New Technique, New Species

[Zubris21]

Thursday night a couple buddies and I headed out to the North end of Dease Lake to place some set lines for burbot. We went back Friday night with low expectations. There are plenty of burbot in the lake, just seems most people have to let their lines soak a long time before they get anything. I was pretty confident we had a good spot, after reading the in-fisherman article about them a while back. Anyways we lucked out and pulled up 1 smallish burbot and 1 small Laker. We brought them both home and made a beer batter for the Burbot, it was pretty tasty. here are some pics.

 

The ethical question is... Although set lining for Burbot is permitted, The regs state any other game fish caught must be released. Well I have no problem with that, however teh Laker we caught was dead as a doorknob when we pulled it out of ice, no gasping for air, no burping, nothing. After a few minutes of serious contemplation we decided not to let the meat go to waste and brought it home. The possession limit for lakers is 3 , so we were well under that, just the method it was caught, was not legal. What would you have done?

 

 

 

 

Edited April 4, 2009 by freshwaterfanatic

[BillM]

I don't think it's a question of being ethical when the law clearly states that you must release any game fish caught on a set line.

 

Dead or not, legally it should have gone back down the hole.

[timmeh]

If the fish was as dead as you say then why waste it. I would have done the same, it's just unfortunate the laker didn't survive, but there's no point in releasing a dead fish.

 

However if you started catching multiple lakers using this method then you should switch to a legal technique or different location. If you continued to catch lakers and continued fishing the same, then I think you're in the wrong big time. Sometimes you inadvertantly catch fish you don't try for and it sounds like that's what happened here.

Edited April 4, 2009 by timmeh

[Zubris21]

I agree, legally it should have. But , ethically, We took this animals life (accidentally mind you) and I feel as though it would have been disrespectful to waste it.

 

Law's and ethics do not always run parallel and that's where the debate begins...

 

Like the old adage asks, would you steal a loaf of bread to feed your family if they were starving?

[BillM]

I wouldn't have wasted it either, I was just playing devils advocate

[jediangler]

I don't believe a dead fish put back down the hole is wasted. It would have been consumed by any number of scavengers that survive on dead fish. If a C.O. had stopped you, it might have meant a fine or loss of equipment and a fine. I know that this is a delicate topic, but the law remains clear.

[uglyfish]

law also states its illegal to allow any game to spoil. and tossing the fish back in the hole would have followed along those lines i think. if ur really curious, email ur local MNR office and ask what their legal answer is on the subject.

[Gerritt]

As stated... Ethics and laws do not always agree with one another.. If you intentionally meant to fish for lakers I would say you should be held accountable.. But an incidental catch and death... my ethics would have surpassed the Law.. I too would have consumed the fish...

 

You're damned if you do... (eat the fish) and you're damned if you dont.. (let it spoil)... either way you lose....

 

 

Now I do have a question..... is it legal to leave set lines unattended in you're FMZ?

 

G

[Zubris21]

Just got back from checking the lines again, no lakers this time luckily, but we did pull up a burbot around the same size as what is posted.

 

 

Gerritt, The regs. don't specify that you need to tend your set lines. The regs do however specify that your set line must have your name, address and telephone number attached to them in some way. This leads me to believe they can be left unattended for reasonable lengths of time. Thus far we have been checking them every 24 hours, if not sooner.

 

 

As for the law stating "you are not allowed to let the meat spoil"... I have not come across any notation in the BC regs that state that. Ontario's regs certainly do, and that is what I'm used to abiding by, and personally believe is ethically correct. Thats what makes this situation difficult.

Edited April 4, 2009 by freshwaterfanatic

[Beats]

I would definitely have eaten the laker. As already stated, if you were to use this technique a few times and get the same results, legal or not, I'd switch the method of angling to one less likely to catch the wrong species.

[Zebco]

I mighta kept it if it was dead, but wouldn't post it on this board for the Mnr to see. I applaud you for your honesty.

