Catch and Eat

[benamen]

Originally Posted by dodgeboy1979

as long as you have a fishing license or if you are a senior you can legally transport fish. Make sure you have them packaged for identification etc...

If you are an Albertan fishing Saskatchewan and are a Senior, you still need a Saskatchewan fishing license.
Saskatchewan Resident (see definition on page 9)
Age 16 to 64
- Annual............................................ .........................................$29.44
- 3 day (consecutive days - southern and central zones only) ...........$14.72
- 1 day (southern and central zones only).......................................$10.00
Senior (65 or older) - no licence required.........................................N/A
Youth (under 16) - no licence required.......................................... ...N/A

Canadian Resident (see definition on page 9)
Age 16 and older
-Annual............................................ .........................................$58.87
- 3 day (consecutive days - southern and central zones only) ............$29.44
- 1 day (southern and central zones only).......................................$15.00
Youth (under 16) - no licence required.......................................... ....N/A

[clamlinguine]

Originally Posted by RisingRainbows

I agree 100%. There's nothing wrong with keeping fish where it's legal and there's nothing wrong with catch and release. Let's not fight amongst ourselves and give fuel to that crowd.

I agree with this. However I see where this is going provincially and nationallly. There are two types of people in this world, there are talkers and there are doers. While I am out fishing, C&Rs are busy talking, and they arent going to stop talking until their unnatural nirvana is imposed province wide. There needs to be pushback.

[clamlinguine]

Originally Posted by Walleyedude

I'm not even sure there even should be enough fish to support a minimal harvest. No stream was ever, or will ever, be able to support continuous harvest by 10's of thousands, or even hundreds, of anglers every year. The fact of the matter is, having a harvest rate on the vast majority of AB's waters is simply not feasible, not for the C&R fisherman, and not for the catch and keep fisherman.

I don't see the point in opening a stream for a year or two and then closing it for 10 or 20 years while it *hopefully* recovers.

I was catching fish in the South Ram before the C&R regulations, it was good fishing. You didnt open your car door, step out and catch your limit though. You had to work a bit and there was some excitement when you hooked into one. I think the limit was 4 a day back then.

I was OK with the closure at the time because I thought "Ya think how great fishing will be when it reopens"! lol

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by clamlinguine

Haha, bloodlust. So you are a Vegan, hmm.

If you aren't fishing for food, or the idea of doing so, you have no moral reason for being out there. Deal with it. C&Rs need to have there own little pothole lake in the city so they can practice being fisherman. Just keep torturing the same fish over and over again like you do now in C&R streams. Your hobby is competely pointless. Mine is not. Its called fishing.

Actually it was my kids who laughed at me for going to the Ram and gave me the analogy of taking a popgun to the zoo and shooting at zebras, lol.

[Speckle55]

In Switzerland and Germany, catch and release fishing is considered inhumane and is now banned.[5] In Germany, the Animal Welfare Act states that "no-one may cause an animal pain, suffering or harm without good reason".[6] This leaves no legal basis for catch and release due to its argued inherent lack of "good reason", and thus personal fishing is solely allowed for immediate food consumption. Additionally, it is against the law to release fish back into the water if they are above minimum size requirements and aren't a protected species or in closed season.



National Parks of Canada Fishing Regulations




Fishing Permits

Anyone under the age of 16 may fish in the national parks without a permit if accompanied by a permit holder 16 years of age or older. However, their catch is then included within the permit holder's daily limit. They may also purchase their own permit and be entitled to the full catch limit.

Food for Thought

David

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

Where do kids fish off the parents limit?

LC

[Walleyedude]

Originally Posted by clamlinguine

I was catching fish in the South Ram before the C&R regulations, it was good fishing. You didnt open your car door, step out and catch your limit though. You had to work a bit and there was some excitement when you hooked into one. I think the limit was 4 a day back then.

I was OK with the closure at the time because I thought "Ya think how great fishing will be when it reopens"! lol

Your own experience is telling you that retention limits on our rivers and lakes are required, and your experience is far from unique. What would the fishing on the South Ram be like in 2015 had the 4 fish per day limit remained in place?

I can't wrap my head around the fact there is no excitement for an angler in hooking into a fish now, under the same circumstances, simply because it must be released to live another day and give another angler the same opportunity to experience that excitement.

Is the excitement in the catching, or the keeping?

If it's purely in the keeping, then there's no reason for you to go fishing at all, thus my slippery slope post that you chose not to respond to. Fresh fish, trout included, is available at the grocery store every day of the year, and that should be all it takes to give you that same sense of excitement.

