Here’s a short blurb about research at the University of Illinois regarding “catch and release”:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ … 092707.php
The overall findings are a bit on the common sense side and not really breaking new ground. However, the study does provide some quantitative data and more to think about.
BW
very interesting
jed
Very incomplete study - it is missing a lot of info:
I could throw in more reasons but don’t have time - just a knee jerk response. It looks to me like a VERY good example on how to deceive with statistics - In my honest opinion. These studies REALLY DO need to be taken with a grain of salt. :roll:
I must agree with Panfisher. The study is weak. We’re not reading the research but a report of the research. That is always a problem. It appears to be a very limited research focus, bonefish only.
Take them with a grain of salt and you will not be C&R fishing for much longer. These studies will be paraded out by groups like PETA and believe it the masses will eat it up. However flawed the study may be the anti-fishing groups will spin it up quite well.
PETA just wants to get us. :lol:
I didn’t make the correct impression. :shock:
My real impression is that the guy was paid by someone like PETA to add confusion the the pot. What I meant to say is take the accuracy of those reports with a grain of salt. They are usually one sided for a reason. :x
The real problem is that there are morons out there who will take this study as fact when it is quite the opposite!
Exactly. 
At least they mentioned the species …but the general conclusions are ridiculous …like comparing the survival of a catfish to a trout…if I kept a trout out of the water for 4 minutes & was practicing C&R I ought to be flogged…note I didn’t say sued…too much of that going on…
I’m Tempted to generalize about Studies. The News Broadcasters LOVE Studies!!, Global Warming, Death, Paris, Britney, Racial stuff, Politics (Crap). Broadcasting/Publishing Studies is worthless to the average citizen. Studies are an important step in fixing a problem or preventing one, but even after Studies are done, things get fouled up! The Narrow View of Studies reminds me of a High School Report.
The ONLY people that KNOW or Care about our Fish & Animals are Fishers and Hunters! PETA isn’t plugged into conservation, just blindly being IDIOTS!
Doug
I don’t like writing in posts like this because I always come off the wrong way. IMHO most fisherman are guilty of killing a fish that did not end up on the stringer. It happens. Some were killed because of mis-handling and some were just fate. We as fly fishermen can join conservation clubs and promote their messages, but on the water is where it counts. Bait fishermen, spin fishermen, and fly fisherman have to represent the angling community with dignity and pride. A report like this is only a fraction of the ammunition that PETA and the Sierra Club can use against us. We can’t give them any ground or fishing for sport will be a thing of the past.
We’ve covered this before, but more Parents have to take their Kids into the Outdoors, Fishing & Hunting & Hiking, or the Bad Guys Win.
Doug
EVERY study ever made…
was started by people with a mission…
It depends on what the people with MONEY or an axe to grind want the study to say.
As typical of a posting with “Catch and Release” in the title a number of folks have gone off in directions that I had not intended. In fact it’s the general attitude in some of the responses that I feel I must address. Please take no personal offense at my remarks. Please understand that is not an empty request. I’m a science teacher and a science author so forgive me a moment, if you will, while I get up on my high horse and talk a bit about the work, how science is done, and how we the public should view science…
First and foremost, Suski, the author of the original paper is a fisheries biologist and there is no evidence that he is a shill for the PETA folks. You can find his web page and examples of much of his work at:
http://fishlab.nres.uiuc.edu/index.html
(I imagine that a pdf of the article in question will be available in the future.)
I haven’t talked to him but I am copying him this response as well as a link to this thread so that if he wants to he can defend his study, here. Of course that is what scientists do all the time–defend their work. I do not have access to the original paper nor have I met the guy but I seriously doubt that he is in PETA’s pocket like some have suggested. Here’s a quote from his website regarding his interest in Catch and Release as a conservation tool:
Angling is a popular recreational activity for people around the globe and is currently a multi-billion dollar industry in Canada. To help protect this valuable resource, many anglers release the fish that they capture; research has shown that fish that have been angled and released can survive, grow, reproduce and be captured again. My research in this area has been to design novel conservation strategies to help improve the survival of fish that have been angled and released. To date my research has quantified a host of physiological, behavioural, and physical responses of fish to various stressors associated with catch-and-release angling. As well, I have documented how water temperature, dissolved oxygen and ammonia concentrations can impact the time for fish to recover from angling-induced stressors. This research has improved our understanding of how fish respond to different external stressors, and has helped design management strategies proven to minimize the impacts of angling on fish and fish populations.
