Post by: boneaddict on July 02, 2013, 04:40:22 PM
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv47%2Fboneaddict%2Fbonesbucks%2F6D1EC8322371308FE13A51171055E7_h316_w628_m5_czSNZZawr_zps58ff9fe9.jpg&hash=1b2a96c43e44bdc81508788bf274d072fe92bab2)
Post by: Woodchuck on July 02, 2013, 04:42:43 PM
Post by: seth30 on July 02, 2013, 04:43:25 PM
Post by: CedarPants on July 02, 2013, 04:44:16 PM
Can a fish be released after bringing it up from 900 feet? I don't know the answer to that and I am not being critical of the guy.
I don't know the answer either but would need to know before I could vote :tup:
Post by: hrd2fnd on July 02, 2013, 04:44:43 PM
Post by: boneaddict on July 02, 2013, 04:47:06 PM
Post by: GUscottie on July 02, 2013, 04:49:33 PM
Post by: jackelope on July 02, 2013, 04:50:27 PM
Post by: Wea300mag on July 02, 2013, 04:50:44 PM
Post by: Holg3107 on July 02, 2013, 04:55:07 PM
Post by: Wea300mag on July 02, 2013, 04:56:59 PM
Post by: Antlershed on July 02, 2013, 04:57:25 PM
That fish never lives if released. :twocents::yeah:
Post by: jackelope on July 02, 2013, 04:58:51 PM
For the record, I voted "fish n chips" :drool:
The more I think about it, the more I wonder what 200 year old yelloweye fish and chips tastes like.
:puke:
Post by: Wea300mag on July 02, 2013, 05:00:05 PM
For the record, I voted "fish n chips" :drool:
The more I think about it, the more I wonder what 200 year old yelloweye fish and chips tastes like.
:puke:
Probably not like chicken. :chuckle:
Post by: h2ofowlr on July 02, 2013, 05:00:37 PM
Post by: MLBowhunting on July 02, 2013, 05:07:48 PM
Post by: Button Nubbs on July 02, 2013, 05:12:14 PM
Post by: h2ofowlr on July 02, 2013, 05:14:46 PM
Keep it. :tup: good meal there
I wonder how good a 200 year old fish would taste. My guess it would require a lot of tarter, brown sugar and other things. The toxin levels would probably be at a historic high. :yike:
Post by: floatinghat on July 02, 2013, 05:18:57 PM
Post by: lostbackpacker on July 02, 2013, 05:21:32 PM
Post by: TONTO on July 02, 2013, 05:28:50 PM
As far as the original question yes I would keep it if legal to do so, it appears that it may be a Vermillion Rock fish so yeah I'ld keep. If it is/were a canary then it would not be legal to keep where I fish, or if halibut fishing it would not be legal, so I would try to release it at depth knowing it still has a 50/50 of living/not anyhow.
I know if I kept that fish I would defenatly be keeping the ear bones out of that sucker with 200 rings+/- they'ld be coaster sized :yike:
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on July 02, 2013, 05:32:45 PM
Post by: woodman on July 02, 2013, 05:40:21 PM
I am gonna go out on a limb here and say that I bet that he was fishing probably with a charter or someone that took him out that ten miles to fish a spot that the captain of the boat knew about. He probably used the gear that was recommended to use and how deep to fish. He happened to hook this fish by chance and brought it up. It probably surprised him but he did not know what he had exactly at that moment. He just knew that he had a large fish.
I would equate it to guys that dream of getting a big elk or deer while they wait for the season to open. Then they go out and stumble onto an extra large bull or buck. Do they pass and say that it is an old boy and just let it walk, I think not.
Post by: xd2005 on July 02, 2013, 05:43:49 PM
You do not want to "let the air out of it", the only way that fish is going to live is if it is released at depth. Either by hooking it in the lower lip with an upside down rigged barbless hook and a big ass wieght, or a wieghted trap with a release. The fish must be lowered atleast two atmospheres before being released, then it may still not survive, but it stands alot better chance. Poking a hole in the fish and deflating will help get the fish down, but the fish will surely die from either infection or from not having a working swim bladder to stabilize it.
As far as the original question yes I would keep it if legal to do so, it appears that it may be a Vermillion Rock fish so yeah I'ld keep. If it is/were a canary then it would not be legal to keep where I fish, or if halibut fishing it would not be legal, so I would try to release it at depth knowing it still has a 50/50 of living/not anyhow.
