12-22-2005, 08:45 AM
The DWR cannot give you a way out in that situation. And here's the reason why. I know a guy who would go to Minersville. He would catch a fish, claim that it was injured and going to die anyway. It didn't matter to him that it wasn't big enough to keep, or that it wasn't hurt in any way, shape, or form. He used the excuse that the fish was going to die to kill it and to take it home. He felt like that gave him an out. He wouldn't stop at one, he'd take as many as he could catch. But he always said that the reason that he kept them is because they were going to die from their injuries anyway. B.S. They were going to die because he was going to kill them and take them home. If he had wanted to make it look good, he could have ripped a gill raker or two on each of the fish, and thereby making the statement "They're hooked really bad, they're going to die anyway", true. If you allow someone to take a fish that is illegal to keep, just because it is injured, some people are going to injure the fish that they want to keep.
So, by your own words it's okay to release an injured fish in hopes that it will survive. So why can't you continue to fish for perch, at Rockport, while you have your limit of trout? You're just as likely to catch a Bear Lake Cutthroat with all of it's fins intact at Bear Lake as you are to catch a trout at Rockport while fishing for perch. And even if they are injured, each one must be released. And while we're at it, how about fishing at Jordanelle? After all, you could catch a small mouth bass that is over 12 inches. You can't keep it, even if it is injured. If it was your first fish of the day, would you reel in and call it a day? After all, you've exceeded your limit of smallies over 12 inches and each one that you catch could be injured.
What I'm trying to say is this: You should be able to continue to fish, as long as you do not keep any fish that exceed your limit. As for the ethics of injuring fish and facing the dilemma of whether to release it or not, I would again suggest the following. I would like to see the law made to read that: After a person has kept a limit of any species of fish, that in order to continue to fish, he or she must use artificial flies and lures only. With the same limitations imposed on those waters that are currently artificial flies and lures only. Specifically, restricting the use of scented lures, jigs, flies, or added attractants. After all, if it is okay to fish in certain waters where you cannot keep any of the fish that you catch, why not be able to fish everywhere else where you cannot keep any more of the fish that you catch?
And here's the proverbial "Catch 22". What if you were fishing Deer Creek tomorrow, you already had 9 perch, and you caught two at the same time on a jigging rapala? You can only keep one, and you cannot legally release either one. Would it be ethical to release one? The reason for the regulation is to avoid killing them after they've been caught in deep water during the coldest part of the year.
And you are right. If an angler uses a little TLC, most fish can be released to fight again another day. But it helps to use artificial flies or lures, if your intentions are to release the fish that you catch.
Fishrmn
btw, I'm still waiting for PBH to chime in on this one. Where are you PBH?
Quote:However, I would choose to abide by the law and risk the release of the injuried fish in hopes it survives.
So, by your own words it's okay to release an injured fish in hopes that it will survive. So why can't you continue to fish for perch, at Rockport, while you have your limit of trout? You're just as likely to catch a Bear Lake Cutthroat with all of it's fins intact at Bear Lake as you are to catch a trout at Rockport while fishing for perch. And even if they are injured, each one must be released. And while we're at it, how about fishing at Jordanelle? After all, you could catch a small mouth bass that is over 12 inches. You can't keep it, even if it is injured. If it was your first fish of the day, would you reel in and call it a day? After all, you've exceeded your limit of smallies over 12 inches and each one that you catch could be injured.
What I'm trying to say is this: You should be able to continue to fish, as long as you do not keep any fish that exceed your limit. As for the ethics of injuring fish and facing the dilemma of whether to release it or not, I would again suggest the following. I would like to see the law made to read that: After a person has kept a limit of any species of fish, that in order to continue to fish, he or she must use artificial flies and lures only. With the same limitations imposed on those waters that are currently artificial flies and lures only. Specifically, restricting the use of scented lures, jigs, flies, or added attractants. After all, if it is okay to fish in certain waters where you cannot keep any of the fish that you catch, why not be able to fish everywhere else where you cannot keep any more of the fish that you catch?
And here's the proverbial "Catch 22". What if you were fishing Deer Creek tomorrow, you already had 9 perch, and you caught two at the same time on a jigging rapala? You can only keep one, and you cannot legally release either one. Would it be ethical to release one? The reason for the regulation is to avoid killing them after they've been caught in deep water during the coldest part of the year.
And you are right. If an angler uses a little TLC, most fish can be released to fight again another day. But it helps to use artificial flies or lures, if your intentions are to release the fish that you catch.
Fishrmn
btw, I'm still waiting for PBH to chime in on this one. Where are you PBH?