We really have 2 choices when it comes to this topic: C&R or no R, just C. Fishing isn't going to stop. We're certainly not going to advocate it! The issue becomes, then, that fishing with the R = 100% mortality and C&R reduces mortality. The fisheries managers need to figure out how much to the best of their ability, but it really doesn't matter much to laymen. All that matters is whether or not we should support/practice good C&R whenever we don't want to keep fish within legal limits for consumption. There's nothing wrong with a certain amount of that, either. The professionals set limits on that based on sustainability studies as well. If the agencies in your state are allowing politics to guide their decisions instead of science, then you need to address that problem. But the constant questioning of "to C&R or not to C&R" is pretty silly. It's a well-settled debate with plenty of science to prove that C&R (even when poorly executed) does...in fact...reduce mortality vs. catch and keep.

Next, we must realize that nothing goes to waste in nature. A dead fish is consumed entirely by the riparian zone in which it lived. That is why the salmon that die after a spawning run are so important to revitalizing the watersheds they run up. When spawning runs stop for whatever reason, there is a cascading effect that has been traced to the loss of the dead salmon carcasses upstream. Circle of life stuff, gang. We're a part of nature, not just an outsider that has a purely negative impact on it. If we reduce the mortality of our fishing by 95 to 85%, we've done a very good thing.

It is true that most fishing mortality studies have to be crafted to study it in a well-defined set of circumstances. Otherwise, the studies would not be scientific. Studies in "natural conditions" are not scientific by definition. There are too many variables and no ability to establish a double blind set of controls. It is also true that almost all of the bass mortality studies are done in the context of tournament fishing because they can collect a very discreet set of data in a short period of time. Thus, the studies are cost effective. Well, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that if someone stuck a crankbait in your gullet and ripped you out of the lake on 40 lb test, flopped you into a hard boat, yanked the bait out of your mouth really fast, tossed you into a live well, left you there all day, then dumped you in a plastic bag and carried you to a stage, weighed you, and then awhile later someone finally dumped you back into the lake into a holding pen where you were to stay for a day or 2 with a bunch of other shocked and dying fish, you'd want to die too! Mortality from these studies runs in the range of 30 to 75%...depending on the exact format of the study. One of the best constructed was done by TPWD on Lake Fork a few years ago. They carefully worked to minimize stressors and spent a lot of extra money to remove artificial stressors from the experimental environment. The mortality rate was about 30%...which is fairly consistent with what had been previously postulated about the baseline mortality rate for C&R fishing with multi-hook lures and baits that fish inhale deeply.