Does anglers killing carp make any difference?

[davek]

One less is one less, kill em all, cheers davo

[donutcrooks]

Under the new 2017 Fishing Guide, it now states the following;
'NOXIOUS Species: Must not be returned to the water alive. Kill the carp immediately. Do not leave the dead fish on shore at the fishing location. Dead carp can be returned to the water - cut the carcass so that it sinks.'

I presume that the fish is cut open so that creatures in the water eat the eggs.

[Basti]

No its cut so the swim bladder deflates

[laneends]

Not advocating they shouldn't be killed, only asking if it has any impact in the big picture.

Good that regs clarify to return dead carp, as it becomes rodent etc attraction left on shore. makes it easier if you are boat or kayak based.

[gregmaka]

When i first fished Frazer National Park at Eildon we were only catching small redfinn and brown trout,never Carp.Ten years later all we caught was big CARP. I never went back again.I'm amazed how quickly they populated. Also The Maribanong river just past Calder raceway,we only ever caught trout,ells and Tench,never Carp.What has happened. I hope when i go to Thornton Goulburn river for old times sake i don't find them there.

And i also agree dont leave them just on the bank,they stay alive for hours even on a hot day.

[laneends]

you could use the same theory that taking an under size fish will make little difference to fish stock ether but we all put under size fish back again simple it's the rules

Removing undersized fish does change the environment as you have changed something. As a result fisheries vigorously police this, still yet to hear of then fining anyone for returning a carp.

Even the guy on catch and cook returned one live to lake Glenmaggie on camera, whilst saying should really do that, but did anyway.

[Genericname]

I am concerned about throwing too many back in, especially in the still sections of water. Eels and yabbies would presumably make a meal of a carcass.

[DougieK]

If you did catch and release a carp you are doing no more harm than if you never caught it in the first place. ie you are having nil environmental impact, which is probably why the fines for doing so is rarely, if ever, enforced. Anyone got any stats on such fines?

You can't collect data on how often something doesn't happen.

[ducky]

I honestly don't think it could make any more than a superficial effect on a waterway.

Take tna for example, tiny waterway. it has been fished for yonks. Still produces bulk carp.

If killing carp can't cut the numbers in a tiny lake like that what hope does it have of changing numbers anywhere else?

As for policing the thread wolly, it has been a bit over the top recently? Locking threads that werent out of control because you don't agree with the discussion/topic is a bit over the top and has a negative effect on the forum.

[laneends]

I think it does more to maintain public awareness that they are a pest, rather than actually do anything to cull them. If the public are fully aware they are a pest then it might go a long way to prevent people deliberately populating them for sport.

So the policy is definitely a bonus for public awareness at least.