http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHfgFiDV93o
I don’t fishing without one.
Pointed my buddy to this trout and he left his net at home and guy shooting video left net at home.
I usually carry a net when trout fishing but rarely need one, but don’t we all hope we will need a net?
Spinner,
Yep a net is always good to have even if you don’t use it often. Combine the net with common sense when it comes to where to cast and where not to, and very few fish get injured.
Larry —sagefisher—
It’s like anything. It’s better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. I think more times than not I’ve needed it for smaller fish that took a fly too deep to just reach down and unhook it. Even with pinched-down or barbless hooks, there’s not a lot of room in a small mouth to maneuver fingers or hemostats sometimes, and you can’t have the “patient” wriggling around. A well made net also has that “traditional” appeal! I’m biased though, because in the past, I’ve made wooden trout nets. Love em,whether they’re hanging from a fisherperson or the wall of some rustic cabin!
Best regards, Dave S.
I always use a net on all except for the smallest trout. It’s easier on both me and the fish.
All of the guides I use on the rivers use rubber nets, very easy on the fish and the hooks don’t hang up in the netting. I have the soft nylon nets, both the long handled boat net and the short trout stream net, but I have set both of them aside for the newer rubber nets in the same size. About the only time I don’t use a net is when I can slide a hook release tool down the leader while the fish is still in the water and release it that way.
Larry —sagefisher—
I always use a net. Whether it’s a big fish or small. If the basket is deep enough, you can always keep the fish in the water while extracting the hook. That being said, nets are like spare tires. If you take one along you won’t need it. If you don’t take one, you will.
That new rubber netting “seems” to be catching on. Sorry, I don’t like them! They are some kind of ugly, IMHO! Why take a beautifully made wooden net and stick one of those abominations on it??? Sure, stick one on an ugly aluminum or graphite net frame, but it sorely detracts from the beauty of a wooden net. I would rather not carry a net at all!!! Just my $.02 worth!
Best regards, Dave S.
The short answer is “No.”
For the kind of fishing I do, wade fishing for trout in moving water, and considering that landing fish is one of my lowest priorities, and that I tend to a minimalist approach, a net is just one more thing to get in the way and detract from my experience.
Having watched any number of video’s of guys using nets to land trouts, it usually strikes me that it takes them longer to land and release a fish than it would someone not using a net. Skillfully releasing a trout landed without a net is no more harmful to the fish than releasing a fish landed with the aid of a net.
Since this was posted on the “Learning Experience” Forum, I think a couple observations about the situation presented are warranted. First, if you want to land a fish, put yourself in position to do so. Second, if you want to land a fish, rely on yourself and not some guy with a camera, especially when he is not in position to help.
The guy in the video who is fishing would need a very long handled net to land that fish, probably longer than the rod he is using. ( Likewise for the guy with the camera. ) Fishing off a high bank is seldom a good idea. He could have approached from the opposite side of the creek and been in wadable water, best I can tell studying the video. If he had been wading he almost certainly would have been able to land a 20" trout ( which may well be an overestimation of the fish he had on ), with or without a net. Or, if his cameraman had been down on the stream instead of up on the bank, he might have been of some help, again, with or without a net.
A bit of planning after being put on this big trout probably would have resulted in a landed fish. That planning not including bringing along a net in the first place.
John
Had he been wading, the fish wouldn’t have been hooked in the first place in that small high-banked stream. The fish also would be likely just have wrapped around anyone in the water without a net and broke off. A net was a needed in that situation unless you wanted to seriously damage the fish. Better to carry a net than to not.
… patience, stealth, skillful presentation, and competent handling after hooking that bow, it could easily be landed without a net. It could have been released with no harm done to be caught by the next competent angler to come along.
John
P.S. Now stripers, smallies, and carp are another matter.
I guess I’m not competent.
I don’t particularly like nets. The hooks get tangled in them, they get caught on everything, unless you buy the pricey rubber ones they are hard on the fish (I know those clothlike net bags are supposed to be ‘catch and release’ nets, but if you look at the bag after you take a fish out you can see all the slime that was taken off the fish and left behind). If a fish flops out of one and lands on the boat deck you get that nasty slime all over the place.
I have used them on occasion. I just prefer not to. Once I hook a trout, all I want to do is play it, then release it, preferably without touching the slimy thing.
As far as fishing from a high bank goes, unless you really have for some reason a need to ‘land’ a fish that’s too big to lift, don’t fish there. I’ve seen guides carry really long handled nets (helps their unskiled clients ‘land’ fish they would otherwise lose), but most fishermen don’t carry anything but those stubby wood handled things. Wouldn’t have helped on a high bank where you couldn’t get closer to the fish.
You hooked the fish. You got to fight it. You ‘won’. Break it off and go hook another one. That would do less harm to the fish than dragging it up the bank or dragging it up or downsteam to somepace where you could ‘land’ it.
I keep a net in the boat. Once in a while we’ll hook a big pike and I have friend that loves to eat them. Sometimes I fish with novice anglers that aren’t adept at removing a hook or they want to keep and eat their fish. Otherwise the fish gets unhooked in the water. On a stream, I just lead them close enough to grab their lip with a set of fish grip pliers and then unhook them. I don’t photograph them so taking them out of the water is not important to me.
I just like to torture them a bit and then let them go, preferably unharmed (but I’m not anal about it).
Buddy
I have found that I do need a net, reason for me is that I try not to squeeze the fish so as not harm there inards and I have dropped them. In the small streams I I fish even when I’v just pulled them a little bit out of the water they can still end up landing on a rock. I don’t always need a net for release but if the trout are very feisty I will use a net so as to keep the little guy in the water and contained so I can reales’em gently…:
Buddy,
Are you saying that if I use a rubber net, after the fish is released, there won’t be fish slime from that trout on the rubber net??? Can anyone verify this, because that doesn’t sound feasible! It may be easier to clear/clean a rubber net of fish slime, but I have reservations as to it being any better than a wet cotton net?Sorry, but I personally believe we are being sold a bill of goods on this one. I will agree that it should be easier to deal with hooks, using a rubber net, but for now, I’m not convinced of any advantage to the fish. YMMV!
Best regards, Dave S.
i have an old fashion net bag…buddy has a coated net…
his gets slime on it too but is not as abrasive as mine and
it only makes sense to me that less abrasive would me less
slime removed. Is it a significant amount less??
Who knows.
For sure … about the time I don’t have the net with me is the time I’ll need it most.
I carry a net and will use it more once I finally order one of the Brodin ghost bags for it. Mesh bags suck seems they can snag a debarbed hook.
Dave,
No, I think there will probably be slime on the rubber net too, just not as much. What I said was “those clothlike net bags are supposed to be ‘catch and release’ nets, but if you look at the bag after you take a fish out you can see all the slime that was taken off the fish and left behind”. At least with my ‘new’ cloth type ‘catch and release’ type wooden framed trout net, the slime left behind is significant. Enough to clog most of the holes in the mesh where the fish touched it. Plus they snag hooks really well, as Jon pointed out. I pitched the thing after the first use.
I had an old knotted nylon net, and it would take off a lot of the slime coat as well as quite a few scales…which probably wasn’t very good for the fish either.
I’ll just go without when I can.
Buddy
I received the 2011 edition of the Bass Pro Shop catalog yesterday. In my quick review of products, I noticed several collapsible nets with telescopic handles as well as a series that were marketed as best for “catch and release” bags on the nets. It also appeared the price of the nets with the plastic bags had come down a little. At my house a lower price is just about always a good thing.