Talk:Catch and release

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fisheries, aquaculture and fishing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fisheries and FishingWikipedia:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingTemplate:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingFishing articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

POV

This seems heavily tilted in favor of catch-and-release fishing. The addition of arguments against it is needed. Musteval 00:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded this article quite a bit and I believe it's near to NPOV. Comments? 209.105.198.70 02:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove the NPOV tag within a few days if there are no objections in further discussion. Dave 05:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the POV check tag just now. Dave 23:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mortality

The statement made that "A number of scientific studies have shown extremely high survival rates (95%+)[citation needed] for released fish..." seems not to be supported by research done in this area. A review article by S.J. Casselman in July 2005 presents this table based on catch-and-release studies:

Species            N   Days %Mortality  Reference
---------------------------------------------------------------
Blue catfish       52    3      5.1     Muoneke, 1993
Channel catfish   214    3     19       Ott and Storey, 1993
Channel catfish   704    6     33       Rutledge, 1975
Channel catfish    14   <1      0       Tilyou and Hoenke, 1992
Flathead catfish   52    3     11.5     Muoneke, 1993
Yellow bullhead    20   <1      0       Tilyou and Hoenke, 1992
Muskellunge         3    5     30       Beggs et al., 1980
Northern pike     242   5-16   0-4.8    Burkholder, 1992
Northern pike      94   4-10   6.4      Falk and Gilman, 1975
Northern pike     185    2     1-33     Dubois et al., 1994
Tiger muskellunge 217    1     9.7      Newman and Storck, 1986
Artic grayling    180    2     0.6      Clark, 1991
Artic grayling    158   4-10   5.1      Falk and Gilman, 1975
Atlantic salmon   300  10-14  0.3-5.7   Warner, 1976
Atlantic salmon   149    5      13      Warner, 1978
Atlantic salmon   177   2-5    4-35     Warner and Johnson, 1978
Atlantic salmon  1221   3-14    5.1     Warner, 1979
Atlantic salmon    20           0       Booth et al., 1994
Brook trout       550   7-10   1-57     Shetter and Allison, 1955
Brook trout       806    1     2.6      Shetter and Allison, 1958
Brook trout       630    2     4.3      Nuhfer and Alexander, 1992
Brown trout       490   14    13.5      Hulbert and Engstrom-Heg, 1980
Brown trout       107    1     0.9      Shetter and Allison, 1958
Brown trout       197          0-28     Shetter and Allison, 1955
Brown trout       215   10     3-7      Barwick, 1985
Chinook salmon    888   4-6   22.1      Wertheimer et al., 1989
Chinook salmon    506    5    21-25     Wertheimer, 1988
Chinook salmon    100   1-5    10       Bendock and Alexandersdotitir, 1991
Chinook salmon    245    5    6-11      Bendock and Alexandersdotitir, 1991
Chinook salmon   3618         11.8      Butler and Loeffel, 1972
Chinook salmon     66    2     9.1      Natural Research Consultants, 1989
Coho salmon        85   35   42-55      Milne and Ball, 1956
Coho salmon       147    2    6.8       Natural Research Consultants, 1989
Coho salmon      4861         18.4      Butler and Loeffel, 1972
Coho salmon       384         69.3      Vincent-Lang et al., 1993
Cutthroat trout   652   30 5.11-5.5     Marnell and Hunsaker, 1970
Cutthroat trout   690   30    3.8       Dotson, 1982
Cutthroat trout   509   10    5-73      Hunsaker et al., 1970
Cutthroat trout 72698         0.3       Schill et al., 1986
Cutthroat trout   578    4   1.37-48.5  Titus and Vanicek, 1988
Lake trout        129   4-10  6.98      Falk et al., 1974
Lake trout         67    2   14.9       Loftus et al., 1988
Lake trout         50    2   10         Dextrase and Ball, 1991
Rainbow trout     100  120   95         Mason and Hunt, 1967
Rainbow trout    1000    3    1-10      Klein, 1965
Rainbow trout     159        11-35      Shetter and Allison, 1955
