In response to the barbless hook thread, I thought I'd start a thread to discuss thoughts and opinions on catch and release fishing. Hopefully without a bunch of nastiness.

The main reason humans fish, until very recently in human history, is to gather food. The idea of strictly catch and release fishing is foreign. Harming a fish just to play with it is somewhat cruel. A certain percentage of released fish do make a full recovery and live. However, for anglers to bash or insult other anglers, or display a holier than Thou Art attitude over the type of hook, lure, or bait used is nonsense.

I release a lot of fish but I eat a lot of fish. If the regulations allow, I will generally keep a 26" walleye that is gut hooked and release 3 nice eaters that I am confident that I have a good release on. I've seen people do some pretty crazy things to big trout and pike in order to get a picture of the fish before they release it. There is nothing wrong with making sure you get a good picture of your catch but dragging a big fish around on a stringer equates to a dead fish. Better to eat a 40+" pike than to feed it to the crayfish just so you can honestly tell other anglers that you realesed it.

I am responsible for killing a majority of the meat consumed at my table. I believe that makes me very connected to who I am as a human, and also to my natural environment. Of course we need to be conservative and save some for tomorrow. However, the idea of fishing with the intent of not harming the fish is impossible. Being critical and judgmental of anglers that fish for food ( within the regulations) makes a person very disconnected.

I release 99% of all the fish I catch, but I do not begrudge anybody that keeps his limit every time he goes out. The money we all spend on licenses, trout stamps, etc. supports the fisheries that we all cherish. I may not agree on how some of the money is spent, but all in all I think it's managed fairly well. So fellow fisherman, if you want to eat fillets till the cows come home , munch away!! And to all of you fisherman or fisherwomen who practice catch and release, keep on releasing!!

I don't have a problem with catching and releasing as long as people are releasing them right away, instead of as you say, dragging it around on a stringer or sticking it in a warm livewell, just so they can show it off later to brag or show proof of catch. That all bugs the crap out of me too. I also don't mind keeping a few fish here and there, but these guys that go out repeatedly and stuff their freezers full and then stock the neighbors as well, kind of grind my gears. We can all probably be better stewards of the resource to varying degrees.

I believe in being a good steward and a good provider and do not consider those goals as being mutually exclusive. One can be a good steward of this planet while still providing for the needs of first ones own family and then have the abundance to give to others who are in need.

To have that philosophy one needs have an attitude of tolerance. I recently had an evening with a friend whose opinion it is that to do harm to any animals is a "sin of sorts". I had respect for his opinion and surmised his philosophy as one of "doing no harm". I disagree with it but still had respect and tolerance for it.

So to the one who keeps fish does no wrong (unless abuse and waste is incurred) and the one who releases fish is not to be diminished either..........tolerance.

I think there is room for both sides.

I think common sense and intentions should prevail when using catch and release or keeping.

Personally the catching is the best part. I like to eat fish but I've been on Mille Lacs and caught 3 28 inchers in a row and left the lake with no fish For the frying pan but it was better than getting a limit.

If it was hot and fish released didn't look healthy or failed to swim away strongly then I might be a bad steward to keep fishing. Fishing super deep and releasing fish you know will die. Someone catching 100 fish all day long in bad conditions may do worse for the fishery than the guy taking home a stringer of 6 walleyes. It really all depends.

I have no problem with someone legally keeping fish. I do agree with the current MN policy of catching releasing medium to bigger fish that are the re-producers and have no problem calling out those who don't follow the rules.

T

I release everything. I don't begrudge someone eating fish, but I do question why they must eat fish at one of the few really pristine areas left? How about some catfish from the grocery? I get it that is kind of primal to catch and eat in the wilderness etc. but keep the fishing top notch. Very few places remaining have truly outstanding fishing and many of those practice catch and release.

The libertarian inside me doesn't care how you fish as long as it's within the law.

