Do you always throw back the big fish?

[Lunker777]

Maybe on some parts of the internet, but in the real world 4x4=16

 

hahah Thanks for the heads up !

 

I personally don't eat fish. I couldn't imagine what a 4# largie out of rondeau bay.... in 80 degree water temps would taste like. Probably not something I would care for !

 

All my fish live to see another day !

[LeXXington]

Perchy and Walleye

 

Actually, from some of the reports coming out, people need too keep more "small" fish as without enough top preditors the small fish do more damage competeing for food.

 

Send the big ones back, unless its hurt or going belly up.

 

Now if I can only catch a fish

[ch312]

Some responses on this thread seem to suggest that the bigger fish have better gene pools...

how do they get big in they first place? They have to live..... one way or another they gotta have a chance to live....

 

this is something i have never understood. people always say that you must release big fish because they have "good genetics". you cant look at a fish and say that it has good genetics just because it was lucky and grew into a trophy. maybe that trophy fish you caught had "bad" genetics and took 2x longer to grow to that size than a normal fish would. maybe these "good" genetics causes some fish to grow quicker than they should be resulting in other abnormalities.

 

id say any fish can grow to be a trophy if it is LUCKY enough to avoid predators (man).

[Jonny]

I couldn't imagine what a 4# largie out of rondeau bay.... in 80 degree water temps would taste like. Probably not something I would care for !

 

Not that I can speak from experience as far as largemouth are concerned, but habitat doesn't always equal poor eating. If that were the case, pork wouldn't appear in all the 'smoked food porn' we've seen lately.

 

I would guess that the flavour of the meat in a largemouth bass has more to do with what it eats than the temperature of the water it inhabits. There are other warm-water species that taste great, including many from tropical-temp salt water.

 

The other thing to consider is that what we call swamp water is often very clean, clear and well-filtered because of all the vegetation.

[Burning Babies]

this is something i have never understood. people always say that you must release big fish because they have "good genetics". you cant look at a fish and say that it has good genetics just because it was lucky and grew into a trophy. maybe that trophy fish you caught had "bad" genetics and took 2x longer to grow to that size than a normal fish would. maybe these "good" genetics causes some fish to grow quicker than they should be resulting in other abnormalities.

 

id say any fish can grow to be a trophy if it is LUCKY enough to avoid predators (man).

 

The science doesn't agree with you guys. On an individual scale, sure, a deformed, learning disabled fish could by chance make it through to trophy size. But from a fisheries management standpoint, across the thousands of fish making up a lake's population, the vast majority of big fish will share certain characteristics. Growing fast has a lot of advantages in the fish world (ability to consume larger prey, move faster to escape predators, carry more eggs); the biggest force selecting against big fish is man. Big fish don't get big by chance alone, any more than big people get big by chance. Just off the top of my head, Texas's "Share a Lunker" program is a good example of a management program that is trying to improve the genetic stock of a set of lakes to produce bigger fish.

[bigfish1965]

The science doesn't agree with you guys. On an individual scale, sure, a deformed, learning disabled fish could by chance make it through to trophy size. But from a fisheries management standpoint, across the thousands of fish making up a lake's population, the vast majority of big fish will share certain characteristics. Growing fast has a lot of advantages in the fish world (ability to consume larger prey, move faster to escape predators, carry more eggs); the biggest force selecting against big fish is man. Big fish don't get big by chance alone, any more than big people get big by chance. Just off the top of my head, Texas's "Share a Lunker" program is a good example of a management program that is trying to improve the genetic stock of a set of lakes to produce bigger fish.

 

Its not just that either. These fish have shown disease resistance, have encountered all type of water and weather variations and survived. Those are the genetic traits you want to pass on.

Disease resistance and the ability to adapt to changes are the keystones to a successful fishery coupled with the characteristics BB named... camouflage, predation, speed and size.

[Radnine]

Rebuttal Jocko???

[Jonny]

Rebuttal Jocko???

 

None, of course. I never said I disagree with the science.

 

Keep in mind all the things we have in place to protect the breeding population and the population as a whole - closed seasons, fish sactuaries, minimum sizes, slot limits, etc.

