Moral Dilemma

[puddle jumper]

Re: Moral Dilemma

Not sure how it got caught up the line and died,

Sometimes the fish will roll trying to get free.

 

[ibrnrbr]

Re: Moral Dilemma

Bait

 

[thefairlaneman]

Re: Moral Dilemma

Yo.do you like sushi? or Tell you what ,I would dress that fish out right then and jerk out my little camp stove and have dinner....A nice fresh "shore dinner" only it wont be on the shore.....It cost you money and lots of it just to beable to catch that fish and I see nuthin wrong with you at least having a tasty lunch.

 

[tallcanadian]

Re: Moral Dilemma

I agree with what you did. However, sometimes things happen beyond your control. Even in catch and release situations, fish get hurt. Unfortunately, the local fisheries officer, game wardens or whoever patrols one territories, probably won't agree with you. I personally would have thrown it back in the water just for those reasons.

 

[jonesg]

Re: Moral Dilemma

uhh its not a moral question.

 

[trendsetter240]

Re: Moral Dilemma

Just to set the stage. As many of you know when you go fishing in the ocean you can just about catch anything at any time.

Well the other day we went fishing and I caught a fish that was not allowed to be kept. The fish was a good size but got all tangled in the line so bad that the line cut the gills up bad. The fish died wile we tried to get the line off. If it would have been a good release I would have to let it go with no problem.

We kept the fish as I hate to wast. But if I got caught with it, it would have meant a find of about $200.

What I am asking is what would you do if put under these circumstances.

This is a position I find myself in very often. In fact last night while trolling for Sockeye a small (20cm) spring salmon took the lure and had one hook through it's gills. The salmon died. I threw him back in and the seals grabbed him shortly later on the surface of the water behind my boat.

Now..earlier in the year, I caught a 45cm (1.5ft) spring. That's a decent sized fish. It also was hooked through the gills and didn't survive. I decided to keep it because it seemed such a waste to through it back for the seals.

Turns out, when I got home and looked up the size limits, the min size was 30CM in that region, not 62cm as I had thought. So it was legal after all (and delicious). However, at the time I thought I was keeping an undersized fish and did the same thing as you.

I am one to follow the rules of sportfishing and I catch and release many. In cases such as these I feel you/I aren't hurting anyone. The reason for this rule is people that abuse this and purposely keep undersized or restricted fish under the guise of them having died during landing.

 

[huntndakota]

Re: Moral Dilemma

It's not that the dcnr's are being mean or anything like that. It's their job to follow the law. How many guys illegally keep the fish they could have released. When they get caught they say it died during the fight or right after when trying to revive it. So if they let some people go for keeping the illegal fish because it couldn't be released alive more people would break the law knowingly and use it as an excuse. Thats why you have to let it go. It will be eaten by something not just you. so its not a waste at all.

 

[puddle jumper]

Re: Moral Dilemma

This is a position I find myself in very often. In fact last night while trolling for Sockeye a small (20cm) spring salmon took the lure and had one hook through it's gills. The salmon died. I threw him back in and the seals grabbed him shortly later on the surface of the water behind my boat.

Now..earlier in the year, I caught a 45cm (1.5ft) spring. That's a decent sized fish. It also was hooked through the gills and didn't survive. I decided to keep it because it seemed such a waste to through it back for the seals.

Turns out, when I got home and looked up the size limits, the min size was 30CM in that region, not 62cm as I had thought. So it was legal after all (and delicious). However, at the time I thought I was keeping an undersized fish and did the same thing as you.

I am one to follow the rules of sportfishing and I catch and release many. In cases such as these I feel you/I aren't hurting anyone. The reason for this rule is people that abuse this and purposely keep undersized or restricted fish under the guise of them having died during landing.

You and a few other people here under stand were i am coming from. I wish there was a way in circumstances like mine that a person could legally keep it.

Like many have said it has to be cut and dry on the rules or many would exploit the rule if a honor system was used.

 

[sasto]

Re: Moral Dilemma

If I catch an illegal fish on the dock that can't be revived I will keep it. In the boat.....never, never. There is enough trouble you can find on the water and I don't want anything illegal in my boat. That includes that huge square grouper, worth loads of money, I passed the other day.

 

[EricJRW]

Re: Moral Dilemma

It's not that the dcnr's are being mean or anything like that. It's their job to follow the law. How many guys illegally keep the fish they could have released. When they get caught they say it died during the fight or right after when trying to revive it. So if they let some people go for keeping the illegal fish because it couldn't be released alive more people would break the law knowingly and use it as an excuse. Thats why you have to let it go. It will be eaten by something not just you. so its not a waste at all.

I think that's it right there. Remove all ambiguity.

 

[jay_merrill]

Re: Moral Dilemma

Feeling like the situation is a waste if you don't consume the fish, is an emotion based purely on human perspective. As others have said, there will be absolutely no waste, if you toss the dead fish back - mother nature is remarkably efficient, if left to her own devices.



???

 

[RicMic]

Re: Moral Dilemma

It's not that the dcnr's are being mean or anything like that. It's their job to follow the law. How many guys illegally keep the fish they could have released. When they get caught they say it died during the fight or right after when trying to revive it. So if they let some people go for keeping the illegal fish because it couldn't be released alive more people would break the law knowingly and use it as an excuse. Thats why you have to let it go. It will be eaten by something not just you. so its not a waste at all.

Thats it right there, you nailed it. I would feel bad throwing it back dead, BUT eventually it would have died anyway, nothing is wasted, it all gets eaten by something.

 

[sasto]

Re: Moral Dilemma

Thats it right there, you nailed it. I would feel bad throwing it back dead, BUT eventually it would have died anyway, nothing is wasted, it all gets eaten by something.

3rd that motion, all in favor say I. Explain that one to the officer that has heard every excuse in the book. I have no problem feeding the kids in Haiti or the blue crab.

 

[PGFISHER]

Re: Moral Dilemma

Rather anthropocentric of you to think that if a human isn't using it, it goes to waist. In nature, everything eats something else, and everything is eaten by something else (yes even humans). This is not a moral issue. If you want to get moral about it, fish only for fish that have thousands of dollars worth of equipment to counter the equipment you are using to catch them. Humans are omnivores; we eat nearly any plant or animal, and don't have to agonize over the morality or lack of, to sustain ourselves. It's silly for a predator to feel sorry for it's prey, and even sillier to think that you're the only predator that matters.

 

[dingbat]

Re: Moral Dilemma

You made your moral decision when you dropped the baited hook over the side.