I know if I kept that fish I would defenatly be keeping the ear bones out of that sucker with 200 rings+/- they'ld be coaster sized :yike:
:yeah:
Towards the back of the fishing regs it talks about this...but who reads those anyways? :chuckle:
Post by: jackmaster on July 02, 2013, 05:46:28 PM
:yeah: :yeah:. In order for it to live you have to puncture something in the fish and even then the chances are real slim at best...That fish never lives if released. :twocents::yeah:
Post by: Alan K on July 02, 2013, 05:47:41 PM
Post by: TONTO on July 02, 2013, 05:47:52 PM
Post by: woodman on July 02, 2013, 05:51:31 PM
Post by: MtnMuley on July 02, 2013, 05:53:18 PM
Post by: xd2005 on July 02, 2013, 05:54:39 PM
Figured it might be helpful for some to read on how to release them the correct way ;)
Post by: Smossy on July 02, 2013, 06:00:10 PM
I wouldn't imagine any fish brought up from them depths would live if released..:yeah: :bdid:
Woulda wound up eagle food.
I would have kept it myself. Im all for putting back brooders but are you gonna put back a huge 600lb halibut? I think not.
Post by: 3nails on July 02, 2013, 06:03:08 PM
Post by: j_h_nimrod on July 02, 2013, 06:11:22 PM
That is most likely a Rougheye, Yelloweye are not known to live that old and 200 years would only be an estimate as the otoliths need to be read to be definitive. That fish would not have survived regardless, look at the eyes. There is an extent to which a fish can embolism before it is a goner. From 900' it was most likely a commercial longline setup which would never have tried to revive it regardless, not sure of rockfish prices now but that is a fairly valuable fish. No IGFA records here. That is the front office of the Sitka ADF&G office so location is correct.
Nice fish, I would have maybe kept it... Depends on circumstances. Popping the bladder can be very effective if done correctly but not one from a fish that far gone.
I would also let a 600lb halibut go and strongly support a slot size (something like 15-100lb) system for halibut. Mature females are getting annihilated and need help. A 600lb fish would produce something like 5+ million eggs.
Post by: RadSav on July 02, 2013, 06:19:41 PM
Unless you have one of the tools to let the air out, that fish is dead once it hits the surface, so I would have kept it. Under different circumstances I would have released it. Same issue they have with rockfish at 130'. If you try to release them they just float on the surface until an eagle or seal grabs them. You need the needle to let the air out, so they can swim back down.
Look at that fish. See the eyes bulging from it's skull. No way even if needled it survives. Once the eyes pop it's fate is sealed. Releasing it would have done nothing but supply seagulls, sharks and sea lions an easy meal. I'd rather see the angler that worked for it get the protein.
Post by: sirmissalot on July 02, 2013, 06:20:07 PM
Properly released rockfish have pretty decent mortality rates, but either way i would probably keep the fish if it was a record. Anything is good fried and dipped in tarter sauce
Post by: RadSav on July 02, 2013, 06:23:37 PM
Post by: xd2005 on July 02, 2013, 06:28:20 PM
Reportedly a shortraker (I know nothing of rockfish, only what the article states).
Post by: RadSav on July 02, 2013, 06:36:47 PM
http://sitkasentinel.com/7/2012-05-10-22-08-10/local-news/5965-record-sized-rockfish-may-also-be-the-oldest (http://sitkasentinel.com/7/2012-05-10-22-08-10/local-news/5965-record-sized-rockfish-may-also-be-the-oldest)
Reportedly a shortraker (I know nothing of rockfish, only what the article states).
Facinating! Sure looks too orange with too smooth of a tail for a shortraker. Oh well, guess you learn something new everyday :dunno:
Post by: addicted2hunting on July 02, 2013, 06:41:37 PM
Post by: SkookumHntr on July 02, 2013, 06:45:58 PM
Post by: Skillet on July 02, 2013, 06:59:19 PM
I saw somewhere else on here that someone said big fish breed big fish. Not really the case... genetics are the key, not the size of the fish when it spawns (salmon may be different since they get only one shot at it- but most other fish start breeding small and continue breeding). This fish has probably bred 100+ times already, so no worries about those genes being passed on. You're keeping far more fish out of the future population by keeping a 20 year old yelloweye with another 100 years of breeding ahead of it than keeping this one that is likely at the end of its breeding life.
