|
|
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | Never mind, people want to act like I break the rules, then fine.
I'M DONE
Edited by MikeHulbert 1/28/2008 10:21 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Mike, picking up dead deer isn't the same as keeping a fish that accidently died.
I applaud your zest for C&R, but PLEASE do me a favor, if you ever have a legal one that died, call me. I will be happy to serve it up with some garlic mashed potatoes, and a spinach salad with pomegranate salad dressing 
Sometimes they die, if it ever happens to me it is going on the grill and I will come on here and tell you all how it tasted. That said I will NEVER keep one that will release.
John |
|
| |
|
| Per the MN regs:
Any fish that is caught and will not be utilized must be immediately returned alive back into the water. A person cannot wantonly waste a fish that is caught by leaving it or any usable portion on the ice, thrown up on the bank, or intentionally killing it and returning it back into the water unless authorized.
A ticket for sure and a poor example to set by a guide to say the least. Plus you would be at your daily limit for muskies and couldn't fish them legally the rest of the day. |
|
| |
|
| If you saw a floating dead musky would you get pick it up and put it in your boat to take home and eat? mount? do not think so. or at least i hope not. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2378
| maxey - 1/28/2008 9:57 AM If you saw a floating dead musky would you get pick it up and put it in your boat to take home and eat? mount? do not think so. or at least i hope not. Not even close to the same thing Max. I appreciate the zeal for catch and release, but letting a dead fish float off is not helping anything. Eating/mounting/whatever one that died on you and had no chance of survival does not ruin your track record..nor does it make you any more of a release advocate. Besides, it's against the law |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | People who don't understand, never will
I'm DONE
Edited by MikeHulbert 1/28/2008 10:21 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2378
| <p>I dont think intention has anything to do with it Mike. Returning dead fish to the water is wanton waste and is illegal...in MN at least.</p><p>In the eyes of the law...releasing a dead fish is no different than tossing a live one up on the bank. </p>
Edited by BALDY 1/28/2008 10:05 AM
|
|
| |
|
| What a waste...look at all that food I could have for my clients....I could throw dead deer in the back of my truck, get it processed and feed all of my clients!!!
lol...you might work on your analogies.
for example, in WI, if you kill a deer with your car it is legal to take it home. it's still fresh and if not too badly torn up can be just fine.
dead and rotting is waste.
dead and supper is useful.
we had a low 40s fish inhale a bucktail this summer in MN and rip it's gills out on the hooks. that fish was d-e-a-d within minutes. we tried a number of different means to revive it for over an hour, but it was a goner.
due to the size limit regulations on the lake, we could not legally keep it and had to "release" it, dead. hopefully it was eaten by eagles or a bear or something and didn't just rot on the shoreline.
honestly, i felt worse about the waste of this fish than i did about it dying. sometimes they die, that's a part of the sport, and that's why the fisheries are managed with regulations. i've never kept a live muskie, and never will, but in retrospect if that same situation happens again i'll break the law and take it home for dinner. if it's not waste for the crawfish to eat it, then it isn't waste for me to eat it either. it's an example of the "gap" between the size limit (law) and the wanton waste issue (law). in those cases you have to make your own decision about what you think is the best/right thing to do.
being inflexible about "rules" (even if they're your own) simply boxes oneself into a corner. it IS possible to advocate 100% catch-photo-release without being unrealistic about potential exceptions.
|
|
| |
|
| Actually per MN Regs you cannot rifle down a dead fish to the bottom of the lake.
Publicly announcing what you beleive in and publicly announcing your breaking the law are two complete different things and doesnt send a good message to the younger crowd of upcoming fisherman..
I will cancel my Musky Hunter subscriptioin if contributing editors are publicly announcing they break the law...
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| I guess I'll step up here.
One of the issues I have with the idea of releasing a fish which is mortally wounded is that the angler can essentially kill one muskie and continue to fish with the real possibility of killing another fish, or more, the same day.
Minnesota actually discourages the release of a legal fish if it is obvious that the fish is mortally wounded and will most likely die.
If that fish is kept, instead of becoming turtle food and allowing the angler to continue fishing, he would have have filled his limit and legally be required to stop fishing muskies. That would give the fishery a measure of protection by removing that angler at least for that day.
A 100% C&R angler has the real possibility of killing multiple fish in one day by releasing all without discretion
DougP |
|
| |
|
| I have never had to make that choice, at least not yet, but when the time comes, if it does, the fish will sink and stay in the food chain where it belongs, not in my stomach or on my wall. just my opinion. I also believe it states INTENTIONALLY killing the fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | simply don't get it...
Edited by MikeHulbert 1/28/2008 10:22 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2378
| maxey - 1/28/2008 10:10 AM I have never had to make that choice, at least not yet, but when the time comes, if it does, the fish will sink and stay in the food chain where it belongs, not in my stomach or on my wall. just my opinion. I also believe it states INTENTIONALLY killing the fish. A dead fish is a dead fish. It doesnt matter how it got dead...returning it to the water, leaving it on the ice, throwing it on the bank...is wanton waste and is illegal. Do what you want, but that's the way it is.
And, you are part of the food chain Max...
Edited by BALDY 1/28/2008 10:15 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | A dead floating musky fits Mike H’s road kill analogy much better than a fish that just dies as a result of being caught.
When we hook up a lure with 5/0, 6/0 or even 10/0 hooks we do not have the best interest of the fish in mind. First thought, catch the fish, second thought release the fish alive, but anything can happen.
I still ask why 30 people marked release even if dead? I am really curious what the true benefit of that is. I have a theory but I will save it for later.
By the way roadkill is awesome. I have lots of buddies that are sheriff deputies. Many of them take the meat when they respond to a car/deer strike, or even car/bear strike. Many a Packer tailgate party was supplied with freshly tenderized roadkill. If there is no call and the deer is happened upon by a deputy it is usually marked and later picked up by the county road department and then deposited in the landfill. More similar to the floating musky that is just left for the crawfish, crows and eagles.
In my opinion if it’s fresh there is no reason not to eat it. I would like to know why others don’t feel that way, are the turtles starving?
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | I am also glad that you guys act like I do this. I haven't had to "Rifle" one down to the depths. I haven't had a 52 incher die on me to keep...
I am not publically announcing that I break the law. I haven't done this, so no law was broken.
SO please don't put words in my mouth. I am done with this.
Edited by MikeHulbert 1/28/2008 10:17 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2024
| I'm sorry, but none of this makes sense. The regs for "wanton waste" are grey at best leaving lots of room for interpretation, but I am of a mind that if you put back a dead fish it violates this clause. Decide for yourself. For example, here is a section from Indiana's 2007 regulations for "wanton waste": Fish parts, including entrails, must not be discarded into any state waters, but should be disposed of in a sanitary manner that does not pollute the water or become detrimental to public health or comfort." We could all argue semantics and say "Well, the regs say 'fish parts.' Therefore, I'm not violating the clause." Maybe. Maybe not. Put back a legal fish that died and any number of bacteria could grow as a result of the detritus the muskie now becomes, thus likely violating the last part of the aforementioned excerpt: "Should be disposed of in a sanitary manner that DOES NOT POLLUTE THE WATER OR BECOME DETRIMENTAL TO PUBLIC HEALTH OR COMFORT [emphasis added].
Has the muskie now become a GOD? It's a fish... |
|
| |
|
|
Intentionally killing fish without intent of keeping them is wanton waste.
If your intention is to release all fish you catch, and one dies and you let it sink than that would be a gray area left of to a CO to decide whether you've broken the law.
I agree 100% that if you kill one, you're done fishing, whether you keep it or not.
That also should be explained in full to your clients in advance.
JS
|
|
| |
|
| And Musky Addict, you have no clue as to what you are talking about. But I know, you have seen it all, you have been on the water enough to actually understand what you are talking about, you speak from EXPERINCE don't you.
i made this same mistake earlier this year in a different thread.
muskie-addict is a different person than esox addict.
and yes, he's a pretty experienced angler fishing on trophy waters.
please don't let discussion about different ideas sink down to personal attacks.
People who don't understand, never will
I'm DONE
whenever any of us (you, me, anyone!) gets feedback from others that suggests, "hey, your beliefs on this subject are worth re-evaluating" we have a choice to make:
a) think about it with an open mind
b) become indignant and self-righteous
i'm not by any means suggesting that the "tyranny of the majority" is always right, and we often benefit from those brave enough to be a voice of dissension.
being open-minded, listening to others, and even considering what they have to say does not mean you have to agree with them in the end. in fact, i find that listening to others often opens the door for me to be able to change their mind...something which can't happen when you throw your hands in the air. any time any of us refuse to listen to each other is when things are really "done".
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | If you catch a 50+ inch fish and it dies on you and you cant afford to get a mount...then what? Yes, you could eat it, but you can eat carp too....doesnt mean you should have to eat it. So, hypothetically, if I catch a 50+ inch fish, it dies, I cant afford a mount and dont want to eat it....what should I do with it? Take it home and toss it in the garden? Why not just leave it in the lake then? What's the differance? |
|
| |
|
| it must be winter...these threads never seem to get out of hand in the summer...
at some point a fish will die on us, if it's over the legal size limit to keep, you can keep it or not, but does it really matter to anyone other than the angler that had the fish die on them what we do with it? It shouldn't. If it's under the legal size limit and it dies, then off to the turtles it goes...oh well, some die.
We had one die a few falls ago, it was 38" tiger that for whatever reason croaked. We thought the size limit on the lake we were on was 40" so off to the turtles it went...we realized later we were on a 34" size limit lake and it could have made a very pretty mount for a cabin wall....if we had kept it I don't understand how anyone who would never keep one if it died could care or get on us for keeping it. Just like I could care less if you have one die and let it go to the turtles or for the grill or wall for that matter...?
|
|
| |
