Spring Seasons Don't Harm New York Bass Fisheries

Do spring catch-and-release or limited harvest seasons hurt bass populations in northern waters?

For New York fisheries, the answer is no.

“We found no impact to production,” said Randy Jackson, a biologist with the Cornell Biological Field Station on Oneida Lake.

Jackson and his associates compared survey data both before and after the spring seasons were implemented for New York’s portion of Lake Erie, as well as the inland waters of Oneida and Canadarago.

In New York, the season begins on the third Saturday in June and extends until Nov. 30. Traditionally, it then remained closed until the following June. That was because many resource managers believe bass populations in northern waters are more fragile than those in southern due to a shorter spawning time and growing season, as well as less fertile water. Consequently, the general wisdom goes, bass on the beds need protection from anglers.

But in 1994, New York decided to try a spring season on Lake Erie, allowing harvest of one 15-inch fish (size limit now is 20 inches). Then in 2007, it went with a spring catch-and-release season in most of its inland waters.

On Erie, researchers found a year class index of 3.0 for smallmouth bass (aged 2) in gill net surveys conducted for 15 years before the spring season. For 17 years afterward, the index was 6.0.

At Oneida, young-of-the-year smallmouth average catch per trawl haul for six years before a spring season was 0.4, but 1.8 afterward.

“Both of those are statistically significant,” Jacksons said. “What we found at Canadarago was not.”

At the latter, young-of-the-year largemouth per hour increased from 15.6 to 27.8 in electrofishing surveys after the season was implemented. Smallmouth declined slightly from 1.2 to 0.6.

In other words, bass production was not harmed in any of the three fisheries. Most interesting, though, it actually improved, a change that hardly can be credited to allowing anglers to fish during the spawn.

Jackson attributes that to more hospitable conditions for New York bass in general, with these three fisheries providing a reflection of those changes.

“The water has been warming for the 47 years that we’ve been keeping data here (at Oneida),” he explained. “No one can argue that the lake is much warmer than it used to be.”

Additionally, filter feeding by zebra and quagga mussels has cleared the water at Oneida, Erie, and other fisheries. “That favors bass, which are visual feeders,” he said, adding that young bass are better protected from predation because of more vegetation in the clearer water.  

(This article appeared originally in B.A.S.S. Times.) 

Fishing for Sport Viewed as Cruel by Growing Number of People

Mutualists are more likely to view fish and wildlife in human terms, with human personalities and characteristics.

(Author's note: This is the third and final part of my investigative report about the anti-fishing movement. Scroll down to read the first two parts. This package was published originally in B.A.S.S. Times.)

Recreational fishing as we know it no longer exists in portions of Western Europe.

Even more disturbing, the seeds of its destruction are well established here.

Don’t be misled by the fact that 9 out of 10 Americans approve of legal fishing and support using fish for food.

When people are asked whether they approve of recreational fishing for sport, answers change dramatically. Twenty-five to 30 percent view angling for sport as cruel in more urbanized states such as Colorado and Arizona,  while about 20 percent feel the same way in more rural states, including Alaska and the Dakotas.

Those disturbing revelations come from researchers in Germany, Switzerland, and the United States, who recently compiled their findings in a report entitled, “A Primer on Anti-Angling Philosophy and Its Relevance for Recreational Fisheries in Urbanized Societies.”

Such attitudes, the authors say, raise the possibility “that extremist positions (or elements thereof) influenced by animal liberation or animal rights arguments might find their way into nongovernmental organizations, science, politics, and ultimately legislation.

“Such a development is particularly challenging for recreational fishers when it occurs where they have little political support. Without sufficient support, radical claims portraying anglers as cruel sadists who play with fish for no good reason can be rhetorically effective.”

Why is this happening?

Basically, the answer is that attitudes change regarding fish and wildlife as people move away from nature and into more urban settings. Their beliefs become guided more by what they see on television and in the movies than what they personally experience.

Anglers and hunters view fish and wildlife as resources to be used, while being managed wisely and treated with respect. Traditionally, most Americans have agreed with that “utilitarian” philosophy.

But as people become more urbanized (and often more affluent), some begin to favor a “mutualism wildlife value orientation, viewing wildlife as capable of relationships of trust with humans, as if part of an extended family, and as deserving of rights and caring.”

Mutualists, the authors say, “are more likely to view fish and wildlife in human terms, with human personalities and characteristics.”

What’s coming down the road in the United States if mutualism prevails?

The Swiss Animal Welfare Act of 2008 highlights the nightmarish possibilities. The legislation makes catch-and-release illegal because “it is in conflict with the dignity of the fish and its presumed ability to suffer and feel pain.”

A similar rule has been in place since the 1980s in Germany, where anglers also must take a course in fish handing before they can obtain a license.

“The argument runs that it is legally acceptable to go fishing only if one has the intention to catch fish for food,” the study says.

“Wider economic benefits created by angling are usually not considered a sufficient justification --- it all boils down to the individual benefits experienced by the angler, and here food provision is currently the only acceptable reason.” 

In other words, recreational fishing as millions of Americans now enjoy it is not allowed.

What would imposition of such a system in the United States mean?

 It would mean that a majority of the nation’s more than licensed 30 million anglers would stop fishing.

It would mean an end to family outings and buddy tournaments, and depressurizing for a few hours after work at a local lake or pond.

It would mean the collapse of economies for coastal communities and cities along the Great Lakes, as well as hundreds of towns near popular inland lakes and reservoirs.

In the United States, more people fish than play golf and tennis combined, and, in doing so, they support more than one million jobs.

