Difference In Fishing And Hunting Question

[Micheal Kyle]

I was going to put this in on the other thread but decided to make it it's own.

This way off the subject but why do people get up in arms about keeping and killing big fish. I don't ever recall a person being ridiculed about a record book Deer, Elk, Moose, Bear. (I am sure there is some) But there is no catch and release hunting.

It may also exist but there seems to be the big debate about Bait fishing, Fly fishing or spin/bait cast fishing.

It seems to me there is a little debate about riffle vs. bow I am sure there is some but not like what it is in the fishing industry.

What is the difference with the fish side.

[Dutch]

Ray Scott who got the whole country talking about catch and release was a fisherman not a hunter. He was looking for his way of life to increase.

[fishinwrench]

There is "catch and release hunting", in the form of wildife photography.

And if you use a Zoom lense of more than 4x you're a putz

[Micheal Kyle]

Yes you are correct fishinwrench. But all records in the hunting books are killed right.

Plus I just thought about this what about the bear hunts 90% of them are over bait.

Plus what about people that have deer feeders in the state of Missouri they have to be out 10 days prior to you hunting that area. Why must feeders be moved prior to hunting but if you have a food plot it can stay?

I realize none of this has to do with fishing but I think it can create some discussion.

I think you all can see since I sold the shop I am getting bored in between feedings and changing diapers with the new baby.

[eric1978]

Okay, I'll bite. It's been a rough day already so what the heck.

The debate between fly fishing vs. spinning/baitcasting, the debate between artificials vs. bait, and similarly the debate between rifles vs. bows, to me, all boils down to how each individual perceives and enjoys angling or hunting. These issues are all a matter of preference. Some people are happy as a clam to sit on a dock and catch fish with live bait, or blast a deer with a high-powered rifle. Others are more fulfilled when they catch or kill game in more challenging ways. There is no right or wrong approach. It's all about what floats your boat, and everyone is different.

The debate about C & R is trickier. It's also a matter of opinion, but it can get closer to "right or wrong," depending on the situation. For example, I think there is a major difference between keeping a big trout out of Taney and keeping a big smallmouth on a fragile stream. The trout will be replaced tomorrow, and as we speak another is growing into that fishes slot. They are replaced as fast as they are taken. The smallmouth on the struggling river are not. I think where the conversation gets stuck is when people say "It's my right under the law to keep this fish." And while he may be absolutely correct, that doesn't necessarily mean it is not detrimental to the fishery. Lots of gray area there.

Sometimes you can put the artificials/bait debate somewhere inbetween, if fish are being guthooked and killed on a body of water that can't handle those losses.

There are so many variables that there will never be a universal answer.

So again, of course, it comes down to what you value. If you value angling, you'll probably tend to catch more fish on artificials and release more fish. If you value fish frys, you'll probably tend to catch fish however you can and keep them...and everywhere inbetween those two extremes.

[back2roots]

Ya'll are making it way too complicated. No matter the method involved....we fish and/or we hunt they way we want too! It not a matter of value, conservation, uppity attitude, food or a trophy. As long as it's legal....it's simply the way we choose to participate in the sport.

Party Diem

Bill

[Chief Grey Bear]

It seems to me there is a little debate about riffle vs. bow I am sure there is some but not like what it is in the fishing industry.

Yeah there is a bit of debate. Much like fishing though, fly and spin, I have been on the business ends of rifles and bows. Most of that debate consist of the bow hunters think that it is much harder to bow hunt as the prey must come much closer. But on the flip side of that, a rifle hunter can also wait until the prey is in the same range as it would take a bow hunter. I myself never did make a shot over 50 yrds with a rifle. I just don't care to take long shots. So that whole argument never did hold much water with me.

Ray Scott who got the whole country talking about catch and release was a fisherman not a hunter. He was looking for his way of life to increase.

I had been C&R fishing for 20 years before I ever heard of Ray Scott. It was another 15 years after that before I read that he was the alleged father of C&R.

[Wayne SW/MO]

I don't think anyone ridiculed keeping the fish. Some did question it softly, but I think they were in the minority.

Ray Scott the father of C & R, now there's a crock. Obviously many on here aren't old enough to know the beginning of BASS and the tournaments. The C & R came about because of a backlash from people over the large numbers of fish caught and killed in tournaments. That's a fact.

[kdan]

I don't think anyone ridiculed keeping the fish. Some did question it softly, but I think they were in the minority.

Ray Scott the father of C & R, now there's a crock. Obviously many on here aren't old enough to know the beginning of BASS and the tournaments. The C & R came about because of a backlash from people over the large numbers of fish caught and killed in tournaments. That's a fact.

Yep, that's a fact. I AM old enough to remember, dang where did the years go.

[fiveweight]

Interesting question. It sounds loaded, but as a lot of responses indicate there are some valid answers. Here's my take:

Fishing has its share of C&R supporters because it is possible to do, and those who appreciate C&R believe it leads to more opportunities for people to catch fish, and when certain waters mandate C&R they feel like the whole rule makes a bigger difference than a few fish they voluntarially release on their own - guaranteeing more catching opportunities for them and others on that water. That's why some favor rules, not just a self-imposed code.

On the other hand, there is no such thing as catch and release hunting, so first off there is nobody to advocate it. Second, if hunting season was open as long as fishing season (year round in many states) there would be fewer shooting opportunities because the deer population would be much lower. So one of the reasons the DNR sets the deer season to be so short is to prevent overharvesting. It's kind of a silly thought, but for argument's sake if there was such a thing as catch and release deer hunting my guess would be that it would have an extended season because it does not affect population, and the people who like to hunt more for the sport than the meat would form a significant movement to support their way of increasing sporting opportunities.