Fishing by the Numbers

Hello out there. This blog is indeed still alive, as am I.

I haven't been fishing as much lately due to the arrival of a new bundle of joy and starting my new job. All of these factors make it more difficult to write about fishing.

However, I thought I might take the time to share this letter that I sent off to Fly Fishing and Tying Journal (IMHO the best fly fishing magazine published), on the subject of '100 fish days.'

A little background first:
A reader had written to FFTJ bragging about how he routinely caught (and released) 100 fish in a day. At first I thought it was a joke, but as I read on, I realised that the author was deadly serious - he even offered tips for keeping track of his target catch rate per hour. Sounds too much like work to me. I also found it somewhat ironic that this particular issue also featured an informed article by Dave Whitlock on the subject of responsible catch and release. Whitlock's article encouraged anglers to exercise restraint when the catch rate became too prolific, in order to minimise the risk of fish dying from being handled. What a concept in this age of over consumption of practically everything!

So, here's my letter to the editor, which pretty much sums up my feelings about 'fishing by the numbers:'

Dear Dave,

I must say I found the 100/day letter by William Krauss printed in the Fall 2008 issue to be in somewhat poor taste. Compared to Whitlock’s gentle admonishment to limit our impact on the fisheries that we treasure, Krauss’ bragging about 100 fish days appears as crass and vulgar as the carnage depicted in fishing and safari photos of yesteryear. Perhaps you were trying to be ironic by printing this letter alongside Whitlock’s article? Perhaps Krauss himself is being facetious? If so, then I have well and truly risen to his bait. How many of those 100/day fish died as a result of Krauss’ desire to prove some dubious point about fishing skill or predatory prowess? If Whitlock’s estimates of 10% mortality from C&R are correct, and the figures that Krauss reports are accurate, then that’s about 2.6k dead trout. I would suspect that mortality rates would be higher in the case of an angler such as Krauss, given that he is admittedly more concerned with catching the next fish than with properly reviving and releasing the fish in hand.

I do not dispute Krauss’ right to catch and release 26k+ trout in his lifetime. I do wish he had better reasons for doing it. I can only hope that in his next 10 years of fishing, Mr Krauss comes to value quality over quantity. I have never regretted losing count on days where I caught lots of fish. But my most vivid fishing memories are of days where the numbers were fairly low – memories of quiet celebration as I release with shaking hands that one fish stalked and taken from a difficult lie. It seems to me that if I routinely caught 100 fish/ day, the magic of these moments would be lost.

Kind Regards

Mike Nye

And here is the response of the editor - the fly fishing legend Dave Hughes - who seems to hold similar views on the subject:

Dear Dr. Nye,

Thank you for your note, and the thoughtful way you expressed what I consider the correct sentiments. (Only God and my publisher know why that particular piece got into print.)

I was just fishing a remote mountain stream that had potential to provide me the sort of day written about, with some surprisingly nice trout thrown in now and then…I always like it best when the trout are of varied sizes, so that surprise is a part of the catch. I started at noon, took time for lunch, and quit at 4:00, and found myself pausing longer and longer to ponder after a nice trout…my catch fell 80 or more short of the specified goal, but somehow I went away thinking I’d had a good day.

My mistake. I need to buy a clicker.

Dave Hughes

Editor of Flyfishing & Tying Journal