Holding fish out of water not an issue - says study

[7mmfan]

I also believe that in most cases, the act of lifting a fish from the water for a few seconds to take a picture poses no real risk. I'm glad that a study was done showing that there was no detectable harm done to reproduction, because that was always a bit of an unknown variable.

As others have stated, the real risk comes from long expanses of time out of the water, physical abuse like being dropped in the boat or on rocky shorelines, and mishandling I.E.: hands in gills and heavy grips causing bruising and scale/slime loss.

Regardless of the species, we as fishermen owe to ourselves and the fish we pursue to treat them with care and respect. As WSU put it, if we want to continue mixed stock fisheries, we need to adopt and adhere to these kind of regulations, and as Boneaddict put it, is it really worth the pic? If it is, you can take really good pictures while still maintaining the letter of the law. Here is a long write up I did a few years back after a couple of fish handling threads blew up on here.

https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,150299.0.html

[fowl smacker]

I usually don't take pictures of my fish until I've bonked and bled them anyhow.  If I plan on releasing a fish (which isn't often), I rarely take a pic of it.

[stlusn30-06]

There are a lot of variables that would make me hesitant to apply these results beyond the trout caught in the study. Great news that C&R trout do well though.

This is the only thing that matters in this entire thread. WA State laws concern wild Steelhead and Salmon. Not Cutthroat Trout. There is no way to legitimately apply the results of this study to Steelhead and Salmon. Similar to saying "Studies show I can drive a Ferrari at 10,000 RPM, therefore I can drive my Honda at 10,000 rpm. They're both cars. So why not?". Just doesn't make any sense.

Whether you agree with the law or not, the study is irrelevant. The only thing it does is create the hypothesis that because it doesn't impact Cutthroat, it might not impact Steelhead and Salmon.

[idahohuntr]

There is data, but the variables are obviously many and the handling of the fish itself different.  I don't know off hand what mortality rate is applied for fish removed from the water.  I do know that studies have demonstrated that higher temps and oxygen deprivation both raise mortality rate.

The bigger issue is nearly all our fisheries are created by modeling the mortality of non-target fish.  These limiting stocks are killed either by harvest or mortality after release.  If the regulation to keep fish in the water goes away, the mortality rate applied to the fishery will go up.  The season will be shortened because we'll use our "impacts" up quicker.  If we want to continue mixed stock fisheries (which we do), we'll have to live with regulations intended to limit mortality on non-target stocks.  The only other option is less fishing.

Based on what?

I remain highly skeptical that given the sources of mortality for non-target fish - that even if one applied an increase to the recreational angler caught/holding fish out of the water for 30s...that it would amount to anything that would measurably reduce season length. 

I'm all for handling fish with care and protecting a limited resource...but I'm very unsympathetic to bureaucracies coming down on a kid holding an unclipped steelhead out of  the Grande Ronde in February...and I believe this fourm has a thread describing that exact situation. 

One things for sure...I'm very thankful for the common sense leadership in Idaho Fish and Game.

[WSU]

There is data, but the variables are obviously many and the handling of the fish itself different.  I don't know off hand what mortality rate is applied for fish removed from the water.  I do know that studies have demonstrated that higher temps and oxygen deprivation both raise mortality rate.

The bigger issue is nearly all our fisheries are created by modeling the mortality of non-target fish.  These limiting stocks are killed either by harvest or mortality after release.  If the regulation to keep fish in the water goes away, the mortality rate applied to the fishery will go up.  The season will be shortened because we'll use our "impacts" up quicker.  If we want to continue mixed stock fisheries (which we do), we'll have to live with regulations intended to limit mortality on non-target stocks.  The only other option is less fishing.

Based on what?

I remain highly skeptical that given the sources of mortality for non-target fish - that even if one applied an increase to the recreational angler caught/holding fish out of the water for 30s...that it would amount to anything that would measurably reduce season length. 

I'm all for handling fish with care and protecting a limited resource...but I'm very unsympathetic to bureaucracies coming down on a kid holding an unclipped steelhead out of  the Grande Ronde in February...and I believe this fourm has a thread describing that exact situation. 

One things for sure...I'm very thankful for the common sense leadership in Idaho Fish and Game.

I'm sure it varies by fishery.  The impact on the Ronde with relatively few anglers, relatively few encounters, cold water, and relatively hearty fish (having long since developed their slime layer and absorbed scales) is far different than every idiot from B10 to Idaho removing fish from the water from June to March.  Those same fish face a lot of fishing in a lot of places.  It ain't as simple as pointing to one kid holding a fish up on the Ronde that already made it through hundreds of miles of fishing. 

There are dozens of studies linking water temp, recovery, handling, etc. to mortality.  Knock yourself out on google if you want, or go ahead and remain skeptical without doing the reading if you want. 

And the common sense leadership of Idaho doesn't want wild fish.  Look no further than the hydropower projects and Idaho's opposition to fish passage so they don't have to manage for them.  Idaho may be simple, but it certainly ain't fish friendly.

[7mmfan]

There is data, but the variables are obviously many and the handling of the fish itself different.  I don't know off hand what mortality rate is applied for fish removed from the water.  I do know that studies have demonstrated that higher temps and oxygen deprivation both raise mortality rate.

