Thought I'd throw this out there for some friendly debate and to get an idea of what the general concensis is. As probly everyone has noticed, from time to time people get commented on, berrated, or even scorned on here for keeping a legal limit of fish.
Now here is the part for debate. Is it ok, in your mind, to keep a legal limit of fish for a given body of water. How about if there is a group of people, say 5 or 10 or even 15. If they have a good day and all can limit out is it still ok to keep a limit for that group? That is a lot of fish after all. Finally is there a group size at which it is no longer ok?
[signature]
I think your question would require some framing. Put and take waters are simply that. The Kokanee you don't catch at Ririe simply die off by the thousands with very little spawning. On the other hand I don't take fish out of other waters that are self sustaining fisheries with a limited number of fish. A perch can lay 10,000 eggs at a time so they tend to breed so rapidly that they can stunt the population. Still, I only want a couple of meals a year of them. I feel the F&G have done a pretty good job at setting limits for biomass management in most cases. I take a lot of fish in some cases and I release a lot in others. I always bring my limits of Halibut and Salmon back from Alaska. I guess it just depends. Take what you will use but leave the rest to be caught another day.
[signature]
With all due respect, I think you are opening a can of worms here.
I have no problem with someone keeping a limit of fish, even when it is a large number or a large group, as long as they are put to good use. Putting are large number of fish to good use would be difficult for me if they were salmonids, but not difficult at all if they are panfish.
I also appreciate a good fishery with reduced limits, like the 2 fish limit on Henry's Lake. I'd actually like to see more lakes with a 2 fish limit. In fact, this next bit could probably be in a thread of it's own. In my opinion, many of the lakes that have a 6 fish limit could be excellent fisheries, close but probably not equal, to what we have at Henry's if the limit was reduced. Most of the 6 fish limit lakes I fish in I'd be really lucky to get a 13 or 14 inch fish. 6 13 inch fish = about 6 lbs of fish or so, probably closer to 4 lbs after the head, guts, skin, tail, etc is removed. Now, if I kept 2 fish from Henry's Lake, I'd likely have about 4-6 lbs of edible meat for the table. I'd gladly catch and release several nice fish and take home my 2 over struggling to catch 6 13-14 inchers.
I'd like to see the limits reduced state wide, then enforced. For instance, at the local ponds, fish and game will stock the ponds, and then within a few days they are practically picked clean. Leaving them hardly worth the effort for the 8-10 days until they stock again. If they reduced the limits and then enforced them, those fish would last the whole 2 weeks and fishing would always be good in the local ponds. I have no facts to back this up, as it is just my opinion, but I believe it would be correct should some changes be implemented.
[signature]
Having discussed put and take waters with quite a few F&G people over the years, I feel that the 6 fish limits are seen as a motivating factor for purchasing licenses. More licenses are bought for "family fishing" waters then for trophy waters. While a couple more 2 fish limit lakes might be productive the F&G people I've spoken with feel that family water limits sell more licenses and bring more fisherman overall to the table. I think this theory is borne out by the efforts over the last few years to make the codes consistent on almost every water in the state. It points to catering to the majority vs. the avid trophy fisherman. We live in a state that has runs of Salmon and Steelies. Those fish are seen as a trophy application, saving other waters for family classifications. In my eyes, the family enjoyment issue is the most important even though I would be described as the other type of fisherman.
[signature]
I see nothing wrong with keeping a limit "IF" you eat them. If you are keeping them for bragging rights to only end up putting them in your freezer to later put in the Garden or worse yet Garbage...then I think one is very selfish and ignorant.
As far as the trophy waters like Henry's and others, I think any trout over 24" is not the best eating. So with that, the lakes that have the two fish limit for fish OVER 20" is a little confusing to me. Okay, I see the big one being mounted but the second one? Like I said, they don't taste that great. You could smoke I guess. I had some smoked trout this weekend. A nice MUSHY 24" trout.
Anyway, a limit is a limit....the problem I see is people need to ask them self if they need that whole limit, or are they taking it because it is there right, or if they don't some one else will. People can be greedy by nature.
[signature]
If its legal, and you will eat it then I think its fine. But I cant stand it when people keep fish to "show off" to friends and family. Those same fish usually end up in the garbage like Flygoddess said.
I think most limits set are pretty fair, it would be sweet to have catch and release on Henrys though[
] Can you imagine the fish we would start to see out of there? It wont happen, but it would be cool.
[signature]
As has been said -- there are a lot of variables involved.
It is ok to take your limits home even if there are a lot of you there together. I have had a lot of huge family fish fries in my time. And who is to say that they are going home to the same household anyway. I mostly catch and release trout now, but that doesn't mean everyone has to.
Most of the larger lakes can handle that kind of pressure. If you are catching good limits of fish that have been in the water awhile it shows the lake can support the harvest.
I also agree with the sentiment of - - if you are going to harvest them, then eat them. Some out of ignorance don't take care of their food fish properly and then dispose of them. That is a shame, but you can't just generally label everyone that takes a limit home that way.
