BillM Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 I fish to EAT fish...... My selective harvest starts as soon as I pull my boat out of the garage, as I am going either Walleye, perch, crappie and very occasional salmon fishing......I don't target mushies or bassstards....LOL.......they taste like If you don't like it, don't follow me out in the morning because you might catch something... You catch release guys crack me up sometimes......why not take off all your hooks from your baits......or at least take off all treble hooks.... when I salmon fish I never use treble hooks.. We have met the enemy and it's US..............divide and conquer, P3TA must love this thread... BTW it's not our fellow Sportmens that threaten our fish resources... IT'S THE KILLING GILL NETS THAT ARE YOUR ENEMY..... Bob At least we know who the meat hunters are, lol! BB, with your keep ratio and my release ratio, we even out perfectly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 I am glad to see most get it we are not saying your opinion is wrong pushing it on others you see doing differently is what is wrong, if someone post on this website and has different ethics/opinions then you bite your tongue.... start a different thread , an ethics thread and voice your opinions....don't put down others ethics if they are fishing with in the law. then hopefully they will see the wisdom of your ways (if you are right) and start to change their ways but the come up to them while fishing and tell them they are wrong, they are morons, they have no ethics, makes you sound like a fisherman-tipper and that will get you nowhere Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adolson Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 I've yet to see the person whose understanding of a given situation is improved or changed by preaching, lecturing or confrontation. Well, I used to weigh my fish, but after some... uh, "education"... from guys on this very forum, I tossed my scales in the trash and now I only measure length, if that. -- Early this year, when there was still ice to stand on, I had posted on a social networking site that I was "3/4 of the way to my 2012 fishing goal." Someone who doesn't fish much (maybe 3-4 times a year) got right pissed at me, claiming I was damaging the fishery and "imagine if everyone did what you are doing." Must've been thinking that I caught and kept nearly two thousand fish, before ice out, hahahah... Obviously that wasn't the case at all, with "2012" being the year, and my goal of the year being simply to catch one of each of the four trouts available in my area. Still, goes to show that some people are passionate about the fishery, even when they use it only a few times a year themselves. I would agree with Terry and say that law-changing is the way to fight unethical practices, because in my limited experience and observation, education from fellow anglers more often than not boils down to angry berating and belittling, with very little in the way of trying to convey reason and transfer knowledge. And at the end of the day, that gets you nowhere. Maybe to get a fishing license, you should have to take a course... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UglyBug Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 Well, I used to weigh my fish, but after some... uh, "education"... from guys on this very forum, I tossed my scales in the trash and now I only measure length, if that. -- Early this year, when there was still ice to stand on, I had posted on a social networking site that I was "3/4 of the way to my 2012 fishing goal." Someone who doesn't fish much (maybe 3-4 times a year) got right pissed at me, claiming I was damaging the fishery and "imagine if everyone did what you are doing." Must've been thinking that I caught and kept nearly two thousand fish, before ice out, hahahah... Obviously that wasn't the case at all, with "2012" being the year, and my goal of the year being simply to catch one of each of the four trouts available in my area. Still, goes to show that some people are passionate about the fishery, even when they use it only a few times a year themselves. I would agree with Terry and say that law-changing is the way to fight unethical practices, because in my limited experience and observation, education from fellow anglers more often than not boils down to angry berating and belittling, with very little in the way of trying to convey reason and transfer knowledge. And at the end of the day, that gets you nowhere. Maybe to get a fishing license, you should have to take a course... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UglyBug Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 "Maybe to get a fishing license, you should have to take a course" Great just what we need more courses. If people are so darned upset about this, then I say get off your collective backsides and lobby. I fish, and I do keep fish when the mood strikes me. I am always within the posted regs and until they change the laws and make it illegal then i say, people who don't agree with me or others should save thier breath and not try to educate me. Thats not your job and its not something I am asking for. I fish for fun and really don't need to be converted:sarcasm: sorry meant educated. Smarted people than you and I are monitoring whats going on so let them do thier jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmer Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 Is there any way to teach the masses "selective harvest"? Keeping the largest perch, crappies or bluegills you catch is the obvious preferred choice, and understandably. These fish are essentially baitfish and would be difficult to eradicate with sportfishing practices. However, i still just dont get the ignorance/stupidity of people dragging home stringers of big bass, pike or other predatory fish. Like, why? Those fish are unhealthy to be consumed as they are old and have soaked up years of pollutants. They dont taste as good, i dont care what anyone says as i tested the theory as a youngster. Largemouth bass in the 12-14" range are among my favorites to eat. 16" and up, i wouldn't even wanna smell that cooked driftwood. Night/day taste difference, even fried. Still, i fish a lotta little lakes and rivers, and see way too many important, large, breeding fiah go