Your thoughts on releasing large stripers

[nightfighter]

I keep a couple for the table and sprinkle the infield once for friends and neighbors, but don't load the freezer as I like it fresh for table fare. So if I keep one in a 150 caught, I am good with that. But if I get a pig between tonight and Sunday, it is coming to the scale. It would be only the second fish I have killed for a tournament, ever. And I am good with that too.


Still don't get why a big fish is such a more significant breeder than a mid 30 inch fish that has its longer life ahead of it to breed.... Human females produce a finite number of eggs in their lifecycle, and then no more. (learned this from ten years of infertility when I was married)Why would this not be true with fish?

[Back Beach]

I used to keep a lot of big ones. Some to sell, some to brag about, and some to eat or gift out.

I release practically everything I catch now regardless of size, particularly because none of the aforementioned reasons to keep one appeal to me anymore...i.e.(sale, ego, eat, gifts) Plus, I like to see them swim away after a good battle.

I do keep a couple for the striper cup if they're big enough. Admittedly, its becoming less attractive for me to do so simply because the fish is being killed(primarily) for a tournament, then consumed by someone other than me so as not to "waste" the fish when I would have released the fish otherwise.

Its quite easy to find people willing to take a dead fish off your hands, particularly a nice fresh striper. I feel a lot of people take fish with this in mind and kill a fish that might have been released otherwise knowing they have a "convenient and respectable" way to dispose of the fish after it hits the scale. I'm certainly guilty of this type of behavior, but the tide is shifting.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by nightfighter

Still don't get why a big fish is such a more significant breeder than a mid 30 inch fish that has its longer life ahead of it to breed.... Human females produce a finite number of eggs in their lifecycle, and then no more. (learned this from ten years of infertility when I was married)Why would this not be true with fish?

I think the logic is that a large fish is a "survivor" with strong genes to pass on to the future. Darwin's theory. Large fish presumably got that way by being stronger, smarter and some resistance to disease.

[MarkB]

Originally Posted by nightfighter

Still don't get why a big fish is such a more significant breeder than a mid 30 inch fish that has its longer life ahead of it to breed.... Human females produce a finite number of eggs in their lifecycle, and then no more. (learned this from ten years of infertility when I was married)Why would this not be true with fish?

Someone answered already, but I'll elaborate. First, fish - and many other animals - are not like humans. They go on reproducing until they die. Fish just drop eggs in the water, so there's no need to spend years raising young. Just as importantly, the fish that reach the biggest size are 1. female, and 2. the oldest. Taking number one first, in population biology its females that are important.

When biologists to the math of reproduction, they literally don't count males. One male can fertilize multiple female's eggs, but each egg is needed to produce a new fish, so females are the important ones in reproduction. When you want to cull a population, like deer, you should really be shooting only does, not bucks.

The second issue is also really important in its own way. The biggest/oldest fish are the ones who have survived all of life's challenges. They are the most resistant to disease and infection, they survived their juvenile years of predation by larger fish, they've proved they can migrate up and down the coast, they can succeed getting food, etc. All of this proves that they have good genes. It's those genes you want in the next generations.

Think of it this way - if you owned an NFL team, would you want to stock your team with players from the college draft, or pick them from Pop Warner teams and wait for them? Some of the best Pop Warner players might become great pros, but most will never even play college ball. But players who have lasted the longest in organized ball and proved themselves in all levels of competition are the best bet. It's like that in life generally. And that's why I'm in favor of taking an occasional mid-sized keeper and leaving the big cows in the water.