Rainbow trout     300  120   34.5-82    Mason and Hunt, 1967
Rainbow trout      38   10    5-39      Barwick, 1985
Rainbow trout     574    2     5.7-36   Stringer, 1967
Rainbow trout      65  1-2    20        Faccin, 1983
Rainbow trout     346    1     5.2      Shetter and Allison, 1958
Rainbow trout     900   28     2.1      Jenkins, 2003
Rainbow trout     281 29-34   16        Schill, 1996
Striped bass      576    3  1.87-70.39  May, 1990
Striped bass      307    3    38.1      Hysmith et al., 1992
Striped bass      113    3   0-69       Childress, 1989a
Striped bass      464   14   16-17      Harrel, 1988
Striped bass      215 30-40  15-29      Diodati, 1991
Striped bass       89   >3   14-67      Bettoli and Osborne, 1998
Striped bass      153    3    6.4       Nelson, 1998
Palmetto bass      89    3    1-29      Childress, 1989a
White bass        122    3    0.8       Childress, 1989a
Yellow bass         5   <1     60       Tilyou and Hoenke, 1992
Black sea bass     64    2    4.7       Bugley and Shepherd, 1991
Crappie            15   <1     0        Tilyou and Hoenke, 1992
Black crappie     202   <1   19-77      Childress, 1989b
White crappie     226  6-11    3        Hubbard and Miranda, 1991
White crappie      69   18    29        Childress, 1989b
White crappie      43    3   9.3        Muoneke, 1992a
White crappie      13 <504   15.4       Colvin, 1991
Bluegill          170    3  1.1-25.3    Muoneke, 1992b
Bluegill          210    3    0-18      Burdick and Wydoski, 1989
Bluegill           75   10   30-88      Siewert and Cave, 1990
Bluegill          200    7    4-14      Barthel et al., 2003
Bluegill          685    3   1.3        Cooke et al., 2003b
Pumpkinseed       175    3    0         Cooke et al., 2003b
Rock bass          80    5    0         Cooke et al., 2001
Black bass                    5         Lee, 1989
Largemouth bass  1106   1-2  3-16       Bennett et al., 1989
Largemouth bass  3283   <1    14        Schramm et al., 1985
Largemouth bass  3129   28    32        Seidensticker, 1977
Largemouth bass   261   14    19.4      Archer and Loyacano, 1975
Largemouth bass  1351    6    38        Rutledge and Pritchard, 1975
Largemouth bass  1422  7-23   30        May, 1973
Largemouth bass  1863   19    14.3      Welborn and Barkley, 1974
Largemouth bass       14-21   26.7      Schramm et al., 1987
Largemouth bass   285   60    11.2      Pelzman, 1978
Largemouth bass          2     3.2      Hartley and Moring, 1991
Smallmouth bass    70    7    0-11      Clapp and Clark, 1989
Smallmouth bass   634   20   4.2-47.3   Weidlein, 1989
Smallmouth bass          2     8.9      Hartley and Moring, 1991
Smallmouth bass   458          0-8.5    Bennett et al., 1989
Smallmouth bass    61    2     4.9      Jackson and Willis, 1991
Smallmouth bass   238    3     0        Dunmall et al., 2001
Guadalupe bass     85    3    2.4       Muoneke, 1991
Spotted bass       47    3    8.5       Muoneke, 1992a
Walleye           180   12    1.1       Fletcher, 1987
Walleye           865    5    40        Goeman, 1991
Walleye            47    3     0        Parks and Kraai, 1991
Walleye          2357    3    21        Fielder and Johnson, 1992
Walleye                14-28  5-16      Payer et al., 1989
Walleye           240    2    0.8       Schaefer, 1989
Walleye           123    1    23        Rowe and Esseltine, 2002
Sauger             74   <1     4        Bettoli et al., 2000
Black drum         19   <1      0       Martin et al., 1987b
Black drum        325          0        Martin et al., 1987a
Red drum          171   <1     0        Martin et al., 1987b
Red drum          121    3    4.13      Matlock et al., 1993
Red drum           38    3   44.7       Childress, 1989a
Red drum          968         0.21      Martin et al., 1987a
Spotted seatrout  401    7    37        Hegen et al., 1983
Spotted seatrout   43   <1   20-70      Martin et al., 1987b
Spotted seatrout   52  7-9    0-56      Matlock and Dailey, 1981
Spotted seatrout    7        17-27      Hegen et al., 1987
Spotted seatrout  124    3  7.29        Matlock et al., 1993
Spotted seatrout  127       16.54       Martin et al., 1987a
White seabass     221   90  10          Aalbers et al., 2004

