Should a foul hooked fish be allowed to be harvested (not about legality of doing so)

[CardiacCowboy]

This is not about whether it is legal to keep a foul hooked fish.

[Ken07AOVette]

No. Every fish would be 'fowl hooked'; "see- no eye it won't live."
Opens too many doors for poaching.

[CardiacCowboy]

I say no. It is not sporting. If I cast a spoon into an unknown school of whitefish I could easily catch many fish by snagging even though that is not my intention. Also someone that is not ethical could do the same thing and do it on purpose to (snag fish) and keep them all and it would be almost impossible to prove whether it was on purpose or not.

[Scott N]

To me it makes a difference if it's intentional snagging, or accidental / incidental when the fish tries to take your lure / fly.

[freeride]

No. Every fish would be 'fowl hooked'; "see- no eye it won't live."
Opens too many doors for poaching.

This. Easy to "foul hook" a fish after you catch it as an excuse to keep it as well then.

[58thecat]

To me it makes a difference if it's intentional snagging, or accidental / incidental when the fish tries to take your lure / fly.


Exactly as ill hooked or snagging all comes down to intention….a fish takes a run at a lure and a hook catches it not in the mouth it is a legally caught fish but if the intention is to manipulate the lure intentionally to snag or ill hook the fish well that is illegal….wish a wildlife officer on this forum would chime in…..but that was what was explained to me before.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Howard Hutchinson]

No. Every fish would be 'fowl hooked'; "see- no eye it won't live."
Opens too many doors for poaching.
>>
X 2. Anyone who was of this ilk, would intentionally set it up to look as such.

[Bushrat]

I agree with the premise of not wasting foul hooked fish that are going to die if released but that opens up a huge loophole that would definitely be abused for poaching fish especially if allowed on catch and release only waters.

Reminds me of guys "flossing" for salmon when they are schooled up in rivers, they are hooked in the mouth but not legally and hard to prove. Tons of people are abusing the resource by using that technique.

[Smoky buck]

Grew up where fowl hooked fish must be released in the regs so that is what I do

My fat finger did vote yes though by accident

[fordtruckin]

Double edge sword here. A fish you know is gunna die but can’t be lawfully kept is a question of morality not legality. No different than if you catch a certain species of fish that is CR on that body of water and it gets hooked deep or can’t be revived even though you know it’s going to slowly die. Nobody can tell you what to do but you on those ones.

[smitty9]

Not sure why this is even a poll question. Of course the answer is no.

People will just claim "foul" hooking on every fish they keep.

It's no brainer, not even debatable.

Even if the foul hooked fish dies, nature is the best recycler of anyone. That fish would not be wasted in the least. Ever see what happens to dead salmon? They fertilize the river.

Don't give humans an excuse to break the rules. Simple.

[barbless]

I have tried my best all the time to do a safe release. I try to keep the fish in the water all the time and even in the net. Held fish in the water over the edge of my boat till my ribs hurt. They start to swim away and come up on their sides or belly up. I will go back and try many times. Some success but when hooked in the wrong spot and blood is prevalent, you pretty much know the outcome but I still try. I pinch all my barbs but two trebles can cause damage. Guess they go back into the eco system. All in all it seems like a waste to us but it might help other species to eat. If you are fishing in catch and release only, the barbless does help. Sometimes they release themselves. Don't always need the pic. My answer is no

[58thecat]

Not sure why this is even a poll question. Of course the answer is no.

People will just claim "foul" hooking on every fish they keep.

It's no brainer, not even debatable.

Even if the foul hooked fish dies, nature is the best recycler of anyone. That fish would not be wasted in the least. Ever see what happens to dead salmon? They fertilize the river.

Don't give humans an excuse to break the rules. Simple.



Well I am on the other side of this poll I said yes...accidentally foul hook a fish while legally angling and you want to keep it to eat then there is no issue from my perspective.....kinda like saying buying a car will encourage people to engage in dangerous driving etc.
:thinking-006:

[EZM]

Exactly what Ken said.

Too many dishonest and unethical people.

I hate the idea of releasing (and subsequently wasting) a foul hooked fish that will obviously die - but the alternative is far worse in my opinion.

[MyAlberta]

I have tried my best all the time to do a safe release. I try to keep the fish in the water all the time and even in the net. Held fish in the water over the edge of my boat till my ribs hurt. They start to swim away and come up on their sides or belly up. I will go back and try many times. Some success but when hooked in the wrong spot and blood is prevalent, you pretty much know the outcome but I still try. I pinch all my barbs but two trebles can cause damage. Guess they go back into the eco system. All in all it seems like a waste to us but it might help other species to eat. If you are fishing in catch and release only, the barbless does help. Sometimes they release themselves. Don't always need the pic. My answer is no

Damn the treble

[Wes_G]

I assume that the 30% of people who think they should be allowed to keep it, keep everything they can anyway.

[Freedom55]

Another consideration is how long it's been since your last meal...:scared0018:

[Outbound]

Damn the treble

Agreed. I won't use them, every lure I buy that has them gets the treble cut off and a single put on. I also pinch all my barbs.

[58thecat]

I assume that the 30% of people who think they should be allowed to keep it, keep everything they can anyway.

