I sometimes / often fish lakes or ponds because I find having to put on waders a big pitn. And where I live if I want to fish rivers, my preference, I mostly have to wade. I would guess 70% ~ 80% of local streams the trees and brush grow right to the water’s edge. There is just no room to cast if I not standing in the middle of the river. And of the 20% ~ 30% of the areas where the river bank is open, much of it is along areas that are a fish desert, not many fish there because there is little or no stream bed rock structure.
However, this thread appears to be asking more about a concern of ecological damage caused by wading than whether people wade or not. But why should stream bed damage be a bigger concern than other damage caused by fishing, C & R or otherwise?
A few years ago a guy I rarely see post anywhere anymore was concerned about the ethics of C & R. Apparently he interacts a lot with people on one of the western reservations. Where inflicting pain and stress on fish, from fighting for their life, from C & R is considered immoral or unethical. Apparently it is thought to be more ethical to fish less often, and only catch fish once and then eat them, that to repeatedly C & R the same fish. Which is considered torturing the fish. [ that also seemed to be part of the reason Mr. Betts developed the TAG (touch and go) hook) Experience the taking of the fly, but never actually hook and fight the fish.]
Actually I was expecting to see some discussion of this topic in the Mystery of the Labyrinth Hook thread I started from the information in the " Catch and Deny" article I linked to in that thread.
Maybe no one actually read it. It starts out describing a change of attitude after hearing a recording of a fish being caught and trying to escape. The recording had been made by the Royal Academy. (British I assume). That the author later compares to catching birds on a long line, then releasing them after they are reeled in. Which he thought would not be tolerated. And it’s only tolerated with fish because they are unseen and unheard in the water.
The article goes on to discuss how the idea of C & R was considered radical when it was introduced in the 1960s, catching Blue Gill off their nest, the ecological justification for C & R, and other topics.
However, there is no easy answer. Many people oppose hunting, yet often hunting, culls the herd, and the remaining animals are healthier than an over populated herd. And the fees charged for hunting or fishing licenses go toward improving the environment. And more importantly, as long as people have an interest in fishing, they will also have an interest in healthy streams. ( this is a good thing imo, today to many people who don’t actually spend any time in the outdoors push environmental laws to preserve something they have no first hand knowledge of)
The article recounts an interesting story about the Green Back Cutthroat being placed on the endangered species list in RMNP. The fish did not thrive while on the protected list. But after it was moved to only “threated” status and C & R was permitted. The fish recovered much more rapidly, not only were more fishermen on the stream catching them, more bears were seen on the same streams catching them too.
As you could imagine some people support the view to do absolutely no harm, and others were, “oh, please, they’re just fish, and if it hurts them that much, they wouldn’t come back and take the fly again.” I think all that is needed is a proper balance. Stop people from fishing and the interest in protecting the stream drops, permit people to fish, and interest in a healthy stream and fish population increases. The true sportsman will have an interest in finding the correct balance.
I must admit that I find it disgusting when I go to the coast and see people fishing off the shore or off a fishing pier, when they’ve caught a fish they don’t want to eat, and they cut fillets off their sides to use as bait and the poor fish is still alive. Or at least appears to be, still gasping for air. And I sometimes feel bad for a fish that I’m almost certain I have caught the same fish at the same spot on the river, numerous times when periodically fishing the same stretch of river over the summer.
Anyway, if it interest you - here are links to the Catch and Deny document, and another one I found searching for the same topic. One view is - Game fish are to valuable to be caught only once. The other view is - some fish are to valuable to be caught 30 times each month.
https://www.kerasote.com/essays/CatchandDeny.pdf
https://mobile.nytimes.com/1999/11/07/sports/outdoors-hookless-fly-fishing-is-a-humane-advance.html?referer=http%3A%2F%2Fm.facebook.com%2F
Getting back to the original concern about stream bed ecology. I would second the advice to contact Paul Gaskell. Very approachable bloke. He and I exchanged a couple of emails over this past weekend.