---Arnejohs 12:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Approximately 40% of the studies cited in that table have survival rates very close to 95% or above. There are roughly 150 studies in the table. Hence, about 60 studies (a number?) have reported very high survival rates approaching 95% or above. — Dave 13:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a too simple approach to the problem. Firstly some species are more common than others. Secondly the mortality rate has to be related to the number of days after the catch and release. In many of the studies the number of days are less than one week. This only measure the immediate mortality while most of the catch and release related mortality is believed to be long-term consequences of the rough treatment. Rifts and wounds may expose the fish to fungus and bacteria which may kill the fish after several days, weeks or even longer time. Scientifically the statement in the article therefore is hard to defend or to make it clearer: It is a POV and it is probably incorrect. ---Arnejohs 13:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying the statement is true, but only misleading? That's not exactly a ringing endorsement . . . Ruakh 15:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

? I don’t really see your point. If you read my comment above you will see I classified the statement as a PointOfView which probably is incorrect. How you read this to “true but misleading” is hard for me to understand.---Arnejohs 17:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand: I was replying to Dave's comment, not to yours. Ruakh 19:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. Thank you for clarifying. --- Arnejohs 19:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. :-) Ruakh 00:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now entered the POV check label on the basis of the above discussion. ---Arnejohs 17:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to look at the biological aspect of this situation. When fish get hooked and are being reeled in, they are in the "fight or flight" mode, and are trying to swim away for their lives. They do not think "Oh, the fisherman is going to let me go. This is all just a sport. I will give a good struggle for fun." They are fighting for survival. This fight or flight mode (all animals and humans have this too) results in lactic acid fermentation. When too much lactate builds up in an organism, it will die. Even though you release the fish and they swim away and seem fine, you fail to see that they die a few days later due to this lactate buildup.

I would like to mention that, sad as the fact may be that some released fish most certainly die of their experience, the survival rate for fish that are not returned to the water is zero (mortality = 100%). I find the "morality" issues raised here to be a bit out of place - surely there might be a morality of fishing (& hunting, etc.) article that could be referred to. Because the "problem" is the fishing, not the releasing. And as far as the lactic acid buildup biology, that is the reason for using "robust equipment" and minimising the length of the "fight". The opposite, using light tackle and maximising the struggle for the "pleasure" of it, results in a fish that is thoroughly exhausted and much less likely to survive. Any thoughts? human 00:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure a morality section would be worth including if it weren't that many people think catch-and-release is all hunky dory for the fish. It's reasonable for an article on catch-and-release to discuss the controversy: a lot of scientists have argued on a number of bases that it's not. —Ruakh_TALK 01:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag

I have removed the POV-check tag, as it's been attached to the article for months now with no particular change either way. FCYTravis 13:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pain Studies

Thye referenced articles which the author claims demonstrate pain sensitivity do not show any such thing. They clearly sow taht fish have chemical receptors in their mouths. the rubbing hey exhibit when venom is injected is a reaction to the chemical, not necessarily pain.

It is significant that NO study has shown such behavior when a fish is imapled by a hook. In fact, fish do not have pain receptors in their mouths, hence cannot feel the hook. The physiological reactions cited when fish are caught are actually reactions to being pulled though the water and dissipate very rapidly when pressure is relaxed on the line whether or not the hook is removed.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vintega (talk • contribs) 20:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Recent edits

I canged fishermen to sports fishers because the word fisherman describes a person catching fish for food or for sale, and is distinctly different from a person fishing for recreational purposes.

Fish fight because they feel the pull of the line, not because the hook in their mouth hurts. Millions of fishermen around the world have observed hooked fish not fighting until line pressure is applied to them. I have a science background, I know all about scientific papers etc, but just because this observation is not published in a scientific paper does not make it valid. I will be mentioning it in the article.

Also regarding the article. I have changed it so that it is serving its primary function as a quick reference for people who want to know how to catch and release fish properly. They look it up on Wikipedia and bang, they get quick tips on how to catch and release fish. The detailed information is then below for them to read if they so wish.

Codman 04:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed your "Quick Tips for Effective Catch and Release" section, as that's not what an encyclopedia is for (see WP:NOT#IINFO); however, you may wish to contribute that information to Wikibooks, one of Wikipedia's sister projects: its goal is to make open-content textbooks, which seems to be your goal here. Once there's a Wikibook on the subject, this article can link to it in its "External links" section (by making use of the {{Wikibooks}} template). The full text that I removed is available at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catch_and_release&diff=111769253&oldid=111757679. —Ruakh_TALK 06:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I don't agree. I have put these tips under "Catch and Release Techniques"; "Catch and Release Techniques" is a logical sub-section to have in this article, and it is the logical sub-section in which to list the key compoments of catch and release methodology. I think this is a very reasonable compromise; we must list what the key components of catch and release methodolgy is. Shortly I will insert weblinks to Triple Grip treble hooks (which are perfect for barbless hook fishing) and Environets. Cheers, Codman 23:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For reasons similar to those stated by Codman above, I moved the debate section to the end. Opponents of catch and release are insignificant in comparison to the efforts made by catch and release anglers to educate recreational anglers on proper handling of fish, including the reduction of waste and abuse. Perhaps the entire section should be placed in the article on Animal rights, indigenous hunting philosophy, or some other more appropriate place. JStripes 03:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. Will someone do this? Codman 23:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links to products

There are several links in this article to websites that sell products such as catch-and-release nets. That seems like a conflict of interest to me. Should they be removed?

Togamoos (talk) 00:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all five external links were commercial or weren't about catch and release. I have replaced them with focused links (now too many - that's another issue!). --Geronimo20 (talk) 03:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barbless pic

Seems this article is need of someone to take a picture of a barbless hook, neither pic included is one. 75.80.123.231 (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing sentence

I found this sentence incredibly confusing: "New research indicates that bait mortality is more closely related to technique than to the fact that one is fishing bait, and that bait mortality is much lower than once thought." Part of the reason for the confusion is that this is the first time the terms "bait mortality" and "fish[ing] bait" appear in the article and their meaning is not established. Stephen C. Carlson (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relevancy and possible POV of unsourced claim

"The research does not explain why popular gamefish such as largemouth bass would intentionally prey on spiny fish and crustaceans, that regularly cause hook-like puncture wounds to the inside of their mouths."

That line has no citation, and seems to be a wink-and-nod toward the idea that fish do not feel oral pain. If no defense is given for why this line is included, I'm going to remove it. 71.162.96.31 (talk) 00:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, it is a valid point that needs addressing. Perhaps there are strategic areas inside their mouth that can accommodate and heal punctures without distress. Instead of just deleting the comment because you don't like it, why not search the literature and see if any research explicitly addresses this point? --Epipelagic (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Catch and release. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129021150/http://www.amff.com/assets/images/archived-journals/1982-Vol09-No2web.pdf to http://www.amff.com/assets/images/archived-journals/1982-Vol09-No2web.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Catch and release. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Catch and release. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]