Bowfishing limits being studied

[MoCarp]

1 hour ago, tjm said:

But limits, man, no one would ever exceed the limits.    It would not be legal to kill more one way than another. The only difference it would make is one guy would limit out in ten minutes and have to go home while the other guy could stay there and beat the water all day.  Six  dead fish are dead fish any how they get dead.

You have a point it can be argued the person who kills his limit does less stress to fish than the c and r angler who catches 100

[fishinwrench]

14 minutes ago, MoCarp said:

You have a point it can be argued the person who kills his limit does less stress to fish than the c and r angler who catches 100

Oh it can be argued alright !!!

@Al Agnew will do it.  😁

[tjm]

1 hour ago, MoCarp said:

You have a point it can be argued the person who kills his limit does less stress to fish than the c and r angler who catches 100

To be fair the guy that said bass would be too easy had a point as well.  What makes bass "special"  to rod and reel anglers is the fact that they are so easy, so of course they'd be easy by any method.

My real point is that if we don't believe people would honor limits on bass, how can we think that they will honor limits on "trash fish"? Any day at a trout park will show that many do disregard the limits, even in those tightly controlled areas. 

My ideal is that there be enforceable limits on every species of fish (including bait fish and others) and hard wanton waste laws and that those laws apply to all fishers regardless of tackle. No one thinks that spin anglers should have separate rules from casting anglers, yet there is the thought that fly fishing and grabbing and gigging all call for special rules. I'm OK with tournaments as long as they only catch the daily limit and no culling allowed, (no other angler is allowed to cull) but, the number of tournaments on any given body of water also needs to have limits.  And we need the wildlife agencies to spend as much money on enforcement as they do on public relations and advertising. (and some studies fall into those categories)

[fishinwrench]

1 hour ago, tjm said:

 but, the number of tournaments on any given body of water also needs to have limits.

 

It really does !   It has gotten completely out of control.

[Al Agnew]

Theoretically, limits are set to maintain the population, and the likelihood of many people being catch and release, or not being good enough to catch a limit, is factored into the set limit.  If bowfishers or giggers were allowed to kill the same number of bass as rod and reel anglers, then the limits would have to be adjusted accordingly...it would almost certainly mean that the limit for everybody was reduced.  So yeah, if you wanted to go that way, fine, but understand what it would lead to.

As for Wrench's comment about me...actually, I agree that in theory, the guy who catches a hundred bass in a day and releases them all quite possibly kills more than the guy who catches 6, kills them, and stops fishing.  Mortality from hooking has been studied to death, with widely varying numbers on how many die after being released.  The numbers vary widely enough that I don't think anybody has a real handle on it, because a lot depends upon water conditions as well as how well an individual angler handles the fish, or what he uses to catch them, etc.  But let's say mortality is 5-10%, kinda the usual range...if he catches a hundred he kills 5 to 10 of them.  BUT...how many undersized fish is the guy who is keeping his limit catch?  On stream smallmouth, about half the fish you catch are under 12 inches, half over.  If he catches 6 keepers, does that mean he's caught 6 more non-keepers?  Or does he cull some? Anyway, he's probably killing one or two at least besides what he keeps, as well. 

[fishinwrench]

1 hour ago, Al Agnew said:

As for Wrench's comment about me...actually, I agree that in theory, the guy who catches a hundred bass in a day and releases them all quite possibly kills more than the guy who catches 6, kills them, and stops fishing.  Mortality from hooking has been studied to death, with widely varying numbers on how many die after being released. 

I can't buy into the claimed mortality of immediately released bass.    Those numbers are from fish that were captured, held awhile, had tracking equipment attached to them....and THEN (finally) released.    

I am reasonably sure that a bass caught and immediately released is going to survive just fine.   Look at how many Trout are C&Red at the trout parks on a daily basis.....You don't see dead fish everywhere at trout parks because of that, and if what they claim is true then you definitely would see dead fish everywhere.

  And bass are way more hearty and resilient than trout are, so....

 

[tjm]

Wrench, I was told that enough trout die during the C&R at RRSP that it requires stocking several times through the winter to keep the numbers up. I've seen trout mortality studies in other places that fall into the range Al mentioned. I suspect mortality is higher in the real world than it is in any study done by folks used to handling fish.  I've watched a trout dropped in the gravel three times, stood on so the fellow could recapture it, then held by the lip, all for a picture, it was released eventually. 

 

1 hour ago, Al Agnew said:

  If bowfishers or giggers were allowed to kill the same number of bass as rod and reel anglers, then the limits would have to be adjusted accordingly...it would almost certainly mean that the limit for everybody was reduced.  So yeah, if you wanted to go that way, fine, but understand what it would lead to.

That's assuming that a lot of giggers want to eat the bass, wanton waste laws and enforcement should curtail any interest in throwing bass (or buffalo) on the bank. But if we don't keep fish we are fine as long as they don't ban fishing.

I think you are pretty close on the C&R kill at 10% and yep I reckon that every limit of bass means a couple of juveniles died too. My observation makes me believe that in this drainage less than 1/2 the SMB caught are legal. And I'd bet that close to 1/2 the anglers aren't legal either.

[fishinwrench]

59 minutes ago, tjm said:

Wrench, I was told that enough trout die during the C&R at RRSP that it requires stocking several times through the winter to keep the numbers up.

Well, according to MDC they do not do that.    If they choose to do that then why not sell tags and allow anglers to keep some during the Winter? 

So if this newly accepted belief that 10-20% of released fish are going to die is a reality, then length limits need to be stopped immediately.    Simple math will show that killing 10lbs. of fish in order to legally keep 8lbs of fish is not good "conservation".  Especially in regards to LMB because most anyone would rather eat a 12-14" LMB than a 3+lb. LMB. 

[tjm]

5-10% isn't news they have studied it in every way they could think of, I think I read such stuff about 1980, but, there has always been enough whitewash to go around too, C&R is popular with a lot of permit buyers, permits that wouldn't get sold otherwise, and those sales rely on a pretty picture of survival. If length limits mean 5-10 juvenile  fish die out of every 100 caught that also mean 90% lived to get bigger and perhaps to spawn. Or to feed the birds. Personally I'm not convinced that either limits or size limits have a great deal of effect long term or on a large scale, but they both make a lot of people feel good, so there's that. Neither are enforced very strictly, and with enforcement the results are not due to the limits. 

[MoCarp]

7 hours ago, fishinwrench said:

 Especially in regards to LMB because most anyone would rather eat a 12-14" LMB than a 3+lb. LMB. 

A quick scan around FB will show a great deal of people have no problem putting a knife in a 5# bass.....