I was recently fishing a lake in a nearby national park and caught a brook trout. According to the parks fishing regulations, they “advise” (not require) that all brook trout be killed due to them being a threat to native species (primarily bull trout but also cutthroat). Sure enough, I caught a brook trout. I ultimately decided to not kill it, due to being a squeamish wuss and my dad very firmly telling me not to. I kinda rationalized it by telling myself killing one fish isn’t going to make a difference and that bull trout aren’t in the lake I am fishing (which to my understanding is true), though there are cutthroats but they are not endangered to my understanding. Was I right in not killing the fish? I don’t want to unnecessarily kill a fish (though it would’ve been painless with a quick bonk on the head), but I also do not want to perpetuate the endangerment of these local species. I’d be curious to hear y’all’s thoughts on the matter.
If you’re going to be fishing I would get comfortable with the idea of killing invasive fish. While this may not apply to brook trout, there are lakes and rivers where it is an absolute firm requirement that if you catch a certain species of invasive fish, you have to kill it. Usually this is with certain species of Asian carp. Basically, you’ll be fined if you don’t kill them and DNR catches you throwing live ones back.
When you purchase your fishing licenses, they’ll include the regulations around invasive fish and if there are any requirements that they must be dispatched.
Please kill invasive fish when you catch them (truly non-native invasive fish that is, please do not apply this logic to any rough fish). Releasing may by meaningless in some occasions but it absolutely has to potential to do harm, which killing the fish does not have.
In many places, certain fish are legally required to be killed if caught.
in my opinion you shouldn’t be fishing if you aren’t able to kill a fish because even catch and release can often cause mortality. Whether to kill an individual invasive species is a personal decision that also interrelates with laws, cultural factors, and ecological specifics (killing one in a lake of 100,000 matters less than killing a recent introduction).
3 posts were merged into an existing topic: Catch-and-release fishing
I believe that killing invasive species is a fisher’s responsibility towards nature, and it’s often an obligation too.
Although doing it can be frightening and disturbing at first it’s something many people get used to, and it’s an opportunity to develop a deeper understanding, reverence and connection with what we eat.
I live in Michigan. If the fish in the Great Lakes aren’t properly cared for our state would suffer greatly. Asian Carp were mentioned. They need to be gone from here.
Yeah, I think you’re probably right. Especially in a really small ecosystem like an alpine lake, I think it’s probably my duty to do so.
“in my opinion you shouldn’t be fishing if you aren’t able to kill a fish because even catch and release can often cause mortality”
I think this issue stems from many issues, the biggest being uneducated/unaware fishermen. There are many steps you can take to reduce the mortality rate of fish you catch (though obviously it will vary based on species). Things such as rubber nets (as opposed to nylon/rope), keeping the fish in the water for as long as possible during the release (only bringing it out for a quick photo if that), and proper handling of fish as well as a good release can all bring down the mortality rate of any species you catch. I do see where you are coming from, however. Too many anglers don’t follow these practices and the fish population inevitably suffers as a result.
I’d be curious to ask you this though: In my state, hunters and anglers collectively fund 30% of the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Catch and release fisherman inevitably account for a large chunk of this (and more in other states I would reckon, considering recreational catch and keep fishing for salmon is another large chunk in WA). If those people gave up fishing and/or turned to fishing for keeps, do you think the potential tank in budget and/or the higher mortality rates in fishing as a result of keeping EVERYTHING you catch would be worth it?
I’d also like to add that I don’t judge you at all for the choice you made.
The choice of killing for the first time is not something that can be made lightly and instantly for someone who cares about animal wellbeing. It has to be pondered over, and the fact that you’re doing it means that you’re on the right path.
I appreciate your empathy. I suppose it is a right of passage of sorts to kill what you catch. It hurts me to end a life like that, but it is probably for the greater good.
I think that killing the invasive, although difficult, would be a good decision. Just make sure to eat the fish so its life isn’t wasted!
I’m not opposed to people doing catch and release fishing i just don’t think it makes sense to be opposed to killing an invasive fish when you’re doing something that you know kills fish anyway, and you aren’t eating them or otherwise using them. That’s for you to decide and not something there’s much point in debating here, but i do feel like if you aren’t able to kill the invasive fish you maybe might not want to fish at all. But… that’s for you to sort, not me.
You seem to be a person who really cares about the creatures you enjoy. Like @F.S said,
Of course, killing invasive species is something that can and should be done in interest of preserving native species and ecosystems, but these invasives are still living creatures. Definetely try to work on getting better at properly killing invasives, because that can be helpful to native ecosystems, but also keep in mind that one of the things that make humans special is our empathy for creatures different from us.
Honestly, the park “advised” not “required” the killing of the fish. They left the decision up to you, and your dad, if I’m reading this correctly, insisted that you not kill the fish. You made a reasonable, thoughtful decision based on the park regulations, your own inclination, and the advice of your father, to not kill the fish. I think that’s fine, and I respect it. If the regulations require it, then by all means, kill the fish. In the future, you can decide again if placed in the same position one way or the other. I 'm always in favor of reflection and care in any case like this, and it sounds like you thought it through. Give yourself credit for that.
I agree that I should from now on kill the invasive fish I come across, but for the record studies have shown that catch and release fishing with proper precautions has a very low mortality rate. Obviously there are circumstances (like warmer water) where the rate increases, but you can partially compensate for that by using single hooks, artificial lures over bait, etc.
I should probably come clean and say that I know for a fact I have killed at least 2 striper over the summer (of probably 15 or so that we caught). One we kept (made into some yummy chowder), and one we didn’t. I do regret not keeping that fish and I’d be lying if I said I couldn’t have done things differently (primarily fighting the fish into the rocks as opposed to the boat moorings in open water, where it got tangled and suffocated). But I’d like to think that is a rare case and not the norm.
Yes you are correct. It was an advisory, not a rule. I do think I made the wrong mistake and my dad is incorrect, though I suppose I should at least slightly applaud myself for thinking it through and ultimately changing my mind.
To add on another question: what should I do with the fish after I kill them? The brookies I am catching are pretty small (probably too small to cook), but I want to show some respect to them, even posthumously. Should I just toss them back into the water or on the shore? Something else?
@oksanaetal just saw your above post, sorry. I suppose this would fit better as a reply to it but I’m unsure how, hence the ping.
One for the water then one for the shore. There will be a different set of scavengers in each place.