Proper Fish Handling and Photo Tips

[WSU]

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.

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. 

[87Ford]

Excellent write-up 7mmfan.  Thanks!

[huntnphool]

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.

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.

[WSU]

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.

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?

[TheHunt]

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.

Wouldn't not catching them in the first place actually be the "safest for the fish"?

Nice trolling going on here..

[huntnphool]

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.

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?

 I think I blew up your point. And back to the point at hand, what would be "best for the fish" is to not fish for them in the first place. Kind of hypocritical to post about your concern for these fish when you could do your part and not fish for them in the first place.

 Can anyone say for 100% certainty that the OP's fish he caught are not going to die? If eve one of those fish has potential of dying because it was caught then it's really a matter of semantics isn't it? What is the "acceptable" mortality at that point is what you all are arguing.

 So it's okay if a couple fish die as long as you did your best to let them go after you caught them.

[WSU]

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.

[huntnphool]

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.

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.

[WSU]

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.

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.

That's the tricky part.  We'll have to agree to disagree.

[7mmfan]

Please refer to the 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence of the initial post. This is meant to be educational for those of us that pursue fish in a catch and release fishery, please keep it that way.

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.

[Bullkllr]

Yes, the "safest" thing for the fish would be to not fish for them in the first place.  But as you can see, bringing that up here opens the argument far beyond the original topic of proper fish handling.

Clearly I meant "safer".





 

[GEARHEAD]

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.

[7mmfan]

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.

Just a love tap right? Lets them know who's boss! 

[Bullkllr]

I let 'em swim around in the seat box until I get to the take-out so I can take my time and get real good pictures.

[7mmfan]

I remember a guide from way back in the day when my Dad and I were fishing the Skykomish during catch and release. He would beach every single fish he caught. Drag them 20 feet up into the sand and gravel and let them flop around. Once they stopped flopping he would tail them, go down to the river, rinse them off, take a photo, and throw them back. He said that was the only way to get good pictures because otherwise they flopped to much!