home in buckets or stringers. I often try to inform the people of the polluted fish they are keeping, but most go into this old school, defensive "its my legal right" rant and just can't be reasoned with. Seriously, the bucket your fish is in is the reason your prize is so damn rare! Thats my rant of the day. Tried to keep it non-biased and civil. Please do the same. Panfish populations can definitely be hurt by over harvesting. I have seen it happen over the years. I'm sure that's why there are limits on panfish in certain areas. There are anglers out there that don't fish within the law and feel that the resource is endless (similar to the cod fishery that was mentioned earlier), but I doubt education will change anything. They will just move to a different lake when their success dwindles. One thing that I learned over my years, is that nothing will ever stay the same. Some of the phrases I have heard over the years: We always limit out when we go walleye fishing in the kawarthas. You'll never fish the crappie or bluegill out of the lake, they're endless. Go perch fishing in Lake Simcoe, you can fill your trunk. If I don't keep it, someone else will. Sad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fisherpete Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 (edited) Education and common sense certainly needs to be applied here - bottom line is that they should not have been musky fishing without any release tools. If they had been bass or walleye fishing and caught a monster like this by accident, different story, but to intentionally target muskies without having basic release tools is just wrong. Is it required to have a massive Stowmaster net, 16" long pliers and a pair of Knipex? No. There are more economical and still functional options out there - but to spend $1000 on muskie rods/reels/lures and not have the basics shows a real lack of common sense. I think if they had pulled a 40" up on the shore, there would still be anger, but to do it to a 56" just plucks the anger strings of all us serious muskie anglers who are so passionate about the sport and fishery, and spend so much time and money chasing a fish like that. It's wrong either way, but feels EXTRA wrong in this case because we all want to catch that fish. As for the original post, I too used to keep quite a few fish, but soon figured out that smaller ones do taste better, and that I enjoyed the sport of catching the big ones year after year. My cottage is on Rice Lake, and over the years I certainly have seen my share of pails getting filled up, but in all honesty things have gotten better in recent years with regards to poaching. I used to see stringers and pails full of largemouth every May and June, but have not in recent years. Maybe it is enforcement, maybe it is better awareness, either way, it seems to have made a difference. We all need to remember and respect that while some people fish purely for the sport of it, others do so as a source of food - and as long as they fish within the law, we should not judge. Pete Edited August 17, 2012 by Fisherpete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecmilley Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 just like the jehovah's gotta show up and try and make me believe what you believe. I remember the times when a part of fishing was the ability to share and enjoy it if you felt like it, now everyone gets ragged on for keeping a couple bass or walleye or god forbid a musky. I'll keep fish as a feel and don't worry about what the yahoo's think so long as i abide the law. as I recall I have never yet had anyone refuse a plate of fresh walleye yet, pretty sure most of the people offended by catch and keep just can't catch dinner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregoire Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 I will not question an angler who keeps a legal fish. I just worry that this angler in particular will catch much more fish that he legally must release and will end up killing them due to not having the proper release tools. I believe that if you are fishing for sport and not for food ethically you must make sure that you do everything in your power to make sure that the fish are released with as little harm as possible. Paul I think you may have jumped the gun a bit in calling this guy out. Now he is probably feeling defensive and will reject all advice that you give him. Maybe he has a pair of plyers in his boat, and water releases smaller fish. I also think that some muksy anglers, including myself, feel a little jealous that a fish this big was caught by someone else and not released, as it means that I will not get a chance to catch it. For those of you who feel that musky anglers are pompous know it all zealots who look down on other anglers: there is a bit of truth to that thinking. There is a movement in the community to change this opinion, and to stop the negativity associated with posting pics of musky. I hope that most people who are reading this thread are getting more information than negativity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adolson Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 Careful what you wish for... ...boater exam Obviously my statement was in jest, and in reference to the boater exam. However, thinking more on it, given the two routes to the same end result, I would rather have had to endure such a course than the wrath of self-righteous fishermen with no tact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UglyBug Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 (edited) I do what I want, when I want and how I want with in the laws we have. If people don't like that, well to bad sucks to be you, Hope your a good swimmer because if that came up during a harvest of yummy fish, you would be swimming back to shore pretty darn quick. I wonder how many people would stop taking pictures of out of season fish if someone told them to stop. I think zero is the answer. All aside I have found most people have selective morals and also selective memories that they try to impose on others for the greater good. I say its time to be true to yourself and let others find thier own moral level. Almost 100% of the conflics in the worlds history are caused by someone thinking they are morally superior. The same goes for fishing. As long as I am within