Reel Truth: To get back to the original subject of this thread, I was wondering if you had any idea how the anglers were chosen for the studies Jim Martin cited. They were likely an educated group in terms of C&R, and they were probably very contientious in how they handled the fish, especially since there were researchers looking over their shoulders. Does this represent the norm?

An example: two weeks ago I was fishing the Mlfjghdfh River in Oregon. I was swinging a fly through a run and on the run below me were a spinner fisher and another fly guy. They hooked up within a few minutes of each other, both 5-6 lb wild fish. Both guys yarded the fish onto the rocks. The spinner guy showed it to his girlfriend for about 90 seconds, then let it go. It swam vigorously into the channel, probably to soon die. The fly guy landed it near the tailout so he had to carry it partly across the tailout and up the bank fifty yards in order to impress his woman. He probably had it out of the water five minutes. Then he walked back dowm to the tailout to let it go.

Anyway, the point is two wild fish, two dead fish. I know this is too small of a sample to make conclusions but I also know most of us have probably seen similar things many times. So what happens to that 7% when you factor in people who don't know what they are doing or don't give a crap?

I'm not sure where I'm going here, I'm mostly just venting - still pissed about what I saw. Is angler education the answer? Angler education is just rhetoric -- bureaucratic spew unless it is backed up somehow.

C&R is without a doubt the best management technique these days but it has problems. While Plunkers theory that catching a fish is justifiable if you make a turd out of it but not if you just enjoy catching it is ridiculous, he has a valid point regarding closing all fishing for depleted stocks, especially when considering situations like what I saw.