According to Black1958; Beggs et al.1980; Graham et al.1982; and Wood et al. 1983 all indicate that exhaustive exercise can result in delayed mortality of a large fraction of hook and released salmon. There are many studies, however, that indicate that this is not the case. Those studies have resulted in a new management strategy by DFO in the inception of hook and release supported by governments, various Salmon Advisory groups and to some degree the general public.  There, then,  is conflicting results with regard to post exercise/angling mortality among Atlantic Salmon. Why?

The studies that I have looked at that support hook and release, mainly Whoriskey on the Ponoi River in Russia, the Conne River Release study and a paper edited by Whoriskey and Whelan : Managing Wild Atlantic Salmon: New Challenges-new Techniques all have some major concerns with regard to how this translates to Hook and Release on salmon streams in Newfoundland and Labrador.

1. The Ponoi River has a main stream channel of 426km and drains an area of 15,000 km. We have no such river in Newfoundland. Our rivers are much smaller, with less water flow. The Ponoi river is north of the Arctic Circle and has a water temperature that never exceeded 20 degrees Celsius. Whoriskey claims that if water temperature exceeds 22 degrees celsius this may greatly affect the results. Whoriskey(2000) says:

“ However at warm temperatures(>22 degrees ), in extremely soft water, or when the fish     have moved recently from salt water to fresh water, the magnitude of physiological     disturbances may be increased and the fish may suffer higher rates of mortality.(p.123).

If that is the case then we need to be very careful with monitoring water temperatures on our small Newfoundland rivers, which the proponents of hook and release state categorically do have a detrimental effect on hook and release survival rate. We now operate outfitting business lodges in our province and there would be undue pressure on DFO to keep rivers open no matter what the water temperature, because Salmon Angling is a business now and one could see Outfitting Lodges placing pressure to maintain future business.

2. The Ponoi River system is a totally Sports Fishing Enterprise, with all rights to the river owned by the Ponoi River Company. All commercial weir fishing was cancelled and hook and release was initiated, with anglers only allowed to kill one fish per week. Whoriskey attributes the increase of salmon in the river by saying that the cancellation of weir fishing and hook and release have increased the abundance of fish on the river. Therefore, he promotes the idea of hook and release by saying that the salmon have increased, but that is in conjunction with the cancellation of weir fishing. Wouldn’t it seem feasible that if weir fishing was cancelled, that the number of salmon would increase anyway? That argument is a none argument as far as I am concerned. Plus the river is now totally privatised and only sports fishing is permitted.

In Newfoundland we have a hook and retain of four fish, and we must release fish over 63 centimetres . On the Ponoi River system there is no measuring system, therefore fish are not held to be measured. Thus, this would cut down on the length of time the fish is on the hook, subsequently influencing the data. If Newfoundland rivers were strictly hook and release and privatized maybe we would reach the same data. Is this the science that is going to support the privatization of our rivers? This seems to be where the Salmon Advisory Groups are heading and that is not the position of the Newfoundland and Labrador Wildlife Federation.

3. All of the studies I have looked at make cautionary notes when it arrives at their conclusions about the length of time the fish in on the hook, the temperature of the water, the softness of the water, if the fish are caught close to the mouth of the river, air exposure, etc. Al the research calls for further study on all the above mentioned cautionary notes. The results are not conclusive and yet we have a management scheme that promotes conservation in the same vein that it promotes angling to supplant our GDP.

4. Whoriskey indicates in his research that salmon may be caught as much a three times in the one season. He cautions that angler data on the number of fish caught may give a false impression of the number of fish on the river system. He cautions DFO by stating that “ where harvest levels are dictated in part by information from angling CPUE statistics, the levels will need to be calibrated for the existence of multiple captures if unintended overfishing is to be avoided” (Whoriskey 2000,124). DFO allows for a 5% catch-and -release mortality (Whoriskey 2000,p.216), if this is the case then a river with 5000 fish, 250 fish are allowed to be killed through hook and release. If our salmon stocks are at such risk as indicated by DFO, then 1 fish is too many to die in the name of a conservation.

5.I have been a salmon angler since 1968 and during my early years of fishing I saw very few dead fish. I am seeing dead fish now, especially in pools where salmon are forced to hang up because of water levels. I am not seeing a great many dead fish, but in the past Five years I can recall about 40-50 dead fish. Other anglers (through personal communication) have informed me of the same.

6. Many fisherman (local and tourists) hook and release far more than four fish a day. I have witness fisherman hooking and releasing as high as 20 fish in one day’s fishing. Locals see tourists doing this and subsequently do the same, having fun or looking for the fish that measurers between 60 -63 Centimetres. What happens with tourists, is that guides are sometimes paid a huge tip by the foreign angler if he permits more that four fish. Local guides get paid minimum wage and to get a substantial tip( in American Money), one can see the rational behind the hook and release scenario. I have witnessed this myself, and I am a licensed guide, and have been placed in the situation above. I no longer get clients from local outfitters in the area.