19 replies to this topic

[rick james]

There are many days on the Geen when I feel like that as there hardly seems to be a fish around and I'm convinced that 'guy' caught the only fish! Jokes aside, I think people should have the right to keep fish, provided they respect the limits and the resource is sustainable. Having said that, for me there is more value in the act of fishing and being outdoors than there is in keeping fish and I support catch and release even though some fish die.

[DILLIGAF?!]

Sports license allows you to keep 2 fish. Conservation 1.

[fishfreek]

I some times wonder how many guys out there catch their limit on one river or creek, take the fish home and then drive on to the next river to do the same all over again.

[chinooky]

Sports license allows you to keep 2 fish. Conservation 1.

The law is clear on this.

Your own conscience should guide you in my opinion. I like my steaks rare. Even if it offends the vegans.

[bigugly]

Ethic can only be guided by you. If they are in their legal rights there's nothing you can or should do or say. Myself I have no qualms in admitting I will keep a few fish over the course of a year because I like to eat fish, I don't get offended when others may chirp at me for keeping a fish it's my choice. Saying that I'm not a huge fan of trout but my dad and uncle love the things, I prefer perch and rock bass.

[tombo]

I myself will keep the occasional trout, but more often walleye and perch. I am aware of some that litterally fill thier freezers! I hope they get caught. I believe if we all take care to release fish properly, and only keep the occasional that fish numbers should do ok. I think those that gill lift fish, and prematurely release fish do alot more harm than they think they are. I've seen many youtube videos of some pretty seasoned anglers gill lifting 10lb steelhead one after another! Cmon guys! Howd you like to be lifted by your cheek!!

[jkw]

This may be a little heady as I did grad studies on environmental ethics surrounding sport hunting and fishing, but here is my 2 cents.. 

 

As far as the question of harvesting fish and environmental ethics is concerned, i think the most important point is being overlooked. Catch and release fishing allows you to make an informed decision to release or keep fish within the regulations of the fishery. Informed is the key. If the fish is a big one, a spawner full of eggs, a native fish to a fragile fishery, or of course a slot fish, put it back. Choose the fish you harvest based on the population dynamics of the fish you are after, based on keeping the best genes in the gene-pool, and keeping prime reproducing fish alive to swim and spawn another day. That is the key to keeping fisheries healthy. You can be legally entitled to keep a fish but it can still be a bad or unethical fish to keep, whether it is a 28" walleye out of the BOQ or an egg wagon steelhead on its way up the river. Go above and beyond the regs for the betterment of the fish. 

 

At the same time, keeping and eating (the right) fish from a fishery that can sustain some harvest is an essential part of the practice of fishing. Fishing should not be only for sport, as this is where ethical concern also arises. It is hedonistic for humans to hook fish over and over in the face, look at them, take a hero shot and let them go when there is never any component of sustenance and harvest involved. It is hard to say that out loud because I too love to fish so much that I do this. But if the question is about ethics, that is the crux of the ethical matter. Even if I harvest only 5 % of what I catch, I believe the intention to harvest and eat (the right) fish remains one of most important parts of the practice, the one that links us most to the natural world.

[rayray519]

Very well said jkw

[tombo]

Agreed...

[Knuguy]

. 

 

At the same time, keeping and eating (the right) fish from a fishery that can sustain some harvest is an essential part of the practice of fishing. Fishing should not be only for sport, as this is where ethical concern also arises. It is hedonistic for humans to hook fish over and over in the face, look at them, take a hero shot and let them go when there is never any component of sustenance and harvest involved. It is hard to say that out loud because I too love to fish so much that I do this. But if the question is about ethics, that is the crux of the ethical matter. Even if I harvest only 5 % of what I catch, I believe the intention to harvest and eat (the right) fish remains one of most important parts of the practice, the one that links us most to the natural world.

 

You have made that point much better than I could have. I agree with you wholeheartedly. I don't think I could justify going fishing if I never kept one to eat. Also, my wife would give me a very hard time if I went for the sole purpose of catching and releasing. We have an 8 year old granddaughter who is about to face this question. She likes to catch fish but doesn't have the heart to kill one. Sooner or later, but knowing her, probably sooner, she will need to figure it out.   

[RiverRuns]

Agree with JKW...
Also, if we stop keeping a few to eat, it will give more fodder (no pun intended) to the anti-fishing and hunting groups

[Rainbow]

A 0 fish limit would have made for a much better fishery on the tributaries east of Toronto. 

[Ruiner_]

I don't think there is too much wrong with keeping ONE fish. Personally I would throw all Rainbows back but that's just me.  

[Rainbow]

I don't think there is too much wrong with keeping ONE fish. Personally I would throw all Rainbows back but that's just me.  

 

The reduction from 1 to 0 would have dramatically more positive effect than 2 to 1.

[Swing4Steel]

The reduction from 1 to 0 would have dramatically more positive effect than 2 to 1.

I doubt that really. Most fish make it to the sanctuaries pretty quick out east. I would think most of the creeks out there get seeded to carrying capacity or close to it. It the big one in the west end that doesn't have access to suitable spawning and rearing grounds that wouldn't. I bet there are way more bows killed in the lake than in rivers

[Rainbow]

That's what they call a sanctuary.
I truly hope guys like jkw are our future fishing Ministry.

 

A sanctuary is where you can't fish at all

 

 

I doubt that really. Most fish make it to the sanctuaries pretty quick out east. I would think most of the creeks out there get seeded to carrying capacity or close to it. It the big one in the west end that doesn't have access to suitable spawning and rearing grounds that wouldn't. I bet there are way more bows killed in the lake than in rivers

 

It's true that a lot of steelhead get killed on the lake. The limit would need to be reduced there as well. 

 

[jkw]

That's what they call a sanctuary.
I truly hope guys like jkw are our future fishing Ministry.

 

haha thanks tossing iron. I did do a lot of thinking on the subject.. 12 years guiding you see a lot of harvest, especially walleye fishing in NWO and cooking shorelunch everyday. As for ministry work I think i will be happier as lowly guide... or stay at home Dad.