 

I focus on pickerel, and Nipissing pickerel to be even more specific. They provide a good example - as the premier sport fish, the most heavily pressured by both sport and non-sport fisheries, on a lake which is very popular for fishermen in both summer and winter.

 

The slot limit for anglers is meant to protect the prime breeders - vigorous fish, fully mature, which have years of protected growth and spawning within the slot. That makes perfect sense. To be able to keep small, under-slot fish, and an occasional fish over the slot, also makes sense.

 

The thing that complicates the whole picture is that there is a non-sport fishery on the lake that takes pickerel of any size, and accounts for 2/3 of the total yearly catch (40,000 kg of an estimated 60,000 kg yearly). Many of the fish which are caught and released by anglers end up in nets, to be processed and sold.

 

If you go to the Chief Commanda I, dry-docked at the North Bay wharf, you will see mounds of pickerel fillets for sale in glass-fronted butcher's coolers. The fillets are large, and it's easy to see that most of them would come from fish that are in the slot.

 

Yet the pickerel population, with the protections it has, is deemed by the MNR to be healthy, though under pressure, and on the rise.

 

If a sport fisherman is lucky enough to occasionally tag a 6 lb pickerel, and he decides to make it table fare, then I say no harm/no foul; he's doing what he's allowed to do, and what the science (upon which the slot limit is based) says is OK.

 

I don't get this idea of trying to make a fisherman, who faithfully follows all the regs, feel guilty for occasionally keeping a larg(er) fish. Chances are he's already released a lot of protected prime breeders within the slot.

 

If I catch a 6 lb pickerel, and I have no other pickerel on the chain or at home, chances are I will keep it. If I already have other pickerel for a nice dinner, I will let it go. My judgement call.

 

That fish has already spawned and passed on its genes many times. And yes, a 6 lb pickerel from Nipissing tastes damned good.

 

Judging from other anglers I have met and have known over the years, my attitude is pretty standard. However on this board (silent majority notwithstanding) I sense a different culture, and to be frank I think a significant portion of it comes from people being reluctant to say that they will occasionally catch and keep larger fish. Well I'm not reluctant to say so.

 

I should start a poll (I might ) just to see what the results are. But I think I already know what they would be.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Jocko

[hoot33]

its rare for me to catch a big one but I throw everything back regardless of size.

[angrypigeon]

I try to keep the smaller ones myself

just because they taste better.

 

this is a common thought for conservation-minded fishermen. don't mean to single you out, shore_lunch.

 

but would it be better to harvest one larger fish rather than keep 3-4 smaller ones? in this way, you're only taking one life, and you give the more fish a better chance at growing larger. i am advocating keeping one 3lb bass over three 1lb bass.

[bhearsum]

I should've know where this thread would go.

[Jonny]

I should've know where this thread would go.

 

For the most part a very civil discussion. I don't see the harm.

 

So, since you presented the topic originally, has it helped you establish your own perspective?

[danbouck]

Im wondering if the guy thinks that giving fish away then gives him the right to keep fish still. They are all on his possesion limit regardless. When I bring fish home they go a plate, after being cooked of course....lol

 

They count for his daily limit but he can "gift" them and get another limit the next day, so I've heard.

[Burning Babies]

this is a common thought for conservation-minded fishermen. don't mean to single you out, shore_lunch.

 

but would it be better to harvest one larger fish rather than keep 3-4 smaller ones? in this way, you're only taking one life, and you give the more fish a better chance at growing larger. i am advocating keeping one 3lb bass over three 1lb bass.

 

Mortality rates for bass are usually around 50%. It typically takes northern bass around three years to reach a pound, and several times that to reach 3 lbs. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to remove a large fish to give a few small ones the slim change of replacing it. Couple that with the fact than in many reasonably pressured systems, one pounders outnumber three pounders by a factor of 10 or more, and I don't think that argument makes sense.

 

edit: That's not to say that I have a problem with people keeping the occasional large fish. I think that harvesting fish, including occasional trophies, is an important historical component of the sport. Just don't kid yourself into thinking that taking big ones is likely to benefit the fishery.