The bigger issue is nearly all our fisheries are created by modeling the mortality of non-target fish.  These limiting stocks are killed either by harvest or mortality after release.  If the regulation to keep fish in the water goes away, the mortality rate applied to the fishery will go up.  The season will be shortened because we'll use our "impacts" up quicker.  If we want to continue mixed stock fisheries (which we do), we'll have to live with regulations intended to limit mortality on non-target stocks.  The only other option is less fishing.

Based on what?

I remain highly skeptical that given the sources of mortality for non-target fish - that even if one applied an increase to the recreational angler caught/holding fish out of the water for 30s...that it would amount to anything that would measurably reduce season length. 

I'm all for handling fish with care and protecting a limited resource...but I'm very unsympathetic to bureaucracies coming down on a kid holding an unclipped steelhead out of  the Grande Ronde in February...and I believe this fourm has a thread describing that exact situation. 

One things for sure...I'm very thankful for the common sense leadership in Idaho Fish and Game.

There are numerous studies to this effect, but I think the point he was trying to make was that from a season setting point of view, the feds and the state will apply a higher mortality rate to a fishery without regulations mandating certain fish handling guidelines. Whether more fish die or not, the gov't is going to say more fish will die so they will shorten the season or limit numbers of allowed encounters.

[idahohuntr]

There is data, but the variables are obviously many and the handling of the fish itself different.  I don't know off hand what mortality rate is applied for fish removed from the water.  I do know that studies have demonstrated that higher temps and oxygen deprivation both raise mortality rate.

The bigger issue is nearly all our fisheries are created by modeling the mortality of non-target fish.  These limiting stocks are killed either by harvest or mortality after release.  If the regulation to keep fish in the water goes away, the mortality rate applied to the fishery will go up.  The season will be shortened because we'll use our "impacts" up quicker.  If we want to continue mixed stock fisheries (which we do), we'll have to live with regulations intended to limit mortality on non-target stocks.  The only other option is less fishing.

Based on what?

I remain highly skeptical that given the sources of mortality for non-target fish - that even if one applied an increase to the recreational angler caught/holding fish out of the water for 30s...that it would amount to anything that would measurably reduce season length. 

I'm all for handling fish with care and protecting a limited resource...but I'm very unsympathetic to bureaucracies coming down on a kid holding an unclipped steelhead out of  the Grande Ronde in February...and I believe this fourm has a thread describing that exact situation. 

One things for sure...I'm very thankful for the common sense leadership in Idaho Fish and Game.

I'm sure it varies by fishery.  The impact on the Ronde with relatively few anglers, relatively few encounters, cold water, and relatively hearty fish (having long since developed their slime layer and absorbed scales) is far different than every idiot from B10 to Idaho removing fish from the water from June to March.  Those same fish face a lot of fishing in a lot of places.  It ain't as simple as pointing to one kid holding a fish up on the Ronde that already made it through hundreds of miles of fishing. 

There are dozens of studies linking water temp, recovery, handling, etc. to mortality.  Knock yourself out on google if you want, or go ahead and remain skeptical without doing the reading if you want. 

And the common sense leadership of Idaho doesn't want wild fish.  Look no further than the hydropower projects and Idaho's opposition to fish passage so they don't have to manage for them.  Idaho may be simple, but it certainly ain't fish friendly.

Nobody is disputing handling/high water temp issues result in mortality of salmonids.  What I'm disputing is that the amount of additive mortality for holding a fish out of water long enough to snap a pic is meaningful at the population or fishery level - and I'm not aware of any such data to support this claim.  We should not set regulations based on speculation...if it's a serious enough concern to make statewide rules - at least collect some data to validate the rule will have any meaningful effect.  Even then...apply the regulation where it makes sense...which may not be statewide, year round. 

I won't get into Hells Canyon and Idaho state politics...suffice it to say IDFG applies a lot more common sense than other state agencies leadership...hands down and it is not even debatable.  They remain one of if not the most sportsmen friendly states around...thats my point.  They do that in part by not making absurd regulations that penalize well meaning, law abiding sportsmen with BS regs.   

[DOUBLELUNG]

I would prefer safe and ethical fish handling information provided and promoted, over regulation.  I suspect it is a requirement of the state's NOAA Fisheries incidental take permit for the ESA-listed species in order to have recreational seasons - but that is only a guess.  I think PSAs and information in the regs and knowledge passed on will keep the majority ethical without negative impacts at the population level, as effectively as having laws forbidding removing fish from water that are to be released - and what I've seen from the hog lines and combat fishing of any good harvest opportunity on salmon and steelhead, the other participants aren't shy about letting someone know when they've screwed up.  As has been noted repeatedly, the dirtbags participating aren't likely to abide by the regulations, and I'd say enforcement has enough options to pinch those guys without needing this law to do so.

I'd contrast this example with hunting big game.  What if we had a law that it is only legal to shoot big game animals through the heart, lungs, liver, brain and spine?  On the plus side, we'd have less unprepared yahoos in the woods with unsighted weapons, and less low percentage shots taken, and less wounding loss. 

On the minus side, we'd make a bunch of law-abiding-intended hunters violators because, stuff happens when a projectile is launched at a wild animal.  I'd much rather agencies and sportsmen have access to abundant information on what constitutes a high percent kill shot, and which shots are likely to result in a lost wounded animal.  Then let personal ethics and peer pressure have as much effect as is possible, without turning shaking new hunters (and others) into poachers courtesy of a bad shot.