I also would take the wider lens. The 55-200mm might keep you from being able to fit everything that you want into your shot. If you are in a position to consider a more versatile lens for vacations, the 18-135mm works well. I have taken it on several vacations and the zoom range was quite nice.
I myself would use my walkabout lens, a Tamron 16mm - 300mm lens. I have regretted it in the past when I have limited my focal lengths to a rather narrow field.
Hard to tell, since you have no images on your site, just your fish prints! HOW do you "see"? What images do you want to return with? If your second choice, then your longer lens.
55-200 I grab my 24-105 consistently. The extra range of the 55-200 would be great at times. Most of my posted photos were shot with a C size sensor which would multiply the 24-105 by 1.6 so that would be pretty close to your 55-200. I now use a full size sensor camera and the 24-105 is a true 24-105.
What brand are you using? Camera and lens.
You've got to check out this link.
If I were in your situation, I would take the 18-55mm, for the wide angle. There's only so far you an step back to fir everything in sometimes.
Me personally I would take my M.zuiko micro four thirds 45mm prime. It has amazing clarity and is my favourite lens. Having a prime forces me to be mobile and almost interact with the subject matter. I like that, I like being a part of the process then a spectator.
The 18-55. I have a similar lens, a Sigma 18-50 f/2.8. That lens in on my camera 90% of the time. Even for landscape shots, it's my 1st choice because of the drama a wider angle can create.
A Canon EF 100mm F2.8 macro, and a sturdy tripod with a panoramic head. It's the sharpest of all my lenses, and with stitching, you can shoot very wide panos. So birds at feeder, check. Landscapes, check. Portraits, check.