I go out in the spring and the fall with the intention of catching fish for the table and some for the freezer, the rest of the year im pretty much catch and release.

I keep fish when I want to eat fish, and release when I don't.

quote SaganagaJoe: "I keep fish when I want to eat fish, and release when I don't. "

^^
This is perfect. Pure gold. No nonsense. Love it.

quote SaganagaJoe: "I keep fish when I want to eat fish, and release when I don't. "

Same here and since I'm not much of a camera guy (they usually get wet) the release just takes a few seconds. I gut hook one once in awhile and always eat them.

thanks for starting this thread and for the personal and disclosing replies, I like to hear the logic to and varied practices. This released gut hooked walleye was in a protected slot and flopping around the mid lake reef for some time as I was fishing for the last of a limit and considering the gull getting this fish not me because of a 1/4". :( As I fished I thought over regulations, law makers, fish populations, management plans, common sense and all of what everyone else mentions all the while watching this gull peck the eyes of this floundering meal when suddenly the gulls flies away and a second later a bald eagle CRASHES IN and scoops up this Rainy lake walter

quote aholmgren: "thanks for starting this thread and for the personal and disclosing replies, I like to hear the logic to and varied practices. This released gut hooked walleye was in a protected slot and flopping around the mid lake reef for some time as I was fishing for the last of a limit and considering the gull getting this fish not me because of a 1/4". :( As I fished I thought over regulations, law makers, fish populations, management plans, common sense and all of what everyone else mentions all the while watching this gull peck the eyes of this floundering meal when suddenly the gulls flies away and a second later a bald eagle CRASHES IN and scoops up this Rainy lake walter "

This is exactly why I like to drop my fish guts in the lake well away from the campsites. We always puncture the swim bladder so they sink, but we sink them close enough to shore so the birds can dive for them or the turtles can find them later that night. I eat the fillets and nature can take the rest. Better the birds, turtles and crayfish than bugs and worms.

For the slot protected ones though, it makes sense to me. Those are the breeders and they have to make a cut off point somewhere. If you say the gut hooked ones were ok to keep because they would die anyways, then how many "gut hooked" fish in the protected slot would suddenly be harvested? Its the ones that abuse the rules that ruin it for the ones that do things honestly. I prefer to only catch what I will eat in a meal or two, can't remember the last time I had to worry about what the limit was. Some like to stock their freezer every time they go out and I think that is a little more abusive of the rules but that's why the DNR sets limits in the first place.

The other thing to pay attention to is which fish you keep. With Northerns, the big ones eat the little ones, so if you want to keep the numbers down, keep all the eaters under 24" and release anything over the 24". That will reduce some of the competition for food with walleye.

quote jeroldharter: "I release everything. I don't begrudge someone eating fish, but I do question why they must eat fish at one of the few really pristine areas left? How about some catfish from the grocery? I get it that is kind of primal to catch and eat in the wilderness etc. but keep the fishing top notch. Very few places remaining have truly outstanding fishing and many of those practice catch and release.
"

First, I understand your point. I am not trying to argue, but your statement got me thinking. How many fish in the BWCA/Quetico die of natural causes? Think of Iron Lake, or Crooked. Large lakes that, by Indiana standards, see close to zero fishing pressure. I mean, we have more fisherman on a reservoir here in a week, than will fish those lakes all season. (that might be a slight exaggeration, but you get my point) I wonder how many fish in those lakes grow old without ever being hooked by an angler? These areas are set aside to be used for recreation, I think that should include the bountiful supply of fish! Of course, 50 years ago you could replace "fish" in this conversation, with "trees". It was considered wasting a resource to let fires burn perfectly good timber!

I guess I think that the amount of harvest currently in BWCA lakes is probably sustainable, but my impressions could be way off! I like to fish, and release almost all that I catch, although having a few meals of fish per trip is part of the experience. Maybe I assume incorrectly that everyone else does something similar.