[ozaibak1]

As stated... Ethics and laws do not always agree with one another.. If you intentionally meant to fish for lakers I would say you should be held accountable.. But an incidental catch and death... my ethics would have surpassed the Law.. I too would have consumed the fish...

 

You're damned if you do... (eat the fish) and you're damned if you dont.. (let it spoil)... either way you lose....

 

 

Now I do have a question..... is it legal to leave set lines unattended in you're FMZ?

 

G

 

You raise an interesting question, but I think the question itself is somewhat loaded, and Gerritt hits it right here. Ethics and the law are not necessarily a 1:1 relationship. That is just because something is the law does not necessarily mean it is ethical and vice versa.

 

In this case, I personally would have most likely kept the fish to eat. The fish is already dead, something is going to eat it, and as long as the intention wasn't to catch / kill it in the first place, why not that something be me?

 

The regs are for the preservation / protection of our fish resources, but if the fish is already dead... it's sort of like a debate on jaywalking in my opinion it really depends on the intention and situation, I don't think there's a clear cut answer to this question and wouldn't say mine is one either.

[irishfield]

Took me a bit... but lets keep in mind that this is BC fishing.. not Ontario as you can't have a line unattended in Ontario.

 

As for the dead fish... no different than the pickeral we pulled up out of 72 FOW ice fishing being DOA... no choice but to stuff them back down the hole dead. You can't possess a slot size fish. If everyone said to the CO " but it was dead"... then every fish caught would "be dead" and retained even if OOS.

Edited April 5, 2009 by irishfield

[ozaibak1]

Took me a bit... but lets keep in mind that this is BC fishing.. not Ontario as you can't have a line unattended in Ontario.

 

As for the dead fish... no different than the pickeral we pulled up out of 72 FOW ice fishing being DOA... no choice but to stuff them back down the hole dead. You can't possess a slot size fish. If everyone said to the CO " but it was dead"... then every fish caught would "be dead" and retained even if OOS.

 

Great point Irishfield. There is a choice though you can keep them and break the law, but is that 'ethical?' I think it depends on defining ethical. Definately no arguing that would be breaking the law. The 'but it was dead' excuse in my opinion would make it unethical for simply lying, which is why the intention of the angler is so important, albeit next to impossible for us humans to accurately judge it. But laws are imperfect in judging the intention, so a better safe than sorry could be a good argument here. I'm all for the regulations I think they are in the best intentions (preserving our fisheries) and that's what really counts.

Edited April 5, 2009 by Bass Killer

[irishfield]

I don't agree with the slot wasted, tastey, fish bass killer and strongly suggest they get rid of the slot.. at least during winter fishing when folks are fishing deep for whities and lakers (and catch pickeral instead)....... but stuffing down the hole is better than losing your sled/hut/gear to the CO when pulled over going home.

[ozaibak1]

I definitely agree with you there Irishfield, better safe than sorry, I've found CO's to be quite friendly and understanding in my limited experience with them, I had one phone in to HQ because I didn't print out the piece of paper that should accompany my license on Simcoe, they confirmed I had renewed my license, he didn't have to do that but he did and saved me $150 fine, something like that leaves a lasting positive impression, kudos to them. I would think they'd take the situation into consideration most times but definitely not all.

[bigfish1965]

There should be no question here. What greater ethical obligation do we have than to follow the law?

A fish not caught legally goes back...end of story.

Possession rules usurp wastage rules without question. Otherwise, as has been stated, there are those who would claim all fish whether over limit or in slot or out of season were not revivable and keep them.

[Greencoachdog]

Meh!... if everyone went by the letter of the law, no one would ever drive over the speed limit... or have a beer or 17 before they drove over the speed limit, everyone would pay every penny of tax they owe... and so on and so forth.

 

The fish was dead, it's not a waste to throw it back... but I think it's put to better use if you ate it. You could've been fined if a Co had been watching you, but since the fish was taken home without incident I think it's safe to say you weren't being watched.

 

You were a bad boy!... now go say 10 Hail Mary's, drink a 2/4 and spank the monkey 5 times in a row... that should teach you a lesson!!!