Post by: j_h_nimrod on July 02, 2013, 07:15:39 PM
I have doubts about rod and reel at 900' though. I have heard of some people trying their hand at rod and reel that deep and have done it myself for Black Cod and it is very difficult for a number of reasons. I will reserve judgement though, congrats, Henry on your catch.
Post by: Button Nubbs on July 02, 2013, 08:04:35 PM
I would keep it. Even if it was 200 years old, how many more years would it have left even if it did survive?how do big fish get to be big? Genetics. So when they breed the pass on genetics. :dunno:
I saw somewhere else on here that someone said big fish breed big fish. Not really the case... genetics are the key, not the size of the fish when it spawns (salmon may be different since they get only one shot at it- but most other fish start breeding small and continue breeding). This fish has probably bred 100+ times already, so no worries about those genes being passed on. You're keeping far more fish out of the future population by keeping a 20 year old yelloweye with another 100 years of breeding ahead of it than keeping this one that is likely at the end of its breeding life.
Post by: Skillet on July 02, 2013, 08:21:14 PM
I know it seems counter intuitive, but if you really want to help a fish population grow, do not keep a bunch of the young breeders with many year's worth of breeding ahead of them. Keep the worn-out old spawners that have fulfilled their biological mission many times over.
Post by: The100Road on July 02, 2013, 08:41:43 PM
i know nothing about fishing. everyone keeps saying it wouldnt survive. why? im catching that it gets filled with air? is that what kills it? how does that happen? and if the air is released why would it not survive if let go?
Post by: xd2005 on July 02, 2013, 08:50:43 PM
I HAVE A STUPID QUESTION!!!!!!!
i know nothing about fishing. everyone keeps saying it wouldnt survive. why? im catching that it gets filled with air? is that what kills it? how does that happen? and if the air is released why would it not survive if let go?
I am a novice at this, but I think it's similar to "the bends" for divers, in that the air in their swim bladder and other places expands as the pressure lessens. The key is to get them back down to a safe level (pressure) as quickly as possible for it to normalize.
Post by: The100Road on July 02, 2013, 08:54:22 PM
I HAVE A STUPID QUESTION!!!!!!!
i know nothing about fishing. everyone keeps saying it wouldnt survive. why? im catching that it gets filled with air? is that what kills it? how does that happen? and if the air is released why would it not survive if let go?
I am a novice at this, but I think it's similar to "the bends" for divers, in that the air in their swim bladder and other places expands as the pressure lessens. The key is to get them back down to a safe level (pressure) as quickly as possible for it to normalize.
huh. so can it swim up to shallower water on its own or does it have to stay down that low? dont they live in shallower water as well?
Post by: Skillet on July 02, 2013, 08:55:45 PM
I HAVE A STUPID QUESTION!!!!!!!At sea level, water pressure is 14.7 times air pressure at (I believe) 65 degrees F. If he actually pulled this fish out of 900 feet of water, it would be like you going from sea level to almost the top of Rainier in a few minutes. Your ears popping is somewhat like a fish's air bladder expanding - except when it happens to them their eyes blow out of their skull and their stomaches get pushed out of their mouths. An air bladder in a fish is a much higher percentage of body volume than a humans ear drums are - and fish dont get to chew Bubble Yum to try and make it go away.
i know nothing about fishing. everyone keeps saying it wouldnt survive. why? im catching that it gets filled with air? is that what kills it? how does that happen? and if the air is released why would it not survive if let go?
Post by: The100Road on July 02, 2013, 09:00:31 PM
I HAVE A STUPID QUESTION!!!!!!!At sea level, water pressure is 14.7 times air pressure at (I believe) 65 degrees F. If he actually pulled this fish out of 900 feet of water, it would be like you going from sea level to almost the top of Rainier in a few minutes. Your ears popping is somewhat like a fish's air bladder expanding - except when it happens to them their eyes blow out of their skull and their stomaches get pushed out of their mouths. An air bladder in a fish is a much higher percentage of body volume than a humans ear drums are - and fish dont get to chew Bubble Yum to try and make it go away.
i know nothing about fishing. everyone keeps saying it wouldnt survive. why? im catching that it gets filled with air? is that what kills it? how does that happen? and if the air is released why would it not survive if let go?
gotchya, does it matter how fast it gets reeled up? or no mater what that is going to happen?