To wit: It would seem that his agenda is to actually improve our techniques for catch and release to improve fish survival and hence fishing–not eliminate fishing…
I encourage each of you to go to his web page. It is his effort to communicate his work with you the fishing public. He is a researcher and that is exactly what he has to do for his livelihood so he may not have time for much public outreach. These assistant professors are expected to crank out lots of research as they try to earn tenure.
About public understanding of science: The blurb I referenced is AAAS’s attempt to provide short summaries of significant research for the public’s benefit. By definition they will be short and leave out pertinent information. Critique of the study itself should refer directly to the paper–not somebody’s interpretation and summary. Ironically, the blurb’s purpose is to help promote the public understanding and interest in science. The responses to this post seemed to drift into the other direction.
Science by its very nature is tentative and very narrowly defined. I suspect that he focused on bonefish for this part of the study in part because of the economical significance of the bonefish sportfishery–we all want it to prosper. This paper is only the reporting of a small component of his overall research program. Many of the critiques leveled regarding other types of fishes and such are doubtlessly to be reported on later in the research literature. Now, of course that is the problem. The scientific community publishes thousands of pages of research everyday–how do we keep up? Or should we? I sent the blurb so that the FAOL community could keep informed regarding the research in the area that is dear to us all–fishing as an avocation. I promise that I have as many or more reasons than most of you to despise the PETA folks and their ilk. I particularly despise the way that they dishonestly represent scientific studies while at the same time condemning any aspect of animal use in the classroom or laboratory. I have also been directly involved with PETA confrontations. But please, realize some of the posts that responded to the Catch and Release or to the idea of another study reflect the same type of thinking (in the opposite direction) that the PETA folks exploit when they try to make their message. Scientific studies should be looked at with a critical eye–no science is the end all and no science is error proof. The beauty of science is that folks like Suski put their work out for others to critique and improve on then we can make progress. It’s not a perfect system but it is the most reliable manner that we have for figuring out how the world works.
I’m starting to ramble so I’d best get off my high horse before I fall. Please take time to go to Suski’s web site and look at his work. You might find something that will interest you.
Finally, directly in response to Spinner’s about studies being started by people with a mission. That is a pretty cynical view of most of the folks that I know in science (including my son) and is just pretty much wrong. I have met a few that deserve the cynicism but nearly all of the folks I know in science are in it for the same reasons we fly fish–because they love it and can’t get enough. For most scientists they don’t have enough hours in the day to pursue the questions that nag them and drive them on. But they are really lucky, they get to do their avocation (science) as their vocation. I guess some of us are lucky and get to make our livings by flyfishing as well. 
BW
BW,
I am guilty of speaking of science/studies in a critical way. What do you think is going to happen when most fishermen aren’t scientists? I’m all for supporting anything that will help fly fishers, but it’s the TIP of the Iceberg. Do you know what the percentage of C&R fly fishers compared to spin fishers are?? Also a person just mentioned this point to me recently, WHY release a Hatchery Fish?? WHY? If in the case of the Great Lakes Fishery (Steelhead) Hatchery Steelhead! It’s all part of the Management of Fisheries in every State. Some States manage waters for Wild Trout and a LOT of States Don’t! So doing a Study on C&R is Fine! Just not going to have any impact on our Fishing. C&R is also controversial within the fly fishing community. It’s a personal choice and not something that can be explained very easily. There is also at least 2 kinds of C&R, Release ALL fish you catch and Release only fish according to a Slot Limit. Slot Limits are working good here for Sturgeon. For example if your managing a Lake for Rainbow Trout, and the State rules say you have to release all Rainbows you catch, then how many Fishing License owners do you think are going to spend time at that lake??