Ouch....good jab ya got there:sHa_sarcasticlol:

7 years ago was the last time I had a shore lunch....the only time when I will kick back and enjoy a fish...all others are simply for fun and a pic or two:)

[MyAlberta]

Agreed. I won't use them, every lure I buy that has them gets the treble cut off and a single put on. I also pinch all my barbs.

Same. I have never thought, gee, wish I had that old treble on. But I have thought many times, that release was easy. Foul hooking, barbs, and trebles, all have the same connotation for me.

[zabbo]

No. Every fish would be 'fowl hooked'; "see- no eye it won't live."
Opens too many doors for poaching.

This! :)

[hawk-i]

As long as the legal limits are followed, I don't see any problem with keeping foul hooked fish.

These limits are supposedly set with safeguards to the populations within each eco system.

Now where I have a problem is with the uncontrolled use of nets :thinking-006:

[wildalberta]

This is a rediculous discussion. Many fish get caught like this, cant control what a fish does underwater. Foul hook has nothing to do with barbs or trebbles how i see it. Now if you mean a fish fatally inhaling something, i look at that different than a "foul hook". Regs are regs, but give it a go and try talking your way out of it.

[aulrich]

it depends on the context. are you casting to open water and a fish misses your lure with its mouth but it gets hooked? or are you dragging a big jig through a pool literally full of salmon on a spawning run.

I have no problem with the first and I was glad when BC banned the second.

[Frank_NK28]

No. Every fish would be 'fowl hooked'; "see- no eye it won't live."
Opens too many doors for poaching.

Especially downrigging where you have total control over directing the lure into the fish....:rolleyes:

[Ken07AOVette]

Another consideration is how long it's been since your last meal...:scared0018:

This is how you determine if poaching and illegal keeping/harvesting of game animals is moral, by if your tummy is rumbling?

Now backpedal

[Freedom55]

This is how you determine if poaching and illegal keeping/harvesting of game animals is moral, by if your tummy is rumbling?

Now backpedal

Lighten up Big Gunner, you missed the humor. Oh wait. Now I get it. Is this some subtle, impotent typical-of-you shot at me?"

[JDK71]

Another consideration is how long it's been since your last meal...:scared0018:

collecting bottes is a start better then poaching

[Ken07AOVette]

Lighten up Big Gunner, you missed the humor. Oh wait. Now I get it. Is this some subtle, impotent typical-of-you shot at me?"

And there is the back pedal. Along with the prerequisite little impotent shot.

You are so predictable you aren't even exhausting.

Now back to the other thread so you can feel impotent and take another shot, big guy.

[Freedom55]

collecting bottes is a start better then poaching

Go back to the original post and read it all. You might notice the question precluded legalities.

Free

[JDK71]

Go back to the original post and read it all. You might notice the question precluded legalities.

Free

i get a kick out of you

[chickensashimi]

This is not about whether it is legal to keep a foul hooked fish.

I’m sure no one would exploit that if it were a rule, LMFAO!!!!

[tool]

I voted no for many of the previous mentioned reasons,there simply would be too many foul hooked fish that it would be damaging to fisheries.

That said, here is my approach.

I keep very few fish period. I love a good shore lunch as much as anyone but my enjoyment of the sport is catching fish not eating fish. Therefore I release 90% or so of the fish I catch. Particularly the big breeding females so am never anywhere near my limit in the waters that I fish and for the species that I fish for. So when I do catch a “gut hooked” fish or whatever you want to call it, one you are certain has little chance of recovery, that is a fish that I will take home and that to me is my “limit”.

The last time that happened to me was in 2019 when I caught a 42” pike that swallowed a long, slim Cotton Cordell crankbait that was sticking out through that fishes gills, it was clearly bleeding out.

I kept that fish and gave it to a family that had little luck fishing that day but would have otherwise harvested fish and I went home empty handed but was just as happy to do so.
This way I figure that 1, that fish wasn’t wasted and 2 it maybe saved some other fish from being harvested from that river and ultimately leaves more fish for me to catch next time? 🤷🏻*♂️

[tri777]

I voted no for many of the previous mentioned reasons,there simply would be too many foul hooked fish that it would be damaging to fisheries.

That said, here is my approach.

I keep very few fish period. I love a good shore lunch as much as anyone but my enjoyment of the sport is catching fish not eating fish. Therefore I release 90% or so of the fish I catch. Particularly the big breeding females so am never anywhere near my limit in the waters that I fish and for the species that I fish for. So when I do catch a “gut hooked” fish or whatever you want to call it, one you are certain has little chance of recovery, that is a fish that I will take home and that to me is my “limit”.

The last time that happened to me was in 2019 when I caught a 42” pike that swallowed a long, slim Cotton Cordell crankbait that was sticking out through that fishes gills, it was clearly bleeding out.

I kept that fish and gave it to a family that had little luck fishing that day but would have otherwise harvested fish and I went home empty handed but was just as happy to do so.
This way I figure that 1, that fish wasn’t wasted and 2 it maybe saved some other fish from being harvested from that river and ultimately leaves more fish for me to catch next time? ����*♂️
^^Tool said it all allowing me a 'no' vote also.