On the other hand I would like to see the small reservoirs and community ponds reduced to a 2 or 3 fish limit. Not a size limit, just a harvest limit.
I live about 15 miles from a small trout reservoir (50 acres) and it is appalling in the spring time the number of fish that are pulled out of there that are only 6-8 inches long and are still looking for hatchery pellets.
I see vehicles from as far away as Idaho Falls, Twin Falls, Utah, and a dozen other places in that first month. There are more boats than there is water between them some days! Then the fish are reduced to a small or nil population, and the local kids have to go elsewhere to fish all summer.
Many seem to see the small reservoirs as a quick "limit" because the water is smaller, and it is certainly easier to find the fish. That is fine, but I don't agree with fishing out the small ponds in the first month. I think the smaller limit will send some of those that are looking for a big "limit" elsewhere to waters that are big enough to handle the pressure, but everyone can still take some home.
Taking your kids fishing where they will have quick success is important and small reservoirs are great at providing that, but not if the fish are gone almost as soon as they are stocked.
Just my one and a half cents!
.
[signature]
[font "Calibri"]I believe it is ok to catch your limit on bodies of water set by fish and game. All the while though I see it is wasteful to catch more than you will eat or use. That is just how I was raised. For me if I was fishing and I was concerned about the survivability of the fishery I would gladly take less than the posted limit. [/font]
[font "Calibri"]When I was in Alaska I have met a good number people that depended on few weeks catch to make ends meet. Every fish they caught they kept because they knew it was dinner. Ever since then I try to keep an open mind about fishing parties and what appears to be someone taking advantage of the resource. In the end I feel it is up to us the sportsman to make a difference in the fishery. Pick up someone else’s trash, teach a kid to fish, help each other out. [/font]
[signature]
When you talk about Alaska, are you talking remote places and natives? I have several friends that live in Alaska and it really isn't any different than here. In fact, Costco has great deals on fish and other ocean species.
Non of them stock up so to speak. There are some remote areas though, that I guess would be inclined to stock up. In fact those remotes can also go after big game, they just have to consume the majority of the animal, or they can be fined.
We had an outing at Pelican once. We happen to have a chef with us, so out of 10, to 20 people, we set out for Bluegill. Some limited, some didn't, but we caught a bunch. Not allot of meat on those frying pans though, but we all had a great feast.
I got to say, I prefer TROUT though ........
From that day on through the rest of the weekend, was all C&R.
[signature]
[font "Calibri"]Sorry for being a bit to general with my post. The economics of Alaska is not much different than anywhere else right now. What I am referring to is families in semi remote areas. I am well aware of the regulations regarding taking game for personal consumption as a last resort. While the law has it merits, I’m sure is used often and abused. That is not the issue though. The point I tried to make was that it is best not to judge someone by how many fish he keeps out of the water. I use to live in a semi remote area in Alaska outside of Glennallen. While I was there I have met many good people just trying to get by. Many would hunt and fish to provide the main staple of food for their families. Most would dip net silvers and king salmon close to home. It can be time consuming but would you consider taking 40 silvers over a few days. I know many that do and use everything they catch. You just can’t count on getting a moose or a bear or two every year. There are groceries available within about 45 minute drive from where I was but, then again many were farther than I was. As you can imagine their prices were less than reasonable as well. Sure Costco is a great option if there is one close enough to make the trip worthwhile. That tends to not be the case with a smaller minority of people. [/font]
[font "Calibri"]Overall I just want to say that life is tough and nobody knows what another family is going through unless you ask. For this reason I can say that I try not to judge what others do when it comes to fishing. Going over the limit or not obeying the rules is unacceptable for myself and many others who have lived in less than ideal environments.[/font]
[signature]
Very well put.
[signature]
Iwantabuggy, you're absolutely right. I am opening a can of worms here. But it's done this way for a couple reasons. One I didn't want to hijack a thread where this debate has come up already. Second I know that d/t the fact that this can be a very hot topic it would best be handled by approaching it in a direct tactful way that spells out the debate and that it is a thread meant for open dialogue on the subject. Hopefully everyone that wishes to can add to the discussion with minimal fear of being bashed for their viewpoint regardless of what it might be. Lastly I felt this needed to be brought up d/t multiple posts over the years where someone has stated they went fishing w a "some friends" and then stated they caught "x" number of fish. They then get questioned, or chastised for keeping too many fish and hurting the fishery, all without finding out pertinent information such as number of people involved and limits for that water.
So, since some people keeping a large number (or potentially keeping a large number) of fish is a problem in other peoples mind, I figure some of those people have a point at which it bothers them. Hence this thread. Personally I have no problem w/ groups of people keeping their legal limit, as long as it's not ridiculous like 2000 people at Ririe keeping a limit of trout and kokes on one Saturday. That would start to make me nervous. However I will watch closely if people appear to be catching more than, or close to, their limits and I'm not noticing anything released.
Keep the debate going guys. I think it's good for all of us to consider these things.