Fishing in Quetico is generally better than BWCA and it sees much less fishing pressure. Of course, the pressure (vs. the taking) might affect that.

I think it is intuitively obvious what the answer is to the question of catch and release if quality fishing is primary. A simple question: if you were going to spend a vacation budget for a week of fishing would you choose a catch an release only lake, or a lake where people routinely kept and ate fish? I would choose door number 1.

Just google all of the high end remote fishing lodges, even those way north that are open just a couple months a year - all catch and release.

Back to the op's original question. I remember in the 80's, when I first became aware of a catch and release "movement" thinking that PETA will have a heyday with this. Hooking animals, causing them pain, for the sole purpose of entertaining the human doing the hooking. What if we did this to loons? Or maybe eagles? Obviously I am ok with catch and release, but it doesn't play well logically.

I will release all small or large fish.
Always follow the law.
But generally I'm a hook and cook kind of guy.
I really don't care what others do,
As long as you follow the law.

Another point. I have seen questions on "where do I find dry ice?". Maybe it was for food. I wonder sometimes. I have never taken any fish out of the park. Eaten some and released a bunch but never exited with fillets.
I saw a shallow grave of smallie skins after setting up camp one year. When the wind shifted; it reeked! Must have been 30 carcasses of 3-4 lb. Fish there. (Some animal had uncovered them). No way that could have been the remains of an even large group shore lunch.
I wonder how many fish LEAVE the BW?

Last year I tripped with my brother who LOVES to eat fish. We brought dry ice, and bought more in Ely the night before we entered. It was to keep our fresh food cold, and also kept fillets for an extra day. ( we ate two meals from one days fishing) If 4 of us had kept a limit one day, it would have been hard to eat it all before we left the park!

edit to add:
I wonder if more fish leave the BWCA from day use than from overnight permits? Probably a likely scenario.

Are we really getting to the point where people are questioning if eating fish in the BWCA is sustainable? There are plenty of fish in the lakes up there. Some of the popular lakes on the Ely side will get a little overfished, but on the east side where I go, you couldn't convince me that the lakes further in than a daytrip would have any issues with overfishing. The day limits on the entry points ensures that we don't over crowd the area.

You have to take into account the environment too. There is plenty of food and low pollution. Fish should be able to bounce back from quite a bit up there. Its not like pheasant hunting where loss of habitat is the main factor. If we take too many, then the remaining ones should have a higher survival rate because of a decreased competition for food. 30 fish per day is the exception not the norm, so as long as you are only fishing for that day's meal then I can't see there being an issue.

Not sure if anyone questioned the sustainability of eating fish - more the ethics and aesthetics. Of course it is sustainable in that it has been going on forever. Of course it is legal. Of course some people will do whatever they want because they can.

It seems like it's human nature to take things. Go to the beach and people take shells. Go anywhere and someone has figured out something to take - I know of people who collect sand from different beaches around the world.

It is nice to have a few protected places in the world in which the aesthetic is truly leave no trace. Don't eat the fish, or the bears, or the deer. Don't leave fish carcasses laying around arguing that the critters will dispose of them. Don't boat the carcasses to an adjacent island thinking that out of sight is out of mind. You get the idea. But there is always the guy with an Ugly Stick and a fry pan heading into the BWCA because he can.

I am not trying to convince anyone to agree with me, just stating my aesthetic.

quote SaganagaJoe: "I keep fish when I want to eat fish, and release when I don't. "

Same here. If I catch the right fish at the right time, I will keep it for a meal. Not going to drag a fish around all day if I don't intend on eating it. Otherwise, mostly catch and release, don't photo too many either, better to tell the story and leave a little room for imagination / embellishment. ;-)

I don't eat fish. I can't get even one bite down without gagging but I love to fish. To me catch and release is a way to do some of the things I love, being outdoors and fishing. I've never judged people who eat fish and I've never preached catch and release. I feel it's up to each person to make their own decision. My wife and parents eat fish so if I go out with them we'll keep fish and if I go by myself at home I'll keep a few for the wife.

