What Constitues A Catch

MKern

MKern

Active member
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
3,822
I am just curious. What do you guys consider a catch?
Having the fish strike the fly.
Having a fish on your line for a considerable amount of time.
Having a fish on and you are able to reel in your line past the tip top.
Bringing the fish to hand and removing the hook.

I have heard all of these within the past 6 months.

My friends and I only count the fish brought to hand and released. But, I read an article pursuading fishermen to count strikes as well, because afterall, you fooled a fish. You always hear this from other fishermen, "Caught 5, but missed 4." To me, that means you caught 5, period. What do you guys think?
 
It is considered a catch when the fisherman has control of the fish, gets two feet in bounds and then makes a fishing move...oh wait...

If I hook one and lose it immediately and play another but end up losing it on the way in and bring one to hand, I say I hooked one lost one and caught one. Missed one means, to me at least, that the fish struck but I failed to get a hook up. Depends on how much money is at stake.
 
Count? Do people actually do that? Why?
 
Since I traditionally don't keep count I haven't considered this much. This year, however, I have kept a fly fishing journal which includes how many fish caught among other things. If I am able to get a good initial hook set that allows me to get the fish within net reach and identify the species and size that's enough. Since I don't net most of my fish if they thrash off but probably could have been netted I suppose that can be considered "caught."
 
Three guys rob a bank, the police get one in jail, they get one in cuffs but he runs out of the police car before getting to the station, and the other they shoot at but miss and he gets away.

How many bank robbers are "caught"?
 
Fishidiot wrote:
Since I traditionally don't keep count I haven't considered this much. This year, however, I have kept a fly fishing journal which includes how many fish caught among other things. If I am able to get a good initial hook set that allows me to get the fish within net reach and identify the species and size that's enough. Since I don't net most of my fish if they thrash off but probably could have been netted I suppose that can be considered "caught."


Me too.
 
troutbert wrote:
Count? Do people actually do that? Why?

Yes. The positive side of C&R fishing is that the trout are returned to the water. The negative is that fishing is another "game" that guys compete at. "I got 9" "Well I got 11" Whatever... I'm sure it's always been that way.
 
Once I stop turning the reel, its caught in my book. My goal is not to handle them just hook and play them. Its better they fall off before I have to touch them. Sure the larger or colorful or unusual fish(Tiger) I'd like to grab to snap a photo of but if they fall off as I'm lifting the line, its actually better for them. If I wanted to handle all my fish just to say they were caught, I would use barbed hooks and a net. As is, I use neither as I think they do more harm then good.

Mark
 
Padraic wrote:
troutbert wrote:
Count? Do people actually do that? Why?

Yes. The positive side of C&R fishing is that the trout are returned to the water. The negative is that fishing is another "game" that guys compete at. "I got 9" "Well I got 11" Whatever... I'm sure it's always been that way.

It probably has always been that way, and I doubt that it will end soon. The point I was crudely trying to make is that it doesn't HAVE to be that way.

It's the choice of the angler. You can keep count, and compare with your buddies, to see who "won." Or not.

Not counting and competing changes the experience somewhat. It frees you up to think about other things.

You can take an interest in the trees and other vegetation, in the birds, in identifying nymphs in the stream, in the geology as you progress up the stream, in historical stuff (logging railroad grades etc.), checking the degree of deer browsing in the area, analyzing the stream habitat, doing photography, any number of things.

If you are really focused on a competition, catching more trout than someone else, it's difficult to pay much attention to other things and to notice your surroundings.
 
If you count strikes, you are also counting refusals, because afterall, many times on more pressured streams trout will rise to a fly and "miss" or just not take it, but you still see the rise and rings. I've even had refusals from brook & brown trout on unpressured streams.
No I consider a trout caught if you've brought it to hand. More liberally at you feet, because if it gets off at that point it's only a hand touvc away , and many times is shaken off and it is going to be released anyway.
 
Matt,
I have always considered touching the leader as caught..But then I fish salt and fresh water. UnderI.G.F.A. rules if you touch the leader its a caught fish.so if I get a trout to the bank and it gets off its a lost fish unless i have touched the leader which you do anyway to release it.
 
I count a fish as caught when it's in hand, which all in all I try to avoid. On the other hand, I do keep track of hook-ups simply because the number relative to the pattermn used is a useful entry in the journal.
Coughlin
 
Troutbert wrote:

It's the choice of the angler. You can keep count, and compare with your buddies, to see who "won." Or not.

Not counting and competing changes the experience somewhat. It frees you up to think about other things.