[signature]
I really like to eat fish and will keep them from time to time, but for the most part I release the fish that I catch. A couple of things I want to mention:
1st. I don't understand how some people seem to fish day in and day out keeeping a limit and not get sick of eating fish. Especially because my opinion is that fresh fish tastes so much better than eating it after it has sat in the freezer. Do many of you just have a separate freezer for all of the fish you catch? How often do you eat the fish you catch?
2nd. more of a gripe than anything... There have been a few times when I have taken a friend to a favorite place of i like only to find out that they then turn around and go back time after time and keep almost everything that they catch and then use the excuse that they are using the meat for food storage as it sits in the freezer.
I have no problem sharing info but it's when that info actually starts to hurt my fishing becaseu the fish are all gone that I feel like I have been used.
[signature]
i dont have a problem with it as long as its not wasted. i never keep anything unless i plan on eating it with in 24 hours with the exception of steelhead i keep s few and have them smoked and freeze them. most people who fish are capable of being able to reasonably judge what they should keep and what they shouldnt now weather or not they do it is another story. when i was younger my family and i would keep every legal fish we caught because my grandmother, mom and aunts bottled fish and we ate fish atleast once a week now that the family has fallen away from fishing i have moved to my new catch and keep policy. only if i plan on eating it with in 24 hours.
[signature]
I feel that if a large group all got their limit then that is what the F&G intended when they set the limits. And I would hope that if a lake was getting hammered to the point that the limit needs to be reduced to keep it a viable resource that F&G would step in.
I know that F&G license sales have been falling for a number of years as the influx of people moving in are not outdoor recreationists. Sales may be the same but per capita wise they are down. So it is a challenge for F&G to come up with the best way to entice people to buy a license and that would include liberal limits.
As a Bass fisherman, I have been ticked off when I see larger Bass being kept as it is a short growing season for them and it took that Bass a few years to get big. Plus we need that fish to spawn and pass on it's genes. But that being said everyone has the right according to F&G limits to keep those Bass.
I do applaud F&G for setting up trophy lakes for Trout and Bass. The biggest problem I have is that it is not being enforced like I feel it should be. As witnessed at Oxbow this last spring. After calling F&G on it, I was told that since it happened on the Oregon side, Idaho F&G couldn't do anything about it. I call BS on that. You can't tell me that the two departments aren't able to work together on enforcement. At least detain the group until an Oregon Warden showed up.
I guess I'm getting off the topic of this thread so I better quit while I'm behind. [
]
[signature]
i agree with you bassinbob i am mostly a bass fishermen and you do get alittle sick when you see our babies on a stringer, only because they aren't stocked.only natural reproduction happens. but also agree it is legal. when i go to strike with my dad and his friend it's tough as his buddy wants his limit of bass as they taste the best he says. my grandfather threw litteraly nothing back even kept squawfish, carp and suckers for compost. 90% of everything i catch goes back except salmon and steelhead they go to my oven or smoker.
i think the bruno arm of strike was fished out last year for crappie. it looked like the walmart parking lot with all the boats everyone was keeping a couple hundred fish every day. and eventually it was work catching crappie.
[signature]
i have to give everyone credit for keeping this discussion civil. When i saw the original post i had a sinking sensation in the pit of my stomach that this would take a turn for the worst and become ugly. so keep up the good posts its fun to learn from a variety of different opinions.
As for my .01 on the topic is that it is up to each individual to determine the quantity and quality of the fish he or she keeps (within legal limits) for one person to declare that this person is "bad" for keeping a trout, bass, or mess of pan fish that is legal is not something I feel that should be voiced on this board. All that matters is what you do. SO instead of telling someone off about the number of fish someone keeps why don't you pick up some trash or take a kid fishing and help raise another generation of outdoors people who have ethics and treat the areas we frequent with respect.
[signature]
[quote thebug]
As for my .01 on the topic is that it is up to each individual to determine the quantity and quality of the fish he or she keeps (within legal limits) for one person to declare that this person is "bad" for keeping a trout, bass, or mess of pan fish that is legal is not something I feel that should be voiced on this board. All that matters is what you do. SO instead of telling someone off about the number of fish someone keeps why don't you pick up some trash or take a kid fishing and help raise another generation of outdoors people who have ethics and treat the areas we frequent with respect.[/quote]
Seems more like $1 worth to me.
[signature]
I think that fish and game sets the limits for a reason with what I hope is good information regarding the fish they limit. If you are gonna use the fish you keep, then go ahead and keep them. But you should be wise in what you keep. Keep in mind that if our fishing habits negatively affect the fish populations, then our favorite spots may become catch and release only or 2 fish spots to replenish the fish populations. I agree that if you are gonna keep fish for consumption its a good idea to keep the mid sized fish (10-14 inches) as they taste better (in my opinion) and you allow the bigger fish to reproduce, who have a better chance at successful reproduction. That's exactly why some states impose "slot" limits.
[signature]
My dad was the same way, he wanted to keep everything we caught. When I caught a big bass, I would "accidently" drop it back in the lake when I took it off the hook. [cool]
[signature]