Post by: Skillet on July 02, 2013, 09:06:37 PM
Post by: RadSav on July 02, 2013, 10:00:24 PM
I have doubts about rod and reel at 900' though. I have heard of some people trying their hand at rod and reel that deep and have done it myself for Black Cod and it is very difficult for a number of reasons. I will reserve judgement though, congrats, Henry on your catch.
I would have to agree with that. 150 fathoms of water in Alaskan currents I bet it's nearly impossible to hit the bottom with less than 200 fathoms (almost 1/4 mile) of line out. If it was caught with rod & reel that guy deserves the "Iron Arm" fishing award. Makes my arms hurt just thinking about it. Though I expect the fish only fights for about 50 fathoms of that and floats the rest of the way. But still that's a lot of reeling to be done :o
I've caught a lot of halibut and giant bocaccio rock fish in 50 to 60 fathoms off the Oregon coast and that was bad enough to keep on the bottom. Triple that amount and add 25% to the current...crazy. Possible for sure, but not too much fun. We did use electric reels for some elderly and disabled anglers. I suppose something like that would make it a bit more routine.
Congratulations to that guy regardless. It's one heck of a fish for sure.
Post by: huntnnw on July 02, 2013, 10:12:40 PM
Post by: j_h_nimrod on July 02, 2013, 10:51:46 PM
I am a bit rusty on ichthyology but the term for this type of fish is physoclistic when regarding it's type of swim bladder. To control buoyancy they have a gas gland that adds or removes gas from the bladder. It is a relitively slow process that can not keep up with the rapid ascent associated with being reeled up on a fishing line. At shallower depth the expansion is small enough that the fishes body can contain it. But at deeper depth or faster ascent rates the fish can not contain it and the gas follows the path of least resistance causing the bladder to expand and fill the body cavity expelling the stomach, compressing other organs, and rupturing tissues. In many cases the eyes will also protrude from small amounts of gas and in extreme cases the interior of the eye develops bubbles and ruptures internally. If the expansion is not too extreme then the pressure in the bladder can be released by puncture or the fish dropped to deeper depth again and they have a chance of survival. If you pop the protruding stomach the fish will live for a time but will likely die from infection and internal damage after a short time.
Not all fish are like this. Salmon, for instance, are physostomus, meaning the gas in the swim bladder is controlled through a pneumatic duct that can alter pressure much more rapidly. Hence the reason why this is not an issue with all fish.
Post by: mkcj on July 02, 2013, 10:57:48 PM
http://www.bdoutdoors.com/forums/washington-state/501398-our-fish-descender-use-got-their-attention.html (http://www.bdoutdoors.com/forums/washington-state/501398-our-fish-descender-use-got-their-attention.html)
Post by: mkcj on July 02, 2013, 11:06:29 PM
Post by: sumbeech66 on July 02, 2013, 11:40:14 PM
To start I would have kept it because I think it would have died anyway.
I am gonna go out on a limb here and say that I bet that he was fishing probably with a charter or someone that took him out that ten miles to fish a spot that the captain of the boat knew about. He probably used the gear that was recommended to use and how deep to fish. He happened to hook this fish by chance and brought it up. It probably surprised him but he did not know what he had exactly at that moment. He just knew that he had a large fish.
I would equate it to guys that dream of getting a big elk or deer while they wait for the season to open. Then they go out and stumble onto an extra large bull or buck. Do they pass and say that it is an old boy and just let it walk, I think not.
x2
I have a hard time believing anyone here is going to pass on a world record bull/buck. Its the same scenario as this fish.
I don't get it. I keep it, but probably cut it up before realizing its a record.
Post by: RadSav on July 03, 2013, 12:19:34 AM
Actually if you know how and have the right devise they do have a good chance to survive. I hate to think that was a female and had another 100 years of reproducing ahead of her.
http://www.bdoutdoors.com/forums/washington-state/501398-our-fish-descender-use-got-their-attention.html (http://www.bdoutdoors.com/forums/washington-state/501398-our-fish-descender-use-got-their-attention.html)
That's 60 to 100' or 10 to 17 fathoms with 80% survival. The fish in question was caught at 900' or 150 fathoms! And the eyes have not just simply protruded the sockets, but have completely ruptured. There is absolutely no way on earth to have saved that fish. You may be able to make it sink, but it is still going to die if it wasn't dead when it hit the surface. Absolutely for certain! Even at 50 fathoms that would be the case. I've seen some success at 30 fathoms, but never at 50 or more.
