There is nothing in the report that states how hooking mortality is age or size related; or how hooking rates differ for age or size. Without that data, one must assume that hooking rates and mortality rates are identical regardless of age or size. If that be so; since there are much fewer large trout than small trout, many more small trout die. Similarly, if there are few large trout, a given death of a large trout has a greater effect on the number of larger trout.


I'd like to know what the gross number are. For example, if a mile of stream has 1000 "large trout and population crashes 50% we still have 500 large trout and the average fisher will likely have a shot at a large trout. If the number is 10, and it goes to 5; even before the crash, it is unlikely for a fisher to catch one of those 10 large trout.


The study also assumes that there is no poaching of the larger trout to account for this decrease. Knowing what happens in my native Wisconsin, that is not true. I suspect that the decrease in larger fish is due to poaching. So again we need to know the gross numbers. If the population of large trout is going down faster than the rest of the population, how can we explain that? Poaching and illegal harvest would be #1, 2, 3 and 4 on my list. If that be so, the problem is not C&R, it is illegal harvest.