Dear Mr. Nelson,

I’ve never thought a fish jumped and pulled and twisted to amuse anybody, not anglers planning on release nor those who plan to feast on some savory fillets. I do like to fish, and I enjoy eating fish very much. However, I refuse to believe that means I should keep and kill every single fish that happens to wander aimlessly onto the end of my line. Even hardened criminals get three strikes, including those that don’t play baseball, so I figure suicide fish should have at least an equal chance to live.

Seriously, though, your letter raises many interesting points for consideration, not all of which are completely without merit. At the very least, I believe your remarks warrant a closer examination of our own proclivities, whatever those may be.

Yes, catch-and-release fishing kills fish. That is a fact, maybe the only one in this entire debate. And the numbers you cite don’t appear to vary from those I myself have seen published, though every study on every different river system (and some on the same rivers) seems to produce its own distinct totals and percentages, which usually vary from most others. Simply put, the numbers are not uniform, and they never will be in something like catch-and-release mortality, where so many variables exist.

A review of the available literature on catch-and-release survival and mortality makes one thing certain: mortality varies among species and upon several factors beyond that. Traditional catch-and-release studies have focused on hooking mortality associated with different handling and environmental conditions and biochemical indicators of stress response and recovery. But that is still only part of process, and unfortunately, estimation, not hard scientific data, stills plays a significant role in formulating these percentages. Initial and total mortality are statistically independent, so the reliability of estimates of fish survival are critically dependent on the quality of the estimates of post-release survival. Hopefully, we’re moving towards more established data and less estimation with advances like locational telemetry being utilized to monitor post-release behavior.

Still, the science on this is unpredictable at best. Even your saltwater mortality claim, a widely-accepted and documented occurrence, has been discounted in several mortality studies, including a recent Fraser River, B.C., coho study that found no significant difference in mortality between fish hooked and released in the freshwater zone and those hooked and released in the transition (saline) zone.

You do engage a valid argument though, and that is too many catch-and-release proponents assume a stance of moral superiority simply because they practice what they perceive as a worthy endeavor in conserving the resource while still enjoying it. As your numbers indicate, it takes a lot more than just plucking a fish from your line and tossing it back to ensure survival, or at the very least, increase the odds in the fish’s favor.

Survival most certainly varies with species. In general, though, catch-and-release mortality is higher with increased depth of capture, if bait is ingested, if natural baits are used, and if ‘j’ hooks are used rather than circle hooks. Survival probability is also influenced by the length of time the fish is played, how and how long it is handled, angler experience, and the rate of ascent. Studies consistently show that water temperature, which is negatively correlated with survival, is one of the most influential factors. Survival in several species is also negatively related to the size (length) of fish captured.

Another primary concern is exposure to air, which can be easily controlled by a conscientious angler. If you’ll permit an analogy, holding a salmon out of the water for a photo opportunity is like running a four-minute mile and then immediately submerging your head in a bathtub full of water. Alaska state law actually forbids removing any king salmon to be released from the water, but we both know the practice is widely accepted.

Studies have shown that mortality rates of less than five percent can be obtained by using proper release techniques. To increase the chances of a released trophy living, do pinch the hook barbs flat, bring the fish in as quickly as possible or break the line, keep the fish in the water, remove the hook with pliers or cut the line at the hook, and then, hold the fish in an upright position, facing it upstream, to allow the water to wash through the gills as easily as possible until it is fully revived.

However, Mr. Nelson, I see from your letter that you’re concerned less with lowering catch-and-release mortality rates than doing away with such a “boorish” practice altogether. On this we’ll just have to agree to disagree, though I don’t see a lot of fact on either side of the debate. There is certainly a core of anglers interested in harvesting fish for utilitarian purposes and who have minimal interest in catch-and-release fishing. Then there are those anglers that fish for any number of personal or spiritual reasons (none of which I found in your paragraph on the subject, funny enough) and hardly ever keep a thing. From where I sit, the differences between the two are philosophical and maybe even cultural, neither of which lend themselves to pure “truths.”

Catch-and-release fishing is not an Alaskan phenomenon, and any attempt to tie its popularity to financial interests within the state is irresponsible at best. Freshwater angler groups have utilized and championed the practice since at least the 1870s, and it has been used as a management tool since the 1950s. So, the money-driven hypothesis that centers the blame on Alaska’s guides holds no water with me, conspiratorial rhetoric aside, as the earliest and still most adamant advocates for catch-and-release are user groups and outdoor organizations like Trout Unlimited and countless flyfishing groups, who stand to gain not at all financially.

On the other hand, I can see that a history of pure “meat” fishing has crippled lakes and streams across the country, including right here in Alaska. One only has to look at the trout population on the Talachulitna, the salmon runs on the Deshka, and yes, even the current tribulations on the Kenai, to see that as a whole, we’re simply incapable of policing ourselves. We’ll over-fish anything. Guides play a significant part, too, as they use their experience and expertise to try and keep their clients happy and returning, but that doesn’t absolve every other angler of some of the culpability and a share of the responsibility in preserving this oh-so-important resource.

I don’t know how much of that is truly fact, but it sure is a historical pattern. Take the upper Kenai trout numbers you mentioned—without catch- and-release, there are no more rainbow trout on the upper Kenai. Your Waterloo of a theory somehow supposes that a five percent catch-and-release mortality rate is both ethically and actually worse than complete destruction of the population. Any way I figure it, those 25,000 fish would have been long gone.

Catch-and-release does kill some fish, and that is unfortunate, but those numbers can be reduced through awareness and education. I’ll continue to promote the practice because I’m convinced the good it does far exceeds the bad. And, just for the record, I’m fairly certain that the mortality rate for a fish that lands on the barbecue is 100%, but I’ll check with my Canadian father-in-law just to be sure.

Kind regards,

Troy Letherman
Editor