Not to be a pisspot but counting how many you caught doesn't necessarily mean it is a competition. Keeping a log, fish caught per year, per hour, can just be a matter of interest to some. To others it can be an obsession. Neither indicates competition unless there is booty for the winner.

I count how many I caught and am interested in how many the other guys caught too. What they caught them on and where. This tells me about the stream and many of the things you describe.

I also find myself doing alot of the things you describe including becoming distracted by fixing tree tubes, taking pictures for websites, stopping to talk to landowners, helping them with chores if they accept my offers, etc. And when I'm done goofing off, I fish and I count. But I'm not competing...
 
I take pictures and admire the world around me too. Let's get real, most people can take notice of the world around them, and yet still count at the same time. It's not rocket science (just geology, entomology, and mathmatics).
 
MKern wrote:
I take pictures and admire the world around me too. Let's get real, most people can take notice of the world around them, and yet still count at the same time. It's not rocket science (just geology, entomology, and mathmatics).


That wasn't my point.

I fish the FFO stretch of Clarks Creek a lot, and so, I run into a lot of guys who I don't know real well. And when they ask about how I am doing, I usualy answer with "Not so well" or "The action's been pretty steady on..." To come up with an exact number, I'd have to replay the day and tell you where and how I caught each fish. It's just the way my head works. I don't keep tallies, I spin stories. Some guys really press. They want to know how many fish, so they can compare scores. It's a real turn off.

A board regular (who hasn't visited for a very long time) used to carry a walkie talkie with him when fishing with his cousin. They would call out their count after every released fish and argue about whether a fish "counted" or not. It gave me a headache.

My own fishing buddy Paul rarely gives his "count". If he does it's not boasting. It's one of the reasons why I enjoy fishing with him so much.

I'd say a fish "counts" if you say it does. What will it matter for your journal, so long as you note it properly? Who's going to know? Who really cares? Unless of course you are competing, and then there has to be rules. (bleh)
 
Ignoring the "competition" question, I consider a fish caught only when I remove the hook. I think of it as whether I would have been able to harvest him if I wanted to. I mean, if you returned to your cabin home in 1750 and your wife and kids were waiting for a nice fish dinner, and they greeted you at the door with the question "How many did you catch?" and you told them 6 and then put 2 on the table, I don't think it would go over too well. If I'm keeping count, I may also keep in mind how many I hooked and played for "awhile" but got off, but I don't consider these "caught". I rarely keep track of the number of fish that strike that I don't hook, unless it's of interest to another fisherman, like as a means of communicating how many fish or hungry fish are in a particular area.

As far as the competition part goes, I often keep track up to a point, maybe 6 or 8, where it then becomes more of an estimate because it isn't important enough to focus that hard on it. I don't know why I keep count at all, it certainly isn't to impress others. Like Padraic said, if asked by a stranger how I did I usually just say something like "pretty good" or "got a few" or "not so good" but if my fishing partner wife asks I'll give a number or estimate because she wants to know. And visa versa, but it's not a competition thing. I do definitely keep track of one number though, and that's "zero" - for some reason I can relax and enjoy the experience a lot more once I get off the schnide. Is that a form of competition?
 
Last time I had an acurate count was about a month ago, I caught 1 fish. It's not uncommon though to have a 100 fish day, and unless I write each fish down in a journal that "count" becomes meaningless.
On the other hand if you are not keeping a journal then the only reason you are counting is to keep score, in other words it's competition. Fly-fishing isn't a competition, it is a recreational sport. If it were a competiition you'd have to just declare me the winner, cause if I keep count accurately, at the end of the day I'd have the most fish.
As it is, I'm only interested in how many legal sized brookies I catch and their weight and length. I really do need to keep a journal though, I'm losing my memory if not my mind. :-D
 
I do definitely keep track of one number though, and that's "zero" - for some reason I can relax and enjoy the experience a lot more once I get off the schnide. Is that a form of competition?

Maybe, but I have to admit I feel the same way! :p
 
It's not uncommon though to have a 100 fish day....

If it were a competiition you'd have to just declare me the winner, cause if I keep count accurately, at the end of the day I'd have the most fish....

I must urge you, at least once, to actually count because it will be a lesson in just how many 100 fish actually is....
 
Stone_Fly wrote:
.... Fly-fishing isn't a competition, it is a recreational sport. If it were a competiition you'd have to just declare me the winner, cause if I keep count accurately, at the end of the day I'd have the most fish.

So Stone_Fly, you're not competitive about fly fishing, you're just better than everybody else? ;-)
 
Back
Top