Wild Trout Are Not Fragile!

[fishfuzz]

I have read numerous posts on this board which claim/state wild trout are fragile. They are a lot of things, but fragile is not one of them.

Wild trout are going to survive this rough winter just like they survived every other rough winter since they started spawning in our streams. They are going to survive the brutal heat waves we seem to have every summer anymore and future droughts. They are going to survive predation, water quality issues, and development. They are also going to survive a few stocked fish living next to them for three months out of the year. Even though wild trout have been battling the above for more years than can be counted, they are still thriving and more wild trout populations are being found year after year.

Think about it for a bit. They are really not fragile at all!

 

[salmonoid]

Wild trout are not as fragile as some may make them out to be. The term I could use instead of fragile is they are resilient. They will attempt to fight back against the natural and man-made abuses thrown at them. But they are not immune to being wiped out. If the temperature gets too high and they can't find thermal refuge, they will die, irregardless what some fly-fishing board discussion says. If the dissolved oxygen gets too low, they will die. If the pH gets too low, they will die. If they are handled roughly by too many anglers, they will eventually succumb. They can take a beating in the stream, from particles as fine as silt up to the size of boulders rolling along in the stream column, and they can be beaten by sticks and twigs and logs. But only to some extent. Eventually, the physical toll will do them in, if there are too many floods or extreme events.

They are still a fragile but resilient resource, but one that should not be taken for granted.

 

[fishfuzz]

They can also take a beating gasping for air while posing for a pic in you avatar against your rod and reel. Just because that fish "swam off" don't presume that it lived. Just a thought...

 

[salvelinus]

+1

The biggest threat to trout is the invention of the digital camera.

 

[pete41]

salvelinus wrote:
+1

The biggest threat to trout is the invention of the digital camera.

so true.

 

[englishprof]

+2. Never understood the need to take a picture of a fish!!!!!

 

[PennKev]

salvelinus wrote:
+1

The biggest threat to trout is the invention of the digital camera.

-1,000,000

 

[salvelinus]

Stroke that e-peen all you want then.

 

[lv2nymph]

salvelinus wrote:
+1

The biggest threat to trout is the invention of the digital camera.

I agree with this because I've seen some pics that I just couldn't believe took place. But on the other hand there are plenty of anglers who do this responsibly.

 

[PennKev]

And exactly what does being holier-than-thou do for you?

There are so many more serious threats to our fisheries than anglers, fly anglers even, taking photos that mentioning it as the biggest threat is absurd. Further more, if it is such a sin you should not support this or any other web site that publishes or allows users to display ptotos of caught (and almost always released) fish. The conclusions that are jumped to by some posters when they see a fish pic are sickening. Would you automatically assume a person photographed lying in a hospital bed was doomed?

 

[salvelinus]

At the risk of pissing him off, I once asked Mike from the PFBC, who posts here, about all these pics. His reply to me was that studies showed any amount of time out of the water significantly increased mortality, and that quickly releasing the fish in the water was the best way to assure that the fish will live. Yes it was an inaccurate statement to say that pictures were the biggest threat, but why would you risk the life of a beautiful trout just for a picture to post on a forum? I take pictures of the streams and the surroundings, I can picture my catches from memory. If that makes me holier than thou, then so be it. At least I know I am doing the right thing.

 

[PennypackFlyer]

The biggest threat which will always be the biggest threat to any species is mankind. We alone have insured so many lives have been made extinct or put on the endangered list.

In other words which was here first...the angler or the camera?

 

[lv2nymph]

Perhaps it should be phrased "one of the biggest" and I speak of the instances where and I've watched this take place from upstream. Angler catches fish keeps it in net out of the water while his buddy runs up to him. Friend gets camera angler puts down net holds up fish friend gets picture angler looses grip on fish. Fish now flopping around on the bank while angler pushes it around trying to get ahold of fish, finally gets ahold of it and launches it back into stream. These are the instances I'm talking about not a quick 10 second pic in the stream. I don't' think it was directed at me but one thing's for sure I don't think I'm holier than anyone.