The one thing that does bother me is the release of fish that won't survive unless you're legally required to do so (slot limits). I've seen many times a boat pull up a small walleye that must have been gut hooked because they throw it back and it just floats away. To me that's wasting the resource just so they can try to fill their stringer with larger fish (this is not in the BW). If you kill a fish you should keep it and count it towards the limit. If I see this happen we'll swing by and net the fish and count it towards our limit but it still bothers me.

Most trips I practice catch and fillet. I paid the price of the license, I'm within the legal catch limits. It's one of the reasons I go there.

i do my best to release bigger fish , if one gut swallows it i'll keep it knowing there's others out there still swimming, but i do enjoy eating fish too.

I practice catch and release most except for the occasional meal. I only fish artificial so rarely gut hook. But I just get the Conservation license in Wuetico. I think we can preserve the aesthetics of the area and keep a few fish. I release all bigger fish. It's just me.

quote jeroldharter: "I release everything. I don't begrudge someone eating fish, but I do question why they must eat fish at one of the few really pristine areas left? How about some catfish from the grocery? I get it that is kind of primal to catch and eat in the wilderness etc. but keep the fishing top notch. Very few places remaining have truly outstanding fishing and many of those practice catch and release.
"

Grandpa would answer that question by saying that fish taste best fresh out of the lake, and I think I have to agree. I have never caught a walleye (next trip!) but if I did, I'd probably keep 1 or 2 eaters and release everything else, the pike, the big walleyes, and the bass (sorry TGO). Just too many bones for my liking.

I hear ya though. Here, as with everything else, moderation and respect come with the territory. We need to be good stewards.

Cameras are awesome.

I release over 95% of my catch but definitely enjoy a few meals of fresh fish. I have no problem with anyone harvesting their legal limit if they are truly utilizing all the fish without wasting it. I do sometimes disagree with the laws, but that is another issue. The thing one must realize is that the animal rights crowd abhors the idea of catch and release fishing(fishing for fun). I know because I worked along side some serious animal rights activists. As soon as you go total catch and release you not only lose the support of the meat eaters you give ammunition to the animal rights crowd. To me, the most important thing is to educate people about proper fish handling and the importance of reasonable harvest. Example: Just because a fish swims away doesn't mean it survived. Or, how ethical is it to live on a lake, fish it almost daily, limit out most days, have your possession limit in the freezer, and then give away hundreds of pounds of fish to friends and family, none of them license holders? I know this person and he brags about having caught and kept over 1000 pounds of fish per year the last several years from a lake that depends largely on stocking. Sometimes even following the laws exactly can't keep you from being a horrible human being. Who harms a fishery more, an average fisherman who catches several walleyes a day and eats them, or an expert who catches 50 a day, releases them all, but 10 percent die because of delayed mortality? I know when I catch and release 50-100 fish in a day that I have done more harm than the guy who goes out and catches several fish in the evening and eats them all. That is why I do not have the holier than thou attitude of many catch and release fishermen.

quote A1t2o: "Are we really getting to the point where people are questioning if eating fish in the BWCA is sustainable? There are plenty of fish in the lakes up there. Some of the popular lakes on the Ely side will get a little overfished, but on the east side where I go, you couldn't convince me that the lakes further in than a daytrip would have any issues with overfishing. The day limits on the entry points ensures that we don't over crowd the area.


You have to take into account the environment too. There is plenty of food and low pollution. Fish should be able to bounce back from quite a bit up there. Its not like pheasant hunting where loss of habitat is the main factor. If we take too many, then the remaining ones should have a higher survival rate because of a decreased competition for food. 30 fish per day is the exception not the norm, so as long as you are only fishing for that day's meal then I can't see there being an issue."

I agree with most of your post here. I would like to add an exception for Lake Trout and Brook Trout. You can absolutely do harm to these two species if there is too much keeping.