I don’t think Catching and Releasing all the fish you catch is going to have any impact because there are not enough Fishermen that are going to release their fish unless it’s in the Regs.
I would like to know about FUNDING Studies?? Special Interest Groups?? The Government?? The money doesn’t come out of thin air does it?? Are Studies done BECAUSE the Funds are burning a hole in some College’s pocket?? Are Studies done innocently, just like a School Report, with NO strings attached to any Special Interest??
Thanks,
Doug
Doug,
I could not find the article that is discussed here in the board. However, I got (from the Dr Suski web site) a copy of the following article. Also published this year in the Journal “Fisheries Research” I Copy and past the title and the Acknowledgement section (were state the funding of the study). This may help (or may not) to understand from where the money for those studies come.
I’m too a scientist and I understand the problems that scientific articles posses to people not familiarized with the structure and terminology of such literature.
Martin
Evaluation of the interactive effects of air exposure duration and water
temperature on the condition and survival of angled and released fish
Andrew J. Gingerich a,b, Steven J. Cooke a,b,?, Kyle C. Hanson b, Michael R. Donaldson b,
Caleb T. Hasler b,c, Cory D. Suski c,d, Robert Arlinghaus e
a Institute of Environmental Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1S 5B6
b Fish Ecology and Conservation Physiology Laboratory, Department of Biology,
Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1S 5B6
c Department of Biology, Queen?s University, Kingston, ON, Canada K7L 3N6
d Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801, USA
e Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries, Forschungsverbund Berlin e.V., Berlin 12587, Germany
Received 14 April 2007; received in revised form 27 May 2007; accepted 1 June 2007
Acknowledgements
This paper represents an undergraduate thesis project conducted
by Andrew Gingerich to fulfill the requirements for an
undergraduate degree at Carleton University. The authors thank
Amanda O?Toole, Zack Whynot, Robyn Walker, Ashley Graham,
Lisa Thompson and Thomas Klefoth for assistance with
data collection. We also thank the staff of the Queen?s University
Biology Station for logistic support. Research permits
were provided by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
and animal care approvals were granted by Carleton University
and Queen?s University on behalf of the Canadian Council for
Animal Care. Kringen Henein and several anonymous reviewers
kindly commented earlier versions of the manuscript. Aspects of
this research were supported by funds from Carleton University,
the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, the Ontario Research
Fund, the Rainy Lake Fisheries Charity Trust and the Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
The statement that scientists have numerous unanwered questions may be correct, but this is in no small measure to their inability to fund such investigations. Modern scientific investigation is increasingly exorbitant in cost. Investigators like Willie Sutton follow the money. It is no coincidence that increasingly medical research is underwritten by pharmaceutical firms and not by more impartial funding bodies such as the National Institutes of Health. Consuming research findings is much like consuming findings from financial firms. In both cases one is well advised to employ a healthy degree of scepticism or if you will cynacism.
Knowledge is Empowering. I’m certainly guilty for most of my Life, of swallowing everything that was fed to me, Studies, Propaganda (Gov.), Global Warming (Sky is Falling). That’s how I grew up! Being a Trusting Soul. Thanks to the Internet (World of Information) I have a CLEARER picture of WHAT is REALLY going on. I’m not a Money Expert, but I know that Rich Private Citizens and Rich Companies invest their money, Wisely or for a Reason, they don’t just throw it away! So my question is WHY?, WHY?, would anyone with Money to Invest, throw it at a STUDY??? It happens every day! The News Guys say a Study came out saying this or that about some Topic, WHO CARES! Now when they tell me some product is being recalled that’s IMPORTANT, but the Results of One Study is ‘FLUFF’ ‘Air Time Filler’ for the News. Thank God I don’t have to put on my waders and slosh around in the BS everyday. I just thought of a T-Shirt, “Research Until You Die” Too Sarcastic??
Doug
Doug,
All I can say is that I wish you a long and healthy life
Martin
Martin,
I’m working on it!! Did you think my Rant went over the Edge??? I’ve been holding all that in for 35 yrs.
Thanks,
Doug