Also, the estimated life span of a shortraker is 120 years. If by some miracle this one did live to be 200 (which I seriously doubt) there is no chance she had another 100 years of repopulating reefs. That would put her more than double life expectancy.
Post by: addicted2hunting on July 03, 2013, 02:50:25 AM
:yeah:I would keep it. Even if it was 200 years old, how many more years would it have left even if it did survive?how do big fish get to be big? Genetics. So when they breed the pass on genetics. :dunno:
I saw somewhere else on here that someone said big fish breed big fish. Not really the case... genetics are the key, not the size of the fish when it spawns (salmon may be different since they get only one shot at it- but most other fish start breeding small and continue breeding). This fish has probably bred 100+ times already, so no worries about those genes being passed on. You're keeping far more fish out of the future population by keeping a 20 year old yelloweye with another 100 years of breeding ahead of it than keeping this one that is likely at the end of its breeding life.
Post by: Skillet on July 03, 2013, 07:09:47 AM
Skillet, I liked the top of Rainier analogy, it gives a good impression of what happens.
I am a bit rusty on ichthyology but the term for this type of fish is physoclistic when regarding it's type of swim bladder. To control buoyancy they have a gas gland that adds or removes gas from the bladder. It is a relitively slow process that can not keep up with the rapid ascent associated with being reeled up on a fishing line. At shallower depth the expansion is small enough that the fishes body can contain it. But at deeper depth or faster ascent rates the fish can not contain it and the gas follows the path of least resistance causing the bladder to expand and fill the body cavity expelling the stomach, compressing other organs, and rupturing tissues. In many cases the eyes will also protrude from small amounts of gas and in extreme cases the interior of the eye develops bubbles and ruptures internally. If the expansion is not too extreme then the pressure in the bladder can be released by puncture or the fish dropped to deeper depth again and they have a chance of survival. If you pop the protruding stomach the fish will live for a time but will likely die from infection and internal damage after a short time.
Not all fish are like this. Salmon, for instance, are physostomus, meaning the gas in the swim bladder is controlled through a pneumatic duct that can alter pressure much more rapidly. Hence the reason why this is not an issue with all fish.
:yeah: My observations support this. I've often caught macks out of deep water on Lake Chelan. If I don't intend to keep them (IMHO, the biggies out of there don't eat well at all), I'll play them slow and bring them up easy. On calm days you can see the bubbles coming up as the fish "burps" out the gas from its swim bladder as it rises through the water column.
On the other hand, I've caught walleye out of 70-80 FOW on Banks Lake and no matter how slowly you bring them up, it seems they still have bugged out eyes and about half of them have the stomache protruding.
Post by: Skillet on July 03, 2013, 07:17:08 AM
If I remember right a rock fish in Puget sound grows around an inch a year with very low birth survival rates and the reason for them being protected or very limited fishing almost everywhere.
They all grow at different rates at different stages in their lives. On the coast, you can keep 10 rockfish a day - there are healthy, sustainably fished populations of them out there. The issue with PS rockfish is they were overharvested to the point of crashing. The reason we cannot fish below 120 feet in the PS (except for halibut) is that bringing incidentally caught rockfish up from below that line greatly reduces their chances of survival. The fishing ban and depth restriction really don't have anything to do with birth rates any more than just trying to get the population back on the other side of "critical mass". I don't have a long history of fishing the sound, but from what I've seen so far the rockfish populations seem to be doing much better than when I started.
Post by: fishngamereaper on July 03, 2013, 07:27:57 AM
Post by: Skillet on July 03, 2013, 10:45:45 AM
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.
:twocents:
Post by: headshot5 on July 03, 2013, 10:56:37 AM
Post by: Button Nubbs on July 03, 2013, 11:07:40 AM
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?I hope your not refwring to me as I never was giving the guy any grief.
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.
:twocents:
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. :dunno: :chuckle:
Post by: Skillet on July 03, 2013, 11:44:13 AM
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?I hope your not refwring to me as I never was giving the guy any grief.