[calgarychef]

In a catch and keep situation in a fishing spot that can't sustain keeping (but can sustain deaths through release?) there will eventually be tags and draws. My prediction..... The fishing in alberta can't sustain either catch and release or catch and keep beyond a certain point. As our human population increases its inevitable.

I'd rather be able to catch a couple fish and eat them than catch and release. I'm not much of a fisherman though, so I might be in the minority. I see no joy in catching and releasing numerous fish in a day and going home with nothing to eat but still possibly having killed fish inadvertently.

[clamlinguine]

Originally Posted by Walleyedude

Your own experience is telling you that retention limits on our rivers and lakes are required, and your experience is far from unique. What would the fishing on the South Ram be like in 2015 had the 4 fish per day limit remained in place?

I can't wrap my head around the fact there is no excitement for an angler in hooking into a fish now, under the same circumstances, simply because it must be released to live another day and give another angler the same opportunity to experience that excitement.

Is the excitement in the catching, or the keeping?

If it's purely in the keeping, then there's no reason for you to go fishing at all, thus my slippery slope post that you chose not to respond to. Fresh fish, trout included, is available at the grocery store every day of the year, and that should be all it takes to give you that same sense of excitement.

Thanks for the discussion. My point is that years ago fishing was OK in the Ram with a 4 fish limit. It should be OK today with a 1 fish limit. I am 100% for limits. I hate zero limits because it removes my option to keep mortally hooked fish.
I think I have explained thoroughly my opinion on the lack of excitement in C&R streams. Again, it is like shooting a popgun at the zebras at the zoo. No challenge. No reason. No fun. Anyone can do it Kiddie streams.
The fish at a grocery store issue...really...does it need explaining. OK, prepare for the obvious. Man is not far removed from being hunter/ gatherer. Succesful humans are genetically inclined to want to hunt/seek/compete/ succeed.
Further, as a child, do you remember the thrill of an elder coming home with a catch. Have you ever brought home a catch to educate and inspire family members. Have you ever had a family get together to eat a fish. Has anyone ever instilled the righteousness of only killing what you are willing to eat. Maybe I'm lucky, but I remember these things and I am grateful.
I hope this helps you wrap your head around it.

[clamlinguine]

Originally Posted by calgarychef

In a catch and keep situation in a fishing spot that can't sustain keeping (but can sustain deaths through release?) there will eventually be tags and draws. My prediction..... The fishing in alberta can't sustain either catch and release or catch and keep beyond a certain point. As our human population increases its inevitable.

I'd rather be able to catch a couple fish and eat them than catch and release. I'm not much of a fisherman though, so I might be in the minority. I see no joy in catching and releasing numerous fish in a day and going home with nothing to eat but still possibly having killed fish inadvertently.

Right on brother! LOL

[RisingRainbows]

Originally Posted by clamlinguine

Thanks for the discussion. My point is that years ago fishing was OK in the Ram with a 4 fish limit. It should be OK today with a 1 fish limit. I am 100% for limits. I hate zero limits because it removes my option to keep mortally hooked fish.
I think I have explained thoroughly my opinion on the lack of excitement in C&R streams. Again, it is like shooting a popgun at the zebras at the zoo. No challenge. No reason. No fun. Anyone can do it Kiddie streams.
The fish at a grocery store issue...really...does it need explaining. OK, prepare for the obvious. Man is not far removed from being hunter/ gatherer. Succesful humans are genetically inclined to want to hunt/seek/compete/ succeed.
Further, as a child, do you remember the thrill of an elder coming home with a catch. Have you ever brought home a catch to educate and inspire family members. Have you ever had a family get together to eat a fish. Has anyone ever instilled the righteousness of only killing what you are willing to eat. Maybe I'm lucky, but I remember these things and I am grateful.
I hope this helps you wrap your head around it.

You're in favor of a one fish limit but 0 is barbaric... You stop fishing after you keep one? 'Cause after that one you're just as barbaric as the rest of us...

[Don Andersen]

Originally Posted by clamlinguine

Thanks for the discussion. My point is that years ago fishing was OK in the Ram with a 4 fish limit. It should be OK today with a 1 fish limit. I am 100% for limits. I hate zero limits because it removes my option to keep mortally hooked fish.
I think I have explained thoroughly my opinion on the lack of excitement in C&R streams. Again, it is like shooting a popgun at the zebras at the zoo. No challenge. No reason. No fun. Anyone can do it Kiddie streams.
The fish at a grocery store issue...really...does it need explaining. OK, prepare for the obvious. Man is not far removed from being hunter/ gatherer. Succesful humans are genetically inclined to want to hunt/seek/compete/ succeed.
Further, as a child, do you remember the thrill of an elder coming home with a catch. Have you ever brought home a catch to educate and inspire family members. Have you ever had a family get together to eat a fish. Has anyone ever instilled the righteousness of only killing what you are willing to eat. Maybe I'm lucky, but I remember these things and I am grateful.
I hope this helps you wrap your head around it.

