Why I Release -- And Why I Don't

Denis Hancock, January, 1995, with minor revisions

"In every catch-and-release fisherman's past there is an old black frying pan...." -- John Gierach, The View From Rat Lake

The debate over catch-and-release (C&R) seems to have divided anglers into several camps. One might see C&R as a religious system, another sees it as a management tool, and another might use C&R simply as a way to avoid cleaning and eating fish. Whatever the point of view, C&R is often a source of friction between flyfishers, with misinformation, personal attacks, and downright nastiness characterizing the debate at times. In Michigan, regulations governing catch-and-release on the "Holy Water" of the Ausable River pitted TU member against TU member, chapter against chapter, and resulted in divisiveness that persists to this day. We are all working toward the same goal, which is the preservation of our precious fisheries, and we should at least assume that others have the same love for the environment as we do.

Catch-and-release as a Management Tool: There is not much debate on the facts here. C&R as well as minimum length limits and slot limits, which can be considered subcategories of C&R, have demonstrated their effectiveness in a variety of fisheries. It can never be a substitute for watershed protection. In fact, by itself it often fails to achieve its goals, as demonstrated by the experience of the Saint Vrain River in Colorado where catch-and-release management was based on some unrealistic assumptions of what the average flow would be. In concert with a total ecosystem approach to fishery management, however, it is a powerful tool in restoring stressed fisheries.

Catch-and-release as Religion: This attitude bothers me for a couple reasons. First, its practitioners, like many "true believers" often have a difficult time dealing with dissent, and this does not lead to effective dialogue. Another reason is that there is no such thing as a truly harmless fishhook. There will always be a certain mortality attached to fishing whether we release or not, and we need to acknowledge this to ourselves and to the people we come into contact with. If C&R is the only acceptable mode of angler behaviour, then we are guilty of inflicting pain solely for our pleasure.

One angler and fly tyer, John Betts, came to grips with this in an article appearing in American Angler (January/February 1994) called "Pointless Fly Fishing" in which he outlined the evolution of his feelings toward the sport, and concluded that he could no longer use a pointed hook to catch fish. Instead he has gone to tying flies on hooks with the point and barb clipped off. Betts feels he can still be an artist at tying flies, and an effective angler by simply fooling the fish. The hook almost always fails to set, and the fish releases itself. Some have likened this to the Native American practice of "counting coup". I don't know whether the editors wrote the title or Betts did, but it is an effective pun. In my opinion, it is truly pointless to fish with a pointless hook. If nothing else, this harasses the trout, and it could be stressful enough to cause damage. If the pointless hook hangs up in the gills, as it might from time to time, then the damage could prove fatal. Regardless, no one can accuse John Betts of failing to have a well-considered opinion, and he must be respected, even if one disagrees with him.

Partridge is manufacuring a hook called TAG (for "touch and go") that has a hook eye at both ends, thereby making hooks virtually impossible to set. I am not sure how these are selling, but I suppose there will be a small market for them.

My Feelings on Catch-And-Release: I feel that C&R is perhaps the most effective tool for preserving populations of game fish in this era of increasing pressure on fisheries. But that is all it is -- a tool. Like all tools, it should be appropriate to the job, and if the job does not require it, then its use should be a matter of personal choice. Let's not kid ourselves -- fishing is just as much a blood sport as hunting, and like it or not, we WILL kill some of the fish we catch whether they die in our creels or die downstream of where we released them. I would prefer to fish in an environment where any given fish I bring alongside could end up in a frying pan or be released to be caught another day. The fact that I choose to release most of my catch is just that -- my choice. And my choice varies with my location. If I catch a "keeper" on Mill Creek (Phelps County, MO), I will almost certainly release it because Mill Creek is one of the relatively few wild trout fisheries in Missouri. If I catch fish in the put-and-take area of the Eleven Point River (Oregon County, MO), they will likely end up in a frying pan.

There are many fishing locations that I would like to fish once, but not regularly. Crane Creek (Stone County, MO) is one of them because it contains a rare pure strain of trout from the McCloud River in California. The beaver ponds in Hidden Valley Creek in Rocky Mountain National Park is another because they contain Greenback Cutthroat Trout, which were the original species that occupied the trout niche in the Arkansas and South Platte drainages of the Eastern Slope of Colorado. September, 1994 I realized my goal at Hidden Valley and released a nice specimen of the Greenback Cutthroat. I have yet to make it to Crane Creek, but if I do, and release a trout there, I will not be likely to return there soon. Why? Because it is strictly C&R. I prefer to have a choice when I fish. It fits my ethic of fishing a little better then simply releasing every fish I catch with no chance of actually keeping a brace for breakfast.

To summarize -- catch-and-release is a useful tool in preserving quality fishing for all, but it should not be approached as an absolute requirement in all cases. A little common sense coupled with some hard facts should be the determining factor. Of course, all Department of Conservation regulations should be observed.