balance.The balance only matters to hunters. Critters would naturally cycle up and down like they did for hundreds or thousands of years prior to higher harvest rates. If there were no hunters, nobody would care about the down periods.
Quote from: WSU on March 27, 2014, 12:53:21 PMQuote from: huntnphool on March 27, 2014, 12:49:44 PMQuote from: WSU on March 27, 2014, 12:47:37 PMQuote from: huntnphool on March 27, 2014, 12:34:30 PMQuote from: Bullkllr on March 27, 2014, 08:25:55 AMI find it odd also that many who argue against C&R in the first place seem to be the worst fish handlers. Avoiding handling altogether is safest for the fish.Wouldn't not catching them in the first place actually be the "safest for the fish"? Except the only ones that care about fish and fight for them are fisherman. It's the same as hunters. We all argue that hunting is good for wildlife. By your logic, shouldn't we all stop hunting since it would be the safest for the wildlife?Actually it's not. Hunting is a tool used to maintain the balance.The balance only matters to hunters. Critters would naturally cycle up and down like they did for hundreds or thousands of years prior to higher harvest rates. If there were no hunters, nobody would care about the down periods. Really? Try telling that to the cattle ranchers losing animals to wolves. Tell that to the Methow residents losing pets to cougars. Tell that to land owners losing fences, hay and alfalfa to elk and moose.....etc etc etc.
Quote from: huntnphool on March 27, 2014, 12:58:30 PMQuote from: WSU on March 27, 2014, 12:53:21 PMQuote from: huntnphool on March 27, 2014, 12:49:44 PMQuote from: WSU on March 27, 2014, 12:47:37 PMQuote from: huntnphool on March 27, 2014, 12:34:30 PMQuote from: Bullkllr on March 27, 2014, 08:25:55 AMI find it odd also that many who argue against C&R in the first place seem to be the worst fish handlers. Avoiding handling altogether is safest for the fish.Wouldn't not catching them in the first place actually be the "safest for the fish"? Except the only ones that care about fish and fight for them are fisherman. It's the same as hunters. We all argue that hunting is good for wildlife. By your logic, shouldn't we all stop hunting since it would be the safest for the wildlife?Actually it's not. Hunting is a tool used to maintain the balance.The balance only matters to hunters. Critters would naturally cycle up and down like they did for hundreds or thousands of years prior to higher harvest rates. If there were no hunters, nobody would care about the down periods. Really? Try telling that to the cattle ranchers losing animals to wolves. Tell that to the Methow residents losing pets to cougars. Tell that to land owners losing fences, hay and alfalfa to elk and moose.....etc etc etc.Do you think those people would stick up for wildlife like hunters do? Seems to me they'd want to see them gone. Aren't you making my point?
My point was simple. The only ones who truly care about fish and wildlife and fisherman and hunters. They put their money where their mouth is and get involved. The general public really doesn't. If we get rid of fishing the fish will follow the same path. I agree with you to a point. Mortality associated with fishing is a tricky issue.
Quote from: WSU on March 27, 2014, 01:13:15 PMMy point was simple. The only ones who truly care about fish and wildlife and fisherman and hunters. They put their money where their mouth is and get involved. The general public really doesn't. If we get rid of fishing the fish will follow the same path. I agree with you to a point. Mortality associated with fishing is a tricky issue.I agree 100%I was just pointing out that one can not justify any kind of C&R fishing if they truly are concerned for the survival of the fish.
I don't want to turn this into a rant, but would like to offer up some tips and advice from 20 years of catch and release fishing, and 10 years of guiding anglers.
The only problem with taking photos of fish is that they wiggle so damn much, a light bonk to the head settles them right down, and gets their mind right, before release.
I know its been a while since this thread was active, but I've been seeing a resurgence of horrible fish handling photos online (mainly IWANTTOBEFAMOUSbook) recently. Luckily, none of them were here. Just this guy up front to give people some food for thought and maybe a get some questions answered for guys new to the sport of catch and release steelhead fishing. Theres been a lot of changes to our fishing opportunities the last couple of years. One way that we as anglers can take responsibility for the resources available to us, and ensure they are available for years to come, is to respect them and take care of them. I'll be heading to the coastal rivers for a week of fishing at the end of this month, hopefully I can update the thread with some great photos.