 

[PennKev]

L2n,

Not it wasn't directed at you.
As for the scenario you've just described, i've seen that very thing happen numerous times... ... Except no camera was involved. Just plain bad fish handling. Period. These idiots are mishandling fish whether a pic is taken or not. The only thing you forgot to mention was the prolonged and timid playing of the fish.

I tend to look at taking pictures the same way as barbed hooks. It might might make some people feel really good not to use them or take pics, but ultimately the significance is so low that we should not pressure others to do the same when there are far greater issues that need addressed. In this case, general fish handling skills.

Personally, I enjoy taking and seeing fish pictures for variety of reasons. I like being able to pull up pics of past trips and be reminded of not just pleasant days on the water but also of memorable or unique fish I may have otherwise forgotten about. I also enjoy seeing fish others have caught. I cannot catch every fish and I will never learn everything about my favorite streams. When I see someone who has gotten a large fish or perhaps an unexpected wild fish from a stream I know, it is exciting and encouraging and serves as a reminder that there is a lot to learn and experience in waters that I thought i've known very well.

Kev

 

[JackM]

I have spoken to many trout and they actually enjoy having their picture taken. Has anyone heard the fish complain?

 

[allan_s]

I took photos of over 500 fish last year. I am a murderer! Lol I get complaints because it's so hard to judge their size in my net, which is where I take 99 percent of my photos from. My net gets more tail than most and it's got the photos to prove it. Now only if I could get it to take photos of me holding the fish...

Jack, the fish don't like the flash. They said it's really hard to keep their eyes open and makes them not look as good. Those trout are so vain.

 

[Swattie87]

If done responsibly, I'd argue the increase in mortality rate from snapping a picture of a Trout is negligible. There are many examples on this forum and others of guys catching the same fish twice, or even different board members catching the same fish...sometimes multiple times even. Again, responsibly...some situations don't lend themselves well to taking a picture...large, played out fish, relatively warm water temps, below freezing temps. Some fish are hooked oddly, and others just won't sit still. Let's be reasonable here...a picture and back in the water yields a lower mortality rate than on the grill or hanging on the wall.

 

[streamerguy]

Swattie87 wrote:
If done responsibly, I'd argue the increase in mortality rate from snapping a picture of a Trout is negligible. There are many examples on this forum and others of guys catching the same fish twice, or even different board members catching the same fish...sometimes multiple times even.

Yep. A few years ago I caught a nice brown out of a tiny stream, and of course I had to snap a few pics of the memorable fish. I was afraid I took a little too many photos, but as it turns out I came across a pic of that same exact fish caught not one, but two years later by someone else(not sure if the photo was on here, maybe another site). The fish had a unique deformity on it's jaw and of course the spot patterns matched. The fish also grew an inch or two.

Right now I can think of at least 3 other fish I caught multiple times, with pics to prove. Who knows how many others I didn't take pics of. Just use a little common sense when photographing fish. No need to take 10 pics of every single fish you catch. As said, just be responsible and know how to properly handle fish.


I came across a Youtube video the other day of a guy filming a beautiful 15in wild brown he caught out of a small stream I fish. The fish was on a stringer, out of the water, AND being filmed....so I wonder if the fish will survive :roll: ;-) The stream is also stocked(though the fish was clearly wild), but that's a whole 'nuther thread......

 

[bigslackwater]

I always take a quick pic with the fish in the net. I keep my waterproof camera around my neck. I can pull off a shot in seconds most times and I try to keep the fish in the water, only lifting it for the shot. If the hook removal goes quickly or is already out, I'll lift the fish for a second shot. Having the camera around my neck and it being waterproof helps speed the process. When I had a non-waterproof digital camera, I spent a lot of time fumbling around trying to protect my camera...now If the camera takes a dunk, it doesn't mater. You'd be surprised how much time can be wasted digging out a camera and putting it away safely, all while the fish is out of water. Get a waterproof and a neck strap and you'll save a lot of time and take better pics.

 

[geebee]

We are the greatest threat to trout - we warm their water, make it acid, reduce it and take its shade.