Through license fees and excise taxes, recreational anglers contribute $1.2 billion annually “to preserve, protect, and enhance not just their sport, but also the environment that makes such sportfishing possible,” the American Sportfishing Association says. “Across much of the country, angler dollars are the primary source for improving fish habitat, public access, and environmental education.”

All that could be gone if we allow a minority who believe fishing is cruel to dominate the conversation and dictate policy.

“Powerful intervention is needed to counterbalance such tendencies in a society where hunting and fishing are becoming less prominent and where an increasing percentage of the public has lost contact with wildlife and nature,” say the authors of the study.

What do we do about this? We go fishing, of course, and, at every opportunity, we introduce someone new to the sport. We practice good stewardship through individual actions, as well as club activities --- and we publicize accomplishments. Also, we make certain that decision makers at every level of government know about both the calculable and incalculable value of recreational fishing to individuals, families, and society.

Catch-and-Release Should Be Outlawed!

That headline is from the first sentence of a comment regarding my recent post about proposed tournament regulations in Minnesota (Minnesota ‘Bass’ackwards in Tournament Management.).

Here it is:

Sport fishing to catch & release should be OUTLAWED!

We are working to keep fish for real fishermen who enjoy the taste and food. We need to keep these so called "Sport Fishermen" out of Minnesota lakes! 

It’s no different than "Sport Hunting for Coyotes or Wolves.” If there is a legitimate reason to rid our lakes of fish, then offer a tournament to Minnesota fishermen.

I am not alone, and I vote.

And here is my response:

Outlawing catch-and-release fishing would be a giant step toward banning recreational fishing in general. That's exactly what has happened and what is happening right now in Europe.

If you don't like tournaments, that's one thing.

But to say that catch-and-release fishing should be outlawed is playing right into the hands of those anti-fishing advocates who want to keep all of us off the water.

Here is what’s happened in Switzerland, starting in 2009:

The new legislation states that fish caught should be killed immediately following their capture, with a sharp blow to the head from a blunt instrument. Under the new regulations, the use of live bait and barbed hooks is also prohibited except in certain situations . . .

The new Swiss law makes it obligatory for anglers to take lessons before being granted a fishing license.

And the following is what pastor Martin Niemoller said about the failure of German intellectuals to oppose Hitler’s rise to power:

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

In the case of recreational fishing, it seems they'll come first for those who practice catch-and-release.

FishSmart Program Introduced at ICAST

A new program to improve survival of released fish has been unveiled by the American Sportfishing Association (ASA).

"In fresh water we've done a great job in reducing fish mortality with fish that anglers catch," said ASA's President and CEO Mike Nussman. "More than 80 percent of anglers who caught fish that they could have kept, reported releasing some of them.

“In saltwater alone, the number of released fish exceeds 200 million annually, and with increasing regulations such as size limits, bag limits and seasons this number is sure to grow."

"However, one of the keys to successful catch and release efforts is having the right kind of tackle that improves the chance that released fish will live. The overall FishSmart program is designed to address this and other fisheries conservation issues, such as angler education, head on."

The announcement came during the fishing industry trade show, ICAST, in Orlando, Fla.

Read the full story here. Go here to visit the FishSmart website.

Bass Tagged in Preparation for Florida's TrophyCatch Program

Activist Angler caught this TrophyCatch qualifier last fall on Lake Okeechobee. (Photo by Dave Burkhardt)

With Florida’s TrophyCatch program set to begin in October, biologists have been tagging bass of 8 pounds and up that they have sampled during electrofishing surveys.

“This will be our baseline year,” said Jason Dotson, a fisheries biologist with the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). “Then we’ll tag for five years more after TrophyCatch is launched.

“This will help us see if catch rates for trophy fish increase and if harvest decreases. And it will provide valuable data on lakes where the fish were caught.”

Through early April, FWC had tagged bass of 8 pounds or more in 40 lakes, with the largest being 12.25 pounds.

“We don’t want to give the names of all the lakes and increase angling effort (because of monetary rewards associated with the tags),” Dotson continued. “But I will say that we have tagged 24 bass in Lake Walk-in-Water, and one tag was returned already.”

This tagging effort follows closely on another conducted by FWC and the University of Florida. It involved tagging about 2,000 bass of 14 inches and longer in 60 lakes with a 14-inch minimum during 2009 and 2010.

“One of the things we learned is that overharvest is not occurring,” Dotson said. “Harvest rates were low.”

Additionally, researchers discovered that higher harvest is not occurring in smaller lakes, as they hypothesized it might.

“In both years, harvest was less than 10 percent in all cases,” the biologist said.

Overall, 20 to 35 percent of tagged fish were caught, which tells biologists that a similar percentage of the overall bass population is captured annually.

One interesting aspect of this study was that the tagged larger fish showed a higher probability of being caught than did the bass of 14 inches or so.

 “Even though a lake has fewer larger fish overall, those we tagged were caught more often than the smaller fish that we tagged,” said Janice Kerns, a PhD student who helped with the study.

Kerns added that anglers were not more likely to keep those large bass than they were the smaller fish. “It was about equal,” she said.

Monetary rewards for return of tags ranged from $5 to $200. “We wanted to have a fair amount of certainty that those tags with the highest rewards would be returned,” said Dotson, who added that those returns helped extrapolate the overall capture rate.

With tagged fish from both studies now swimming in Florida waters, what should an angler do if he catches one?

“If there is a monetary reward, cut the tag,” said Kerns. “If there is no reward, it’s up to the angler to decide.”

The tag for the TrophyCatch program is a 5-inch yellow streamer with “trophy” on it, as well as a phone number.

“Clip it (tag) close to the base and call the number,” the FWC biologist said. 

He also encouraged anglers to call the same number --- (850) 363-6037 --- if they have questions about the program.

(This article appeared originally in B.A.S.S. Times.)