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.
:twocents:
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. :dunno: :chuckle:
Nope - not singling you out by any means. :tup:
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-
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.nydailynews.com%2Fpolopoly_fs%2F1.1388040.1372777231%21%2Fimg%2FhttpImage%2Fimage.jpg_gen%2Fderivatives%2Flandscape_635%2Frecord-rockfish.jpg&hash=8deb53597eb4cad9d79ffd13053a827a344b5b7c)
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. :chuckle:
Post by: jackmaster on July 03, 2013, 12:31:28 PM
Post by: boneaddict on July 03, 2013, 12:46:01 PM
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.
Post by: Alchase on July 03, 2013, 12:48:00 PM
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
Post by: bearpaw on July 03, 2013, 12:51:35 PM
Post by: Fishaholic on July 03, 2013, 12:59:48 PM
Post by: fishngamereaper on July 03, 2013, 01:29:43 PM
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.
Post by: Sneaky on July 03, 2013, 01:37:05 PM
Post by: sirmissalot on July 03, 2013, 01:59:58 PM
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.
Post by: RadSav on July 03, 2013, 03:04:44 PM
Post by: mrmoskillz on July 03, 2013, 04:13:26 PM
Post by: j_h_nimrod on July 03, 2013, 04:34:41 PM
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.
:yeah:
When the eyes look crystallized like that it means there is damage beyond simple barotrauma. It is like the level at which a human gets the bends, there is a level at which survival does not exist. No matter if a decompression chamber is only seconds away.
I agree that if it is an illegal catch that whatever can be done to increase survival is good. Kind of like releasing undersized trout/salmon/whatever bleeding from the gills, the fish is 99% likely to die but it is the rules and there is a chance, though small, that it will survive. Certainly better to try with the rockfish than leaving a trail of bird buoys. NOAA and NMFS have carried out a number of studies on survival rates, most have been inconclusive or showed only a small increase in success rate.
Post by: fishngamereaper on July 03, 2013, 06:13:19 PM
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.
Absolutely agree! That came out wrong on my end, didn't mean to say that you weren't doing the right thing! I am just skeptical as to whether fish released after being brought up from such depths have any chance at all. When fish are illegal to retain, like in WA, all we can do is try! Good on you for using a descending device! I just don't understand people who are giving this guy grief for keeping a legal fish that probably won't live anyway.
:tup:
Post by: Gobble Doc on July 04, 2013, 07:56:23 AM
Post by: elkfins on July 05, 2013, 10:53:01 AM
This fish is not a yelloweye, nor is it a protected species of rockfish. Properly identifying the bottom fish you catch is the first step in protecting our sport fisheries. Huge areas of the ocean are being closed down to us because of misinformation about bottom fish stocks.
Hook and Line fishing at 900 feet deep is very possible with today's technologies... between high strength braided line and electric reels, there are more and more people targeting fish at these depths. Most specifically black cod. It is not unreasonable to hand reel at 900 feet (We fish halibut & Ling cod at 600 - 700 feet offshore every year) but I agree that it is a whole lot of work.
The effect of the swim bladder expanding as the fish comes up from the depths is called Barotrauma. The expansion of the swim bladder causes the stomach to protrude out the mouth and the eyes to bulge. The faster you reel up the fish, the works the condition is. When released, these fish cannot dive down to their depths because of this and end up being bird food.
Venting used to be the accepted way to release these fish... a sharp poke behind the fin and the gases would escape, allowing the fish to dive... This is not a good idea. Popping the stomach that is protruding from the mouth will not vent the fish... all you are doing is poking a hole in the fishes stomach and releasing no gasses.
Recent research indicates that a descent device is the best way to release these fish and the survival rate may be upwards of 80%. There are several models out there and are easy to use. The key to successfully releasing bottomfish is to get them down to depths where the pressure will naturally compress the swim bladder back to it's original size. Lots of good information at this link.
http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/stories/2013/18_2013_06_19_preventing_barotrauma.html (http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/stories/2013/18_2013_06_19_preventing_barotrauma.html)
Having said all that.. yes, in the circumstances in which this fish was caught, I would have kept this fish.
Post by: plugger on July 06, 2013, 07:58:39 PM
Post by: Bean Counter on July 06, 2013, 09:03:50 PM