Hi,

A Regional Biologist told me he believed that there was less than 300 spawners in the N. Ram. Wouldn't take long to remove them all.
The first year C&R was implemented on the N. Ram, the creel census gal recorded 8 fish caught by all the anglers.
The previous limit had nearly removed all the trout.

Don

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by Don Andersen

Hi,

A Regional Biologist told me he believed that there was less than 300 spawners in the N. Ram. Wouldn't take long to remove them all.
The first year C&R was implemented on the N. Ram, the creel census gal recorded 8 fish caught by all the anglers.
The previous limit had nearly removed all the trout.

Don

For some reason people can't see the big picture, they think they are going to be the only people to keep one fish. Alberta has a lot of people, and for whatever reason outdoor activities are now the cool thing to do. It puts a lot of strain on all our resources, fish, birds deer, etc. Even the wild places that people just want to hike in are under pressure by all groups. It's getting crowded and we need to adjust our expectations. Keeping fish will not feasible in most moving waters in the future, just to much pressure.

[RisingRainbows]

Originally Posted by Don Andersen

Hi,

A Regional Biologist told me he believed that there was less than 300 spawners in the N. Ram. Wouldn't take long to remove them all.
The first year C&R was implemented on the N. Ram, the creel census gal recorded 8 fish caught by all the anglers.
The previous limit had nearly removed all the trout.

Don

This is a scientific opinion from someone who knows more than we do about the data and shows catch and release is necessary in this stream specifically. It's hard to argue with that.

[RisingRainbows]

I think this is an important discussion. I believe catch and release is necessary and will be even more so in the future. The alternative is closing more and more waters completely which would be detrimental. Fisherman are passionate about the streams they fish and without passionate sportsmen, who will speak up to other issues impacting streams such as habitat loss?

[58thecat]

We need people to govern most peoples actions as in catch and release, lake closures etc because people in general do not think long term.
Greedy buggers and left to catch and eat, no limits etc well two generations from now would ask "what's a fish?"

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by RisingRainbows

This is a scientific opinion from someone who knows more than we do about the data and shows catch and release is necessary in this stream specifically. It's hard to argue with that.

What this means to me is that fishing of any kind should put to an end until this is a healthy fishery. Although a catch and release fishery has a low mortality rate, there is still mortalities, and it's not even for food but just for fun which I personally feel is worse.

If conservation truly is the motivating factor behind ones argument, then a total fishing ban shouldn't be a problem but a goal IMO.

[RisingRainbows]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

What this means to me is that fishing of any kind should put to an end until this is a healthy fishery. Although a catch and release fishery has a low mortality rate, there is still mortalities, and it's not even for food but just for fun which I personally feel is worse.

If conservation truly is the motivating factor behind ones argument, then a total fishing ban shouldn't be a problem but a goal IMO.

The only problem with a full ban in my opinion is you remove that interaction and attachment to the creek which motivates people to fight for and care about the creek. If a full ban is necessary, I support it, but if catch and release is at all sustainable I think that can be a better option.

[Winch101]

I would estimate that 25 % of the people putting a line in the water
In Alberta are not adhering to any regulation . Poaching is rampant .
We need a bounty hunter system on poachers . Turn in a poacher
Who is indicted and charged ..$1000 . Reward .... Be a nice hobby
And likely pay well . Really doesn't matter what the rank and file do
Cause the poachers are making up for it .

[FlyTheory]

Originally Posted by pikergolf

For some reason people can't see the big picture, they think they are going to be the only people to keep one fish. Alberta has a lot of people, and for whatever reason outdoor activities are now the cool thing to do. It puts a lot of strain on all our resources, fish, birds deer, etc. Even the wild places that people just want to hike in are under pressure by all groups. It's getting crowded and we need to adjust our expectations. Keeping fish will not feasible in most moving waters in the future, just to much pressure.

I agree, I feel like a lot of people have a hard time not just looking at the big picture, but also time. Some people don't realize the efforts that it takes to grow trophy fish (in general) and how biologically expensive those fish are. People who cannot look at the big picture, in life, are very limited. It prevents society from progressing in a lot of respects.

Originally Posted by RisingRainbows

The only problem with a full ban in my opinion is you remove that interaction and attachment to the creek which motivates people to fight for and care about the creek. If a full ban is necessary, I support it, but if catch and release is at all sustainable I think that can be a better option.