the laws of my area I have the right to excercise those laws to the fullest without having to defend to anyone. As I said before, if your panties are so much in a knot then lobby to get the rules changed. If the majority wants that done, and they are changed I will be the first one to adopt them with open arms. Until then, I do respect that you do have the right to think how you, do as much as other have the right to think as they do. So whois right "everyone is". Thats the beauty of opinions Edited August 17, 2012 by UglyBug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregoire Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 I do what I want, when I want and how I want with in the laws we have. If people don't like that, well to bad sucks to be you, As long as I am within the laws of my area I have the right to excercise those laws to the fullest without having to defend to anyone. As I said before, if your panties are so much in a knot then lobby to get the rules changed. If the majority wants that done, and they are changed I will be the first one to adopt them with open arms. Until then, I do respect that you do have the right to think how you, do as much as other have the right to think as they do. So whois right "everyone is". Thats the beauty of opinions While I respect your opinion, I think that claiming that you can act however you want as long as you are not breaking a law is a bit shortsighted. In my mind it is similar to the "I was just taking orders" defence. I am not trying to attack you with this post, I am just trying to point out that you can act within the law and still be acting unethically. As a small example, legally I could choose to release a fish by punting it as far as I can into the water, but ethically I would not. On a similar note legally I could go panfishing and keep all the fish and filet them and store them in my freezer, but since I do not eat fish, I would have an ethical problem with doing this. I am just trying to give you something to think about. By the way, it is not illegal to cheat on your wife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 By the way, it is not illegal to cheat on your wife. well, you will end up in court and lose half of everything you own no one will ever end up in court for fishing legally doing something you may think is unethical so you statement may be true but it was comparing apples to oranges well make that bobbers to boobs...LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregoire Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 well, you will end up in court and lose half of everything you own no one will ever end up in court for fishing legally doing something you may think is unethical so you statement may be true but it was comparing apples to oranges well make that bobbers to boobs...LOL Totally aware of how unrealistic the comparison was, just trying to make the point that there are instances where you may not be breaking the law but may want to avoid doing something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UglyBug Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 While I respect your opinion, I think that claiming that you can act however you want as long as you are not breaking a law is a bit shortsighted. In my mind it is similar to the "I was just taking orders" defence. I am not trying to attack you with this post, I am just trying to point out that you can act within the law and still be acting unethically. As a small example, legally I could choose to release a fish by punting it as far as I can into the water, but ethically I would not. On a similar note legally I could go panfishing and keep all the fish and filet them and store them in my freezer, but since I do not eat fish, I would have an ethical problem with doing this. I am just trying to give you something to think about. By the way, it is not illegal to cheat on your wife. By who's ethics mine or yours. I welcome opinions because i do like to see what others are saying. I don't take anything said in here as an attack because they are just words of others, I chose my level of ethics. no one else, if that happens to be opposte of others so be it. I will continue to be true to myself and if I should decide that I might like to change then that too is my choice not others. What I am trying to get across is I may not agree with what others do as long as they are not doing something legally wrong I let it be. My level is not something I can or should force on others. Its not my place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrison Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 (edited) AS a youngster I was taught "the bigger the better" and "if it's brown it's down" Someone opened my mind to other more "ethical" practices that I now use and "offer" to share with those who I think may be interested in entertaining them. I usually start with the "Hey, ya know the smaller ones taste a lot better" Edited August 17, 2012 by Harrison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BucktownAngler Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 How long is this post going to go on? It is all subjective. We all agree on NOT keeping illegal fish, and everybody has their own opinion on what size LEGAL fish they prefer to keep. So let it be. Why force your opinion on on someone else? Because that's all it is "an Opinion" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregoire Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 (edited) How long is this post going to go on? It is all subjective. We all agree on NOT keeping illegal fish, and everybody has their own opinion on what size LEGAL fish they prefer to keep. So let it be. Why force your opinion on on someone else? Because that's all it is "an Opinion" Some people choose to engage in debates and hope to learn from others opinions. Others want to close off discussions. I also disagree that all opinions are right and valid. For a long time in our society we thought that women were not equal to men, amongst other things. By engaging in discussions about what we think is right or wrong we, as a group, can come to a consensus and hopefully make changes for the good. Edited August 17, 2012 by fishgreg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodsman Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 While I respect