Edited August 20, 2009 by Burning Babies

[singingdog]

Let me be clear: I am not accusing the guy of poaching. What I am saying is there is a disconnect between his behaviour of

1)always keeping the largest fish, and

2)his complaint that the quality of fishing is not what it used to be.

 

I see it all the time. Recently I spoke with a guy that had kept what he thought was an 8 lb LM bass (more likely a 6 lb, but even that is huge for this area). In the next 5 minutes he is lamenting the lack of big fish. "Lots of 2 lb bass, but it's getting harder all the time to catch a big one." Doh!

 

The three 1 lb bass mentioned earlier might grow up to be lunkers. The 3 lb bass is already very far along that road. Throw it back today and try to catch it again next season.

[EC1]

Has anyone else also noticed that fish are the best looking when they are still alive? When they're dead, colours fade and they just don't look as nice anymore.

 

But on the other hand, I like my fish, will eat them out of the freezer, and I WILL take the occaisional big fish home.

[Jonny]

Let me be clear: I am not accusing the guy of poaching. What I am saying is there is a disconnect between his behaviour of

1)always keeping the largest fish, and

2)his complaint that the quality of fishing is not what it used to be.

 

True enough.

[badman187]

I dont keep any fish except last weekend I had to keep a 20.5" smallmouth it was a real shame.It reuined the rest of my day.The only one that was happy about it was my gradfather because I finaly brought him in a fish I usually have to lie to him and say I never catch anything.

[Jonny]

I dont keep any fish except last weekend I had to keep a 20.5" smallmouth it was a real shame.It reuined the rest of my day.The only one that was happy about it was my gradfather because I finaly brought him in a fish I usually have to lie to him and say I never catch anything.

 

It used to make my day to bring my grandfather a nice fish. Wish I could still do it.

[badman187]

It used to make my day to bring my grandfather a nice fish. Wish I could still do it.

Ya it would be a nice thing to do but im not bringing him in bass that are 4+ pounds just so he can eat it.He has enough food he eats like a king

[tdotfisherman]

I always throw the big ones back.. and I usually throw almost every fish back. Each year I only keep a couple fish.. and usually the ones I keep are Northern Pike that have taken the hooks too deep, and can't be released. The way I figure, the more fish that I let go, the more fish there will be for me and others to catch in the future.

[Jonny]

I always throw the big ones back.. and I usually throw almost every fish back. Each year I only keep a couple fish.. and usually the ones I keep are Northern Pike that have taken the hooks too deep, and can't be released. The way I figure, the more fish that I let go, the more fish there will be for me and others to catch in the future.

 

But every big fish you keep saves a lot of other little fishies.

 

The most dramatic thing I ever heard was when I was touring a pickerel-hatching operation near Port Loring. The guys running it said that in one of their rearing ponds, which is usually good for thousands of fish, one year they emptied it and got only a few "monster" (for their age) pickerel... all the rest were gone, eaten by the fast-growing cannibals.

 

No, I'm not advocating targeting big fish, nor am I saying there's anything wrong with your practice. Pure C and R is certainly commendable if that's the way you like to do it.

[badman187]

Heres a pic of the fish I had to keep.I was using a gulp crawfish hooked weightless.The fish inhaled it I almost always hook them before it gets down there throat but crap happens I guess.The fish bleed like a pig I put it in the livewell had to change the water twice it was like a blood bath.

[smally21]

wouldn't we have to assume all the ministry and conservation guys were idiots if we were to endorse the 1 big fish instead of 3 little fish theory? 50+ years of conservation practise and science has led us to slot and catch limits based on size and therfore age. its not new or a secret about protecting large breeding fish at the expense of smaller competition.

[bhearsum]

So, since you presented the topic originally, has it helped you establish your own perspective?

 

I feel much more educated on the subject, that's for sure. There's a bit more of a divide than I expected - I guess it's the sport vs. food mentality. Some of it is a matter of opinion, though (eg, "big fish taste bad"). If I ever catch something big I probably will keep it the first time to see for myself.