Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigtoad
Keeping 5 (or even 3) every time you go fishing seems really selfish to me. I'll keep one small-medium fish to eat but I won't keep a big one if I catch it. I don't because of the respect I have for the fish; that it was able to get big despite the fishing pressure, and because of the respect I have for the other fishermen that will be fishing there next.
In New Zealand, there was a great sign at one of the rivers that said something to the effect, "Please, take only what you need so the resource will be here for everyone to enjoy." That was the only regulation on the stream; keep whatever you want, just no more than you need. I wondered how long there would still be fish in that stream if we tried that in Alberta... I thought maybe a week. 
Or am I the crazy one? Discuss......
Cheers. |
Yeah, you're crazy.
Ya see you don't understand the concept. You go out once and catch five fish to eat and when you have eaten them you go out and catch five more. Unethical? If you go out fishing one time and keep 5 smaller fish to eat how many more fish are you taking out of the lake by going 5 times and keeping one fish?
Unless of course you are thinking about someone that disregards the possession limits in the regs which I don't do.
I think that the sign in New Zealand is good and I have the same mentality. From a very early age I was taught to only "take what you need and leave the rest". That is the moral that I have lived by my entire life whether it is hunting or fishing. Why take more than you need, possession limits aside? So you can kill the animal/fish and let it freezer burn in your freezer? I'll even take it one step farther in that I was taught to keep the smaller "eatin' sized fish and release the larger "breeding" sized fish. Make sense?
And just cuz the fish can't breed in a particular body of water doesn't make it right IMHO.
Now stop letting your imagination run wild on you and stop putting words in my mouth.