A full ban is great, and I would support it as well. There is one issue, if there is a ban on an area, your exposure of fishery health will go down hill. No attention from fishermen = less advocates for the waterways. Part of the reason why rivers get so much attention is because of fishermen. I've been to many 3rd were catch and release isn't even a concept, and the fisheries there absolutely suck. Conservation and c&r is the key to our native and wild rivers to exist. If people wanna eat trout, please go to a pot hole or Maligne lake and eat the fish out of there!

[huntsfurfish]

Was going to stay out of this. And avoid the troll but here goes.

There will be room for both groups for a long time if we allow it. And by allow it, I mean dont kick the carp out of each other!

I have been a catch and release fisherman for the last 35 years(long before it became "fashionable" as some would call it or necessary as I and many others would call it).
I still keep an occasional fish to eat and enjoy that ability as well.

I enjoy fishing. Judge me if you must!

[Jayhad]

Originally Posted by Winch101

I would estimate that 25 % of the people putting a line in the water
In Alberta are not adhering to any regulation . Poaching is rampant .
We need a bounty hunter system on poachers . Turn in a poacher
Who is indicted and charged ..$1000 . Reward .... Be a nice hobby
And likely pay well . Really doesn't matter what the rank and file do
Cause the poachers are making up for it .

What a great idea, it reminds me of something....... oh yeah the REPORT A POACHER program

[858king]

On the coast, the only endangered fish are the fish that everybody likes to kill and eat; sockeye, coho, chinook. There's no shortage of pinks or chums. Everybody likes to blame industry and pollution, but the causality seems clear enough, and I used to commercial fish.

Likewise the only productive kill fisheries (on the Island at least) are augmented/stocked fisheries.

I think fisheries like the East Slope should issue tags, maybe two a season. Let people keep the occasional, get some money out of it. Then push the stocking program like crazy. Stock the Bow -- it's not natural. Stock the potholes. Stock the roadside borrow pits in the cities. And in that light, throw those goofy little carp or perch in the borrow pits (not trolling with that comment). Keep the meat fishermen in near the city, don't harsh them, and let them fill their boots with the easy fish. Many meat fishermen/Asians/Europeans seem to prefer goldeye and carp over walleye. Use the irrigation canals as a fishery resource. Promote pay ponds.

There are other methods. Banning powerboats would be a start. Banning sonar and GPS would be another. Upping the fish cop quantity would be a great idea -- forget about dozens of little pedantic rats.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by 858king

On the coast, the only endangered fish are the fish that everybody likes to kill and eat; sockeye, coho, chinook. There's no shortage of pinks or chums. Everybody likes to blame industry and pollution, but the causality seems clear enough, and I used to commercial fish.

Likewise the only productive kill fisheries (on the Island at least) are augmented/stocked fisheries.

I think fisheries like the East Slope should issue tags, maybe two a season. Let people keep the occasional, get some money out of it. Then push the stocking program like crazy. Stock the Bow -- it's not natural. Stock the potholes. Stock the roadside borrow pits in the cities. And in that light, throw those goofy little carp or perch in the borrow pits (not trolling with that comment). Keep the meat fishermen in near the city, don't harsh them, and let them fill their boots with the easy fish. Many meat fishermen/Asians/Europeans seem to prefer goldeye and carp over walleye. Use the irrigation canals as a fishery resource. Promote pay ponds.

There are other methods. Banning powerboats would be a start. Banning sonar and GPS would be another. Upping the fish cop quantity would be a great idea -- forget about dozens of little pedantic rats.

Most of this sounds good. You never mentioned the Rock fish in the Georgia straight though, they are not in the greatest shape either. I do like your position on the stocking programs.

[FlyTheory]

Originally Posted by 858king

On the coast, the only endangered fish are the fish that everybody likes to kill and eat; sockeye, coho, chinook. There's no shortage of pinks or chums. Everybody likes to blame industry and pollution, but the causality seems clear enough, and I used to commercial fish.

Likewise the only productive kill fisheries (on the Island at least) are augmented/stocked fisheries.

I think fisheries like the East Slope should issue tags, maybe two a season. Let people keep the occasional, get some money out of it. Then push the stocking program like crazy. Stock the Bow -- it's not natural. Stock the potholes. Stock the roadside borrow pits in the cities. And in that light, throw those goofy little carp or perch in the borrow pits (not trolling with that comment). Keep the meat fishermen in near the city, don't harsh them, and let them fill their boots with the easy fish. Many meat fishermen/Asians/Europeans seem to prefer goldeye and carp over walleye. Use the irrigation canals as a fishery resource. Promote pay ponds.