your opinion, I think that claiming that you can act however you want as long as you are not breaking a law is a bit shortsighted. In my mind it is similar to the "I was just taking orders" defence. "I was just taking orders" defense is only valid if the order is valid. If someone is given an illegal order (ie: to do something against the law) it is their legal obligation to refuse such an order. To follow an illegal order is not defensible. Cases in point - WW2 war crimes trials where may were found guilting as the orders they followed were illegal. If the order is legal than no law is broke so a defense for it is not required. No similarity in these cases. I am not trying to attack you with this post, I am just trying to point out that you can act within the law and still be acting unethically. As a small example, legally I could choose to release a fish by punting it as far as I can into the water, but ethically I would not. On a similar note legally I could go panfishing and keep all the fish and filet them and store them in my freezer, but since I do not eat fish, I would have an ethical problem with doing this. If you think you "legally I could go panfishing and keep all the fish and filet them and store them in my freezer" maybe you should check out the regs. Most panfish have catch & possession limits. If you think "legally I could choose to release a fish by punting it as far as I can into the water" you better check out the regs again. This could very well constitute allowing edible fish to spoil. Please refrain from giving legal opinions of which you have no clue just in case someone believes you, then they get charged for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UglyBug Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 Well ladies it's been fun. Enjoy yourselves, but Elvis has left the building Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodsman Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 By engaging in discussions about what we think is right or wrong we, as a group, can come to a consensus and hopefully make changes for the good. I agree with this but I feel it won't be that simple. Unless an overwhelming majority are on the same side changes to the Fish and Wildlife Act are unlikely from the politicians. So call expert opinions will go way further. Some of the larger groups such as OFAH can at times play a role but also sadly the same applies for groups like P3TA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregoire Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 "I was just taking orders" defense is only valid if the order is valid. If someone is given an illegal order (ie: to do something against the law) it is their legal obligation to refuse such an order. To follow an illegal order is not defensible. Cases in point - WW2 war crimes trials where may were found guilting as the orders they followed were illegal. If the order is legal than no law is broke so a defense for it is not required. No similarity in these cases. If you think you "legally I could go panfishing and keep all the fish and filet them and store them in my freezer" maybe you should check out the regs. Most panfish have catch & possession limits. If you think "legally I could choose to release a fish by punting it as far as I can into the water" you better check out the regs again. This could very well constitute allowing edible fish to spoil. Please refrain from giving legal opinions of which you have no clue just in case someone believes you, then they get charged for it. This post reminds me of why I have not been posting on topics such as these lately. Sorry for insulting your knowledge of the law Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregoire Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 (edited) "I was just taking orders" defense is only valid if the order is valid. If someone is given an illegal order (ie: to do something against the law) it is their legal obligation to refuse such an order. To follow an illegal order is not defensible. Cases in point - WW2 war crimes trials where may were found guilting as the orders they followed were illegal. If the order is legal than no law is broke so a defense for it is not required. No similarity in these cases. When referencing WWII law it is important to realize that many people were found guilty of violating international law specifically human rights laws drawn out in the Geneva convention, not the law of the country that they fought for. In some cases people were found guilty even though they apparently did not violate any laws. This was the case with Adolph Eichmann. If you are interested in that topic specifically Hannah Arendt wrote a great book called "Eichmann in Jerusalem" on the topic. Should I point out that you should not reference WWII human rights case law unless you are certain of what you are citing, as you may mislead people? This is an online forum, I doubt if someone got charged for punting a killing a fish they could use the information they received as a valid legal argument. Just in case, and for the record, it was not my intent, nor did I want to provide a legal opinion about what does or does not constitute the proper release technique of a fish of the catch and possession limits of any type of Ontario sport fish. Sorry for the confusion Woodsman. Edited August 17, 2012 by fishgreg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted August 17, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 My legal right is also to drink 5 cases of beer per day, provided im at home. Does that make it okay? My legal right is to light up a smoke 3 inches from a newborn, so long as im at home. Is that okay then? I also have a legal right to free speech, and i excercised it just fine. I dont like being flamed for my choice not to eat fish. They taste gross. I eat beef. And i dont go kill the cow to get it. Nor do i have a vegetable garden. Guess my opinion doesnt matter. Peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davey buoy Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 Interesting debate for sure!,at least we are all talking about it. 20 years ago this would never have been started. It's good to see all are on somewhat the same page: To keep with in the limits of the law and enjoy the sport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts