Printable View
I do mostly trout fishing and rarely carry a net. Recently I have decided to carry one and was wondering if any one has any good recommendations for a fish friendly catch and release net. I know rubber nets seem to be the rage but they are awfully expensive. I currently have a fine mesh net that I bought a few years ago, not sure if they are considered safe or not.
1hook,
The old knotted string nets are horrible for Catch & Release, as the nets do a lot of damage to the skin of the fish and remove much of their outer slime layer.
The industry then came out with knot free nets, that softer nylon looking material. They were better but still removed a lot of protective slime.
The newer rubber looking nets (yea, I know they are not made of rubber but that is what I call them) are the absolute best net to use for C&R.
Some say that it is better to not use a net but you have to consider the individual circumstances surrounding each catch. If you have to handle the fish by hand, then you can damage a fish, especially if you do not moisten your hands prior to touching the fish, or if you have to drag it up onto a bank onto the gravel or sand or grass, you will damage the fish. Trying to get your hands on a fish while it is still in the water is a bit tricky and can prolong the time the fish is hooked, wearing it out even more. I try to get the fish in as soon as possible to get it released as soon as possible and back into the water. The rubber nets work great for that and you don't even have to touch the fish with your bare hands, just reach in, unhook the fly and dip the net back into the water. Minimum time out of the water for the fish, minimum loss of protective slime and the fish can give you the fin as it flashes away from you under the water.
All of the guides I fish with have gone to the rubber type nets for a reason.
Larry ---sagefisher---
get a deep enough one to make it worth having.
I went to the same rubber type net several years ago in favor of the fish...........
Rubber net is the way to go. Check out these before you buy....excellent craftmanship and good prices.
http://www.stevensnets.com/
Rubber nets need NOT be expensive as a rule. The problem is those heavy hand crafted wood nets that fly shops like to carry, which are ridiculously overpriced. Check out Frabill nets (http://www.frabill.com/) for a rubber net that is in the $25-50 range. Have been using them for a few years now, and quite happy with their performance, especially the steelhead size.
Other solution is to use something like a "Landing Hand" to tail the fish. Just a matter of how much you want to carry.
Checkout Wetfly C&R nets. They are affordably priced wood framed nets. A buddy of mine got his off of Amazon.
When I was still able to wade fish I didn't use a net, I bought a Ketchum release. It slides down the tippet and over the fly.
Keep tension on the line and the release push's the fly out of the Trout's mouth. You never touch the fish.
Bob.
If cost is an issue, you might want to consider buying a rubber replacement bag and re-stringing your old net with one. Brodin sells replacement bags and has a good tutorial on their website on how to do it.
Thanks for the replies, lots of good info, I'll be looking into one of those rubber nets I think
You can get a Wetly net at Sierra Trading Post for about $25. Hard to pass that up.Quote:
Originally Posted by TyroneFly
Ted
Netcraft also sells the rubber replacement bags for C&R fishing.
Adios Philip
Been biting my tongue since this thread began.
I have caught so many trout through the years I have
lost count. The ones that required a net were typically
memorable and on the large size.
The TC "Trout Correctness" has gotten a little crazy over
the last 15 years. I see people sniping about this hold and
that hold of a trout. This net being bad for trout and this one
being worse. Wetting the hand and not wetting the hand.
laying it on the ground and not laying them on the ground.
Whining about folks taking photos of trout in field and stream articles.
I have caught many trout numerous times and I have netted
them with an old fashion knotted net and they aren't worse for
the contact.
Trout are not made of glass people and they are caught on sharp things
that penetrate their flesh.
Rant over.
Triple Trojan
Back in the early 90s I was employed by Dane County Sheriff?s Office. I ran into many Fisheries Employees during my 14 years with Dane County. I made friends with lots of the WDNR folks. I was invited to come and help with a couple shocking crews. I am a trout nut so I eagerly went along.
The first time I went with the crew is when I heard the "Triple Trojan". I didn't know what it meant and blew it off. The WDNR guys were talking at the end of the outing to one and other and they questioned each other if there were going to be any "Triple Trojans" from the day. I dismissed it as some lingo they shared between themselves.
The second time I went with them the shockers were a little more familiar with me and they came right out and said I was not a "Triple Trojan." I asked them what that meant but they wouldn't say. The workers were much more relaxed this time out and they took me to a special spot to shock some "salmon". This stretch held large browns the size of salmon they told me before we started. The stretch did not disappoint. We shocked maybe a dozen over 23 inches and one 28 inch male trout that was scary to touch. It had such a huge kype it protruded through the upper jaw. IT had teeth like a big pike. My buds from the WDNR snatched him right out of the water and weighed and measured him. This trout was netted with a knotted net four years in a row and laid on a foreign surface to measure it. It was kept out of the water way beyond the recommended time seen in the handling trout pamphlet. It had photos taken of it and they didn't wet their hands and even clipped a small piece out of its fin. Off it went back in the water not worse for the wear.
A couple years went by and I was invited to the hatchery to see the staff milk the brooders. There was a briefing before the milking by the staff. They assured us that they were not hurting any of the trout by squeezing them to milk them and they said they were all very skilled in handling large trout. The demonstration went off without a hitch. As I was leaving I heard the same code word bantered about by the staff. They wondered if there would be any "Triple Trojans" from this tour.
Both the shocking crews and the hatchery staff used this and it piqued my curiosity. I wanted to know what it meant. I was even in my Deputy Sheriff uniform when I asked the staff what it meant. The guy sidestepped the question and changed the subject.
A couple years passed and I was assigned to the Bailiff's Office. One day in Initial Appearances Court. I recognized the Court Officer for the WDNR. He was the one shocking crew member I had heard the "Triple Trojans" term first be used by. I asked him what it meant because he was out of that area and I thought might explain to me what that meant. He told me his lips were sealed and he could not say anything about it.
The years passed and he was still the court officer. We made friends and went out socially. He and I went to Essen Haus together after work once and I interrogated him after 3 liters of German beer and he still would not give up the meaning.
Two years ago I met him at the Madison fishing Expo. I asked him how he was doing. He told me he was retired these days. I told him I out of Dane County for almost 10 years. We went to Essen Haus again after the expo. I was going to get that meaning of ?Triple Trojan? out of him.
He finally told me what it meant. As a WDNR employee he and all staff was a representative of the state of Wisconsin when they did tours and shocking outings. If anything went wrong on those tours there were typically citizen complaint forms filled out. The state took those complaints seriously and investigated each thoroughly. He told me that a Triple Trojan was a hyper sensitive angler that typically complained to after the tours about shocking employees because the WDNR staff was too rough with the trout. He told me they complained about the milking almost every time and the same folks would complain about the staff touching gill plates of the trout and it was "unlimited."
My friend told me these were the folks that when they had sex they didn't wear just one condom. They wrapped it with three Trojans. The WDNR employees had made up the "Triple Trojan" code word up to be stealthy. Trout are not made of glass and I knew this and so did every WDNR employee. I have heard this from numerous anglers and in my 54 years of trout angling and I have discovered this also.
Thanks for a little waft of common sense, that increasingly rare commodity,
I'm sure glad you said it, Spinner1. I, too, have been biting my tongue. With all of the cloth nets made with knots, you would have thought they' be dead trout floating everywhere 20 years ago. Funny, but I rarely saw one.
A quote from a 2005 study of the effect of catch-and-release on trout:
"The impact of mortality caused by catch-and-release practices is often underestimated byboth anglers and fishery managers. From a review of 118 catch-and-release studies (Appendix1), which, in total, involved over 120,000 fish, the average mortality associated with catch-and-release angling was 16.2%. Thus, while many anglers may assume that by practising catch-and-release they are having no impact on the fish population, a significant number of released fishmay die."
I think whatever we can do to minimize unintended damage to caught and released trout is welcome. From using barbless hooks, keeping trout in the water as long as possible, and, yes, using fish friendly nets as well.
Not sure what I buy into, I think there is a side to both stories and appreciate hearing them both. I do agree that if a fish friendly net helps even in a small way then it is probably worth investing in.
The mortality rate is real. It's the reason fish for pay ponds don't allow release of any fish even if they would make more money when you pay by the inch. Myself I believe the biggest factor is squeezing fish, probably followed by overstressing them in warm water. Other factors like failing to properly revive a trout are likely to be more important than the net used but eliminating as many stress factors as we can is up to us as the fish cannot do anything for themselves.
I generally agree with the notion of doing "whatever we can to minimize unintended damage". However, the mortality rate you mentioned is much higher than rates I have seen in the past. I believe mortality rates vary by fishing technique, hook size, water conditions, etc. But for fly fishing, I have seen mortality rates of well less than 5% in the past. 16% mortality would mean that you're killing 1 out of every 6 fish you catch! That would make many of us think about limiting our catch and time on the water. Wondering if you've got a reference for that study?Quote:
Originally Posted by Byron haugh
For me, the rubber net vs knotted net, is for "me". Hooks and leaders with splitshot don't tangle in them. May it be nicer on the fish? It may. But they are easier on me to begin with. :)
I land 90% of my fish by hand, but dependent on size and how active a fish is at the time. Agreed....fish aren't fragile. Wet your hands revive completely and handle it as gently as possible. As I recall my Drill Instructor yelling down the firing line about trigger control..."Slow and steady squeeze....don't grip it like your &^$@!"
Back to nets. I'm frugal on many things. But I like at least one good net that becomes part of my kit. It's familiar and always there....for years. I'm anal about certain things. I used to fish a Brodin, but I stopped after they began placing a Greenpeace logo on their homepage. They lost me.....My choice. I since found the Stevens nets and love them. But they need not be expensive.
Agreed! It really is better technology, but obviously there are a number of folks around who are entrenched in their ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by NJTroutbum
Been using a Frabil $25 "rubber" net for the last five years. I will admit, I can be hard on equipment and I finally managed to damage it this year- that's a pretty good run for me. I also use a Ketchum Release (without net for smaller fish, with net for bigger). I hated knot nets back in my spincasting days and decided to try the "rubber" ones when I took up flyfishing. I agree wholeheartedly with NJTroutbum, both of these tools make my life easier and if they also benifit the fish then that is just an added bonus for me. Luke
I always carry a Ketchum Release (as mentioned by Luke) and it makes life much easier for releasing trout under about 15 inches. All I have to do it get the fish close enough to grab the leader, run the tool down the leader to the fly, and the fish is free. Saves a lot of stress on the fish since they are never out of the water or handled at all.T
ed
I like the look of those Ketchum things, might grab one
I have a rubber net, too, but I don't believe is does much to lower the mortality rate of hooked and landed fish.
This strikes me as a totally bogus report on a fictional study. If a citation and a link to the study and the appendix which lists the 118 studies isn't provided, this "study" should be ignored in its entirety.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byron haugh
Most of the literature I've seen on the subject of C & R mortality for trout at least distinquish between bait fishing ( highest mortality ), lure fishing ( medium mortality ) and fly fishing ( lowest mortality ). The fly fishing factor has usually been stated at 5% or less, and even the 5% strikes me as high, unless it refers to smaller freshly released stocker trout.
My own experience with wild trout is that mortality is very low, given good C & R practices - probably less than 1%. And that is usually associated with a fish inhaling a fly, inflicting damage to the gills. Since I fish crystal clear water virtually all of the time, and usually the same stretches several times a week, it would be obvious if there were fish ( caught by me or the few others that spend time on my home water ) dying from whatever cause, and I rarely see any evidence of that.
Some of you may recall my thread "Same Fish" several years ago. Some of you may recall Howard, a 16" west slope cutthroat that I caught six times over about two to three weeks - or a 17" west slope cutt that I caught three times over a period of three months. Those were only two of many "same fish" catches that were documented with photos by me and several other BB members.
A couple other thoughts on the subject of nets for trout. I don't see a lot of other folks fishing, but when I do watch a person land a fish with a net it seems to me there is a lot of wasted time involved in the process. The net effect of using a net could be increased fish mortality.
The ketchem release tool may be a two edged sword. To the extent that it gets a quickly landed fish off the hook and back to the water quickly, fine. But if the fish is played for any length of time, such a quick release with no time for the fish to be recuperated could also cause increased fish mortality.
The best way to reduce fish mortality, actually to eliminate it, at least with dry flies, is to "play tag." That is, cut the hooks off your flies and just fish with the hookless fly. You might be surprised at how much fun that can be. For nymphs and streamers, you can just cut a bit into the bend of the hook so you catch the fish but can usually release it by simply releasing pressure on the fish.
The playing tag approach was suggested back in the '90's by one of Montana's most respected outfitter / guides, Paul Roos. He offered it as a solution to decimation of the local fisheries by overfishing. I started playing tag several years ago, before I became aware of Paul's published material on the subject, simply to reduce the time I was spending landing and releasing fish so I could spend more time hunting, finding, and tempting fish to hit the fly.
John
You folks do realize that anecdotal personal evidence is hardly a valid argument against a scientific study? We are really getting far afield from the original question, but if you want to look at the study and chase down the citations, here it is: http://www.wildtroutstreams.com/Catc...guidelines.pdf.
All catch and release fishers must face the fact that we kill fish unintentionally whether we like it or not. How many we kill is a matter of study, but the only true way of removing the probability is to stop fishing, and that is not going to happen in my case. So the only logical path for me is to try to minimize my impact based on the best evidence available, and not just my own personal whims and beliefs. Each angler must find their own path.
I read that report some time ago and actually had it in mind when I posted earlier.
Note that it is not specific to trout, as suggested by Byron's quote from the study. There are some very high mortality rates for other species that were not caught by fly fishing that greatly increase the overall % of fish mortality, way beyond what has generally been reported for C & R trout mortality.
Thanks for providing the link to the study. It should prove interesting to any number of folks.
John
walleyes have the highest mortality rate they can't seem to survive the hot oil
this is something I wonder...
I think of some heavily fished water here in pa, such as spring creek in center county. This stream gets fished hard and is not a particularly wide or deep stream. No doubt large amounts of fish are caught every day, especially this time of year. Likely the same fish are caught multiple times in a week.
I feel like if mortality rates were as high as some have stated that we would see this evidence along the stream. I rarely ever have seen a dead fish in this stream. Sure predators probably take their share but I just feel like I should be seeing a lot more dead fish considering the amount of angling pressure on this water
Some added thoughts... If there are 100 fish caught every day on the heavy pressured part of the stream, and 10 fish died a day from that.. Then in the course of a week you would have 70 dead fish along the water way.
That's a significant amount of fish every week to be losing and I bet more than 100 fish are being caught a day there especially this time of year.