There are other methods. Banning powerboats would be a start. Banning sonar and GPS would be another. Upping the fish cop quantity would be a great idea -- forget about dozens of little pedantic rats.

You have a very solid plan. I like the way you think, and I 100% agree with you. Honestly if we implemented you ideas, we'd be way better off with our fisheries.

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by 858king

On the coast, the only endangered fish are the fish that everybody likes to kill and eat; sockeye, coho, chinook. There's no shortage of pinks or chums. Everybody likes to blame industry and pollution, but the causality seems clear enough, and I used to commercial fish.

Likewise the only productive kill fisheries (on the Island at least) are augmented/stocked fisheries.

I think fisheries like the East Slope should issue tags, maybe two a season. Let people keep the occasional, get some money out of it. Then push the stocking program like crazy. Stock the Bow -- it's not natural. Stock the potholes. Stock the roadside borrow pits in the cities. And in that light, throw those goofy little carp or perch in the borrow pits (not trolling with that comment). Keep the meat fishermen in near the city, don't harsh them, and let them fill their boots with the easy fish. Many meat fishermen/Asians/Europeans seem to prefer goldeye and carp over walleye. Use the irrigation canals as a fishery resource. Promote pay ponds.

There are other methods. Banning powerboats would be a start. Banning sonar and GPS would be another. Upping the fish cop quantity would be a great idea -- forget about dozens of little pedantic rats.

I don't know about other areas, I do know a bit about the fish around here.

We have at least seven species of fish in our local rivers that are big enough to be considered table fare. Only four of those are targeted by fisherman.

I started fishing these rivers in the early 1960s and over the years I've seen a major decline in the fish populations, not just the fish targeted by fishermen.

One species is particularly telling. River Chub used to be abundant and annoying. No one I know eat them. Kids would target them for the fun of catching something and some would use them as bait, but typically they got little attention.

In recent years I see no one targeting them, not even kids. Never-the-less their population seems to have dropped further then other species.
It is clear that all populations have decreased considerably.

Back in the day a few people ran nets on the larger rivers, today only Native people may set nets in the local rivers and few of them do.

So are net fishermen the reason for the failing fish populations or is it sport fishermen?

You know what I think. I think it is both and a lot more.

I think it is development, pollution, fishing pressure, a changing environment and increased predation. And maybe some factors we don't even know about.

I think a lot of people, including some natural resources people look at the narrow picture but not the wider picture.

We look at the number of fishermen and the number of fish and think we have it all figured out. But wildlife management is much more complicated then that.
Human harvest, predation, food supply, habitat, disease, competing species and pollution all play a role in any species population dynamics.

We can never manage any population properly if we look only at one or two aspects of the interaction between ourselves and the any other species.

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

I don't know about other areas, I do know a bit about the fish around here.

We have at least seven species of fish in our local rivers that are big enough to be considered table fare. Only four of those are targeted by fisherman.

I started fishing these rivers in the early 1960s and over the years I've seen a major decline in the fish populations, not just the fish targeted by fishermen.

One species is particularly telling. River Chub used to be abundant and annoying. No one I know eat them. Kids would target them for the fun of catching something and some would use them as bait, but typically they got little attention.

In recent years I see no one targeting them, not even kids. Never-the-less their population seems to have dropped further then other species.
It is clear that all populations have decreased considerably.

Back in the day a few people ran nets on the larger rivers, today only Native people may set nets in the local rivers and few of them do.

So are net fishermen the reason for the failing fish populations or is it sport fishermen?

You know what I think. I think it is both and a lot more.

I think it is development, pollution, fishing pressure, a changing environment and increased predation. And maybe some factors we don't even know about.

I think a lot of people, including some natural resources people look at the narrow picture but not the wider picture.

We look at the number of fishermen and the number of fish and think we have it all figured out. But wildlife management is much more complicated then that.
Human harvest, predation, food supply, habitat, disease, competing species and pollution all play a role in any species population dynamics.

We can never manage any population properly if we look only at one or two aspects of the interaction between ourselves and the any other species.

Agree, well said Keg!

[RisingRainbows]

Originally Posted by 858king

On the coast, the only endangered fish are the fish that everybody likes to kill and eat; sockeye, coho, chinook. There's no shortage of pinks or chums. Everybody likes to blame industry and pollution, but the causality seems clear enough, and I used to commercial fish.

Commercial fishing definitely impacts fish populations, however so does pollution and industry. Look at the grayling in Alberta; their populations were decimated by loss of spawning habitat, not overfishing. Keeping fish makes an impact but don't let pollