Fish-Hawk.Net

Hey guys, and gals;

I was out fishing the other day and caught a small smallie, while targeting pike, and when I brought him in the rear treble had caught him near the fin. No real damage done as it was barely in and easily removed before I released him.

My question is this; had it severely damaged the fish, but being OOS, what should a responsible and ethical angler do? Even more, what if by the time you land it it is already dead, or very close to being so.


I remember reading somewhere that it is unethical to release a fish which will probably no longer survive in the wild. I don't, however, remember where I read it, so I don't know how bias it was, or may have been.

Or maybe I misinterpreted what I had read. I don't want to spark any fires here, just a conversation is all.

Personally I would probably still release it, for a few reasons.

The first and foremost being that I am by no means an expert and could not say for sure, unless it was dead, that it could not possibly survive.

Next being the reprocussions of being discovered with an OOS fish. I have always prided myself on being reasonably ethical. I always try to target fish in season, and if OOS fish are all that are being caught I pick up and move. I check zones and so on to ensure I'm not fishing for something, or in a place, that I shouldn't be.

And finally, if you land an OOS fish that dies, for whatever reason, before you land it, or before you release it, what should you do? Or perhaps, just what would you do?


Just something to ponder, I look foreward to any and all responses.

Release it - no matter what. Its an honest to God shame if they die, but as was mentioned by someone else once already in another post - after all is said and done they're only fish.

Saskies right. You have to release it. Even if it's stone cold dead.

Don't worry, there's lots of creatures in the water system that will take care of the fish.

It's unfortunate, but it does happen.

ReLease it.

If it's oos it goes back no matter what. I can't afford to pay the fine, and buy new gear. The question realLy isn't about ethics, it's the Law.

It does tick me off a littLe that they have to go back, but I understand why the Law is in pLace. otherwise peopLe wouLd be out ripping gills out of fish just to keep them.

I agree with all that's been said. It's not the end of the world and the turtles have to eat too.

If you make a practice of releasing most of your fish, going barbless and/or reducing the number of hook points will result in fewer messed up or DOA fish at the end of the season.

Someone on another thread suggested replacing trebles with single hooks on pike spoons. This works for me too. On muskie crankbaits with three big trebles, I usually remove the trailing hook.

I've got to agree, release. Its a shame, esp. if said fish is doomed but it will feed other organisms. So......with all this talk of releasing OOS fish and how a fish should be unhooked etc.... I'm wondering......what do you all think of the practice that Nat Resources wants us to follow in regard to invading species, such as gobies? Which is......destroy them...period. I'm very curious what you all may think about this, esp. Michael. I mean, if its so important to unhook a fish in the water because taking it out for a simple pic is inhumane, how can you justify destroying a living thing, even if they are an invading species that are an obvious threat to our waters and fishstocks?

Just me being me...

One man's (?) interpretation of the law...

Essentially agreeing with everyone else, just making it more complicated and opening the 'spoiled flesh' point!



*************************************
As per the Ontario Fishing Regulations 1989:

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/F-14/SOR-8 ... rid-120765

Release of Fish
13. Subject to subsection 35(1), every person who catches a fish of a species
(a) at a time or place at which fishing for that species is prohibited,
(b) by a method or with fishing gear the use of which is prohibited in respect of that species, or
(c) the possession or retention of which is prohibited,
shall return the fish forthwith to the waters in which it was caught and, where the fish is alive, release it in a manner that causes the least harm to that fish.
*************************************


Note that it stipulates "AND, where the fish is alive..." indicating that regardless of life, it shall be released AND if it's alive, shall be released carefully.

Of course, being a stickler for good conversation...


*************************************
As per the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act 1997:
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Stat ... P488_24816

Abandonment or spoilage of fish

(5) A person who takes a fish whose flesh is suitable for human consumption shall not,

(a) abandon the fish if its flesh may become unsuitable for human consumption; or
(b) permit the flesh to become unsuitable for human consumption.
*************************************


Seems somewhat contradictory, but acting by intent of law, one knows that the interpretation is that a person who takes a fish legally shall not allow the flesh to spoil.

There are other regulations that mention what to do with OOS fish if you are a commercial fisherman, so the lack of clarification on Sport fishing further indicates the requirement to release; dead or alive.


*************************************
PART III
COMMERCIAL FISHING
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/F-14/SOR-8 ... rid-120765


Disposal of Fish


35. (1) Where a person engaged in commercial fishing catches fish the taking and possession of which are prohibited by these Regulations, the person shall, where the fish cannot be released alive into the waters from which they are taken, dispose of the fish in accordance with a direction issued pursuant to subsection (2).


(2) A fishery officer may direct in writing any person referred to in subsection (1)

(a) to donate the fish for a humanitarian or charitable purpose;

(b) to destroy the fish in a manner that will not pollute fisheries waters; or

(c) to dispose of the fish by any other means that is in keeping with the proper management and control of the fisheries and that will not result in an economic benefit to that person.
*************************************

I'm hoping our kids goby derby at the Long Point Weekend nets us about 100-200 pounds of the little buggers. The gulls/coons will be dinning that day/night!

Kpin wrote: I'm very curious what you all may think about this, esp. Michael. I mean, if its so important to unhook a fish in the water because taking it out for a simple pic is inhumane, how can you justify destroying a living thing, even if they are an invading species that are an obvious threat to our waters and fishstocks?

Maybe I'm the wrong Michael....but I'll give it a go. I love (to eat) caribou, moose and deer. I bonk fish for the table every season. But if I decide to release a fish, I want to do what's in my control to make it count. I skip the OOS pictures because for me, again for me, I don't have the desire to commemorate what to me doesn't feel like a fair catch. Also, I've seen enough evidence to satisfy me that air-time during the spawning cycle may impact the reproductive success of the fish.

Who are you calling "humane" kPin?!!!

It's not a humane/inhumane issue for me. But maybe you're addressing a different Michael. Possibly I'm acting out of self-interest because I put in 95% of my fishing time on home waters...I like to think that, in the manner I choose to handle a release, I'm maximizing my chances of catching the fish another day. There aren't enough big muskies in my lake to throw them around like a spare truck tire.

But of course you do what ever you feel is right.

As for your question about exotics...this one is important enough to justify a separate thread. Briefly...I'm fine with slaughtering the exotics if it's part of sensible management or mitigation strategy. Will I go out of my way to target goby, invasive pike or a "naturalized" walleye? No. Normally, if an invasive fish has become common enough to be caught by anglers, it's not realistic to expect to erradicate it by allowing liberal angler harvest/slaughter.

Rock bass spell disaster for wild lake trout stocks on the shield. Have any of you participated in rock bass derbies aimed at controlling or erradicating the vermin? My admitedly limited experience is that these are unsuccessful.


Good fishing to you all.

Are we doing a deep fry or sushi meal for the critters dinning pleasure.

Well, I definately appreciate the responses to this thread. I personally would release it as well, because as someone else mentioned, I couldn't afford the fines, or the purchase of all new gear.

I'm not going to get back into that whole humanity thread about OOS pictures, because I think each one of us knows very well when, and when it is not at all safe to do so.

As for the invasive species... while I think it's a little ironic that the government has given us free range to willingly, as well as knowingly, destroy an entire species ( albeit only locally and not globaly ), I can understand why they did it, but have they done so for other invasive species? I don't think so, though I may be wrong.

If they did I fear for the tree population if someone thinks for a split second there's an asian long-horn in it and they cut it down.

And what about zebra mussels? I love being able to see 25 feet down in the water, but it surely isn't healthy for our fish population.

I must appologize BigSim, I didn't mean to hijack your thread. Just with all the recent rukus about OOS fish, the invading species thought came to me. Michael is of course correct, it does deserve its own thread, and I respect and understand his idea's and reasoning.

I'm hoping our kids goby derby at the Long Point Weekend nets us about 100-200 pounds of the little buggers. The gulls/coons will be dinning that day/night!

You can leave those bags of gobies right outside YOUR tent thank you very much