Holding fish out of water not an issue - says study

[idahohuntr]

Unlike WDFW, IDFG collects data before making a decision on implementing regulations.  Not being able to take a wild fish out of the water for a photo is just one of many regs this state pushes without any factual basis...

https://www.idahopress.com/outdoors/a-fish-out-of-water-ok-for-a-minute/article_a43baa2d-de38-5458-b3f3-2d2aa81f5550.html

MOSCOW, Idaho —A University of Idaho study provides evidence that the practice by anglers of holding a fish out of water before releasing it has no impact on the fish’s survival or its ability to produce offspring, according to a U of I news release.

In the study, published this month in the North American Journal of Fisheries Management, researchers from U of I and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game caught more than 2,200 Yellowstone cutthroat trout over two years in a tributary of the South Fork of the Snake River in Idaho, a world-renowned fishery.

The researchers tagged the fish in the spring with tracking devices, took genetic samples, simulated angling and left some fish in the river while holding others out of the water for 30 and 60 seconds. The fish were then tracked to monitor their survival rates. The researchers returned to the same area in autumn to trap their offspring and determine the parentage of each fish through genetic analysis.

“We found that air exposure had no effect on short- or long-term survival, and no effect on reproductive success,” said Michael Quist, one of the study’s authors and an associate professor of fisheries management in U of I’s College of Natural Resources.

Curtis Roth, lead author of the study and a recent U of I master’s graduate, said the time intervals were chosen because they were consistent with how long anglers keep fish out of the water. An earlier study by the U of I researchers published in January 2018 in the journal Fisheries Research found more than 99 percent of anglers keep fish out of water for less than 60 seconds. The average was less than 20 seconds. Roth said researchers also focused on trout, a member of the salmonid family, because of its sensitivity.

“We chose salmonids for this study because they have lower tolerance of hypoxia — of being without oxygen. In theory, they would be the most likely to show an effect,” said Roth, who is now a fisheries biologist with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game in Salmon.

Salmonids include salmon, trout and steelhead, whose response to air exposure during catch-and-release fishing has been source of concern.

[full choke]

Hmmm. But I didn't see where they said in their research that they dropped them twice while trying to hold them, and then smooshed them down onto the rocks to keep them from squiggling, and then inadvertently used both hands to remove all slime, and lastly- slipped one finger up inside the gill plate.

That is usually what happens when someone takes a fish out of the water.

[splitshot]

I dont like stuff like this thread Cuz  some monkey reads it and holds fish out of the water and is blabbing on and on. I see it all the time. I like to keep the head in the water then gently lift the monster out of the water for a pic .seconds later the fish is released. My rule is as soon as the fish comes out of the water hold ur breath and when u r done or sooner put the fish back 4 good.  Mike w

[Bullkllr]

Hmmm. But I didn't see where they said in their research that they dropped them twice while trying to hold them, and then smooshed them down onto the rocks to keep them from squiggling, and then inadvertently used both hands to remove all slime, and lastly- slipped one finger up inside the gill plate.

That is usually what happens when someone takes a fish out of the water.

Pre-release full-coating of sand on both sides is my personal favorite.

[Antlershed]

Hmmm. But I didn't see where they said in their research that they dropped them twice while trying to hold them, and then smooshed them down onto the rocks to keep them from squiggling, and then inadvertently used both hands to remove all slime, and lastly- slipped one finger up inside the gill plate.

That is usually what happens when someone takes a fish out of the water.

You forgot about rolling them in the mud.

I believe simply holding them out of the water for a quick photo causes no harm, but when it’s allowed, you get hillbillies doing all of the above, so I am in favor of the law, even if it only deters a small percentage from still doing it. 

[Stein]

How about in the salt where you can get a ticket by taking it out to check species or count fins while in a small boat rocking in the waves?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[spoonman]

I call bs, it most certainly does cause stress/harm! So let’s do a study on holding a person under water for a extended period of time and see what the results are!

[3dvapor]

Do we really need another law to do whats right.  The same hillbilly is still going to drag it through the sand and grab it through the gills law or no law.

[splitshot]

Spoon man has it. A way 2 reduce the hill Billy population. Dont worry they can't read this. Mike w

[Stein]

Agreed, forget science, let's compare fish to people and pass some more laws restricting something in hopes it accomplishes some unstated goal.

[j_h_nimrod]

Nice to hear that someone did some research to prove the fallacy of management policies based on opinions. I can see the err on side of caution, but this state takes it to the extreme and any facts against them makes me smile. This is the same state that thinks it is justified to spend billions to protect the only group of Orcas in the world that is in decline because of their failure to evolve from some innate snobbishness that will allow them to decline when there are not enough salmon, but plentiful stocks of superior, high energy (meals) seals and sealions to eat.

[idahohuntr]

Agreed, forget science, let's compare fish to people and pass some more laws restricting something in hopes it accomplishes some unstated goal.

I prefer data to speculation and guessing.  All this WA law does is penalize/harm law abiding citizens who are responsible in their handling of fish who would like to capture nice photos.  Clowns dropping fish on rocks in the sand don't read the regs to begin with. 

[j_h_nimrod]

Agreed, forget science, let's compare fish to people and pass some more laws restricting something in hopes it accomplishes some unstated goal.

I prefer data to speculation and guessing.  All this WA law does is penalize/harm law abiding citizens who are responsible in their handling of fish who would like to capture nice photos.  Clowns dropping fish on rocks in the sand don't read the regs to begin with.

[Limhangerslayer]

Agreed, forget science, let's compare fish to people and pass some more laws restricting something in hopes it accomplishes some unstated goal.

I prefer data to speculation and guessing.  All this WA law does is penalize/harm law abiding citizens who are responsible in their handling of fish who would like to capture nice photos.  Clowns dropping fish on rocks in the sand don't read the regs to begin with.

and then the game determent its a girl holding a wild steelhead out of the water for the cover page!😂

[huntnnw]

there was a study on the S fork of the Clearwater on steelhead the same as this and also came to the same conclusion

[Jellymon]

 

[Skyvalhunter]

Not sure if this study is correct. As a member of a couple stocking and surveying groups for Hi Lakes in Wa were were told by our Bio that even though when you release the fish in the lake and it appeared to survive 90% of the time later it perished. According to them it was backed by some other study. My point is there is a study out there for every side.

[boneaddict]

Perfect meme for this...
LOL!



Theres a study for everything ....

[huntnnw]

maybe for small trout. This is untrue for steelhead I know several guides on the clearwater. You would see thousands of dead steelhead on the river bottom or banks. 1  I know of sees maybe a few dead on the river bottom all winter fishery and those could be from who knows what

[Antlershed]

How about in the salt where you can get a ticket by taking it out to check species or count fins while in a small boat rocking in the waves?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pretty easy to count fins while it’s in the net, in the water. 

[j_h_nimrod]

A recent study found that roughly 70 percent of fish survive being releases from a gill net so I see nothing wrong with the study finding that taking a fish out of the water would be more harmful.

[idahohuntr]

Not sure if this study is correct. As a member of a couple stocking and surveying groups for Hi Lakes in Wa were were told by our Bio that even though when you release the fish in the lake and it appeared to survive 90% of the time later it perished. According to them it was backed by some other study. My point is there is a study out there for every side.

Mortality from stocking fish in high mountain lakes could come from any number of things - and really has no bearing on this topic.

The study I posted was very thorough...they didn't just release the fish and say they were alive.  They tagged and monitored these fish for long after their release (several months) and also used DNA analysis to evaluate their reproductive success.  They found no effect on survival or reproductive success...meaning, not only did the fish not die - it did not have any indirect effects which might harm the population. 

[WSU]

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.

Salmon and to some degree steelhead pose other issues. Length of the fight amd exhaustion of the fish are undoubtedly far different, increasing the immediate need for oxygen.  Salmon in salt are very prone to scale and slime loss. Salmon and steelhead transitioning from salt to fresh are in the midst of large physical changes and remain vulnerable to slime and scale loss. Add in being dropped in a boat and it only gets worse.  Point is, while the study may be accurate, it may not translate directly to other fish in other fisheries.

[Antlershed]

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.

Salmon and to some degree steelhead pose other issues. Length of the fight amd exhaustion of the fish are undoubtedly far different, increasing the immediate need for oxygen.  Salmon in salt are very prone to scale and slime loss. Salmon and steelhead transitioning from salt to fresh are in the midst of large physical changes and remain vulnerable to slime and scale loss. Add in being dropped in a boat and it only gets worse.  Point is, while the study may be accurate, it may not translate directly to other fish in other fisheries.

I agree. Not to mention the trout were caught in the spring when water temps are pretty optimal. Steelhead in warm water sometimes barely survive the battle to make it to the boat. 

[WSU]

Water temp is hugely important. Lots of our fisheries occur with elevated temps (sometimes lethal temps).  There a lot of research out there on point, much of it directed at commercial harvest and mortality rates.

[idahohuntr]

The application of any study is limited - no doubt high water temps can be a concern - fisheries are sometimes shut down out of this concern...but in warmer (not extreme) temperature situations, how much additive mortality is there for lifting the fish out of water for a pic?

Unless WDFW has data on the effects of short duration holding fish out of water I'd rather they not make blanket regulations that may not achieve anything other than making criminals out of kids proud of their fish.

[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.

[Pegasus]

Did the study include dropping it on the ground or into the boat several times while the pictures are being taken? Did they pass the fish around so everyone present can get a picture with the fish? How about letting your dog play with it for a while before throwing it back?

[boneaddict]

How do they accurately pinpoint what killed the fish?  Was it handling the trout and destroying the slime coat, or was it collapsing their gills so they werent able to breath.  Bottom line is there is a "safer" way to handle the fish to help ensure a contiunued resource. WHY NOT DO IT!    Is it really worth the pic? 

[cavemann]

I fish for the experience of getting outside, the challenge and opportunity to take a few home for the BBQ.  I'm not concerned about how many I can post online..  If there is any validation what so ever that leaving them in the water is better for survival, fine by me.  If its not going home, the quicker it returns to the water the better, including not removing it.

To me its similar to antler restrictions..  Some legal bucks walk for error on the side of caution..  Seems reasonable and a few more fish may do the same. 

[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.