Edited April 5, 2009 by GCD

[Zubris21]

Possession rules usurp wastage rules without question. Otherwise, as has been stated, there are those who would claim all fish whether over limit or in slot or out of season were not revivable and keep them.

 

 

I agree that possession rules, would overrule over wastage rules, but that's part of the equation. Lake trout up here has no season closures, no slot, a daily limit of 3 (combined with char/dolly's) and a possession limit of 6. The only thing that was out of whack was the method it was caught. The fish was entirely dead, in order to get it back down, I would likely have had to pop its air bladder to see it sink. The ice is still to thick than to just shove it down with my arm. If the fish had any life/fight in it at all, even if I knew it was doomed it would have gone back, no question.

 

I am all for the regs, and I agree they are mostly there to protect our fisheries. I do however see a problem in this particular instance. Either the method (set lining) should be outlawed all together, or a wider variety of species should be permitted. There is no question there will be accidental hook ups using this practice, and I feel it is a shame, and almost counter productive to the regs. release dead/dying fish when you have not met your limit for that species.

 

I don't mean to sound offended, or angry, I don't want to come off that way. Just raising more points, and continuing the debate.

 

For the record, the fish did not come from my hole (skunked 2 days in a row) and while it was cleaned at my house, I was not the one to possess it. However the decision was a group effort.

[pikehunter]

The law is the law, simple. If you had been caught by a C.O you wouldn't be writing your tale here. You would be saving it to tell the judge. I kept an oos bass when I was a teenager, didn't get caught but I'll never do it again. It is a story to tell at another time as to what happened and how I almost got hung.

 

Next time, maybe not so lucky, be thankful.

[danc]

Absolutely the fish should not have been kept, dead or alive. It's not a question of ethics. It's the law. I've had a few occasions when a 20 or 21 inch Brook Trout couldn't be revived. Minimum in my waters is 22". Back they went. Thankfully this only happens once or twice in a decade due to the barbless rule up here. There's also many cases of the wrong Moose being shot up here. A guy has a cow tag and shoots a bull, or vise versa. The guy that goes to the MNR and reports his mistake still gets fined, but the fine is much less that the guy who tries to hide it and gets caught. The law referring to spoiling meat only refers to legally harvested game I would think. Bottom line. There is no reason for possessing illegally caught game in the eyes of the law. Take your chances, or not.

[smbhunter]

It's a tough situation to be in for sure. I'm not a fan of leaving a line unattended, in my opinion it should be illegal everywhere to do so, but if this method is legal in your area, then my opinion doesn't really matter. You had every right to have a set line out and it was unfortunate that an unlucky laker had to come by. If the fish was in fact 100% dead, then I would have kept it too, in this situation.

[JohnF]

Seems to me this is more about logic than ethics, and we all know laws too often have little to do with logic.

 

JF

[Fishnwire]

Meh!... if everyone went by the letter of the law, no one would ever drive over the speed limit... or have a beer or 17 before they drove over the speed limit, everyone would pay every penny of tax they owe... and so on and so forth.

 

 

Exactly how do you avoid paying every penny of the taxes you owe?...because I always pay all of mine. I didn't know I had any choice.

 

 

I'd have kept the dead fish if I was at camp and didn't have to transport it...dropping it down the hole does no one any good. I probably wouldn't have bothered to admit to doing so in a public forum though.

[DRIFTER_016]

I agree, legally it should have. But , ethically, We took this animals life (accidentally mind you) and I feel as though it would have been disrespectful to waste it.

 

Law's and ethics do not always run parallel and that's where the debate begins...

 

Like the old adage asks, would you steal a loaf of bread to feed your family if they were starving?

 

 

Legally wrong but ethically right.

I have had a similar situation while guiding. Gret Bear Lake has a 28" maximum size limit.

On of my guests hooked into a decent fish that was well over the size limit, but during the fight I figure it had a heart attack and was stone dead when we got it to the boat. The laker weighed 21#'s and legally should have been released. I could not live with wasting it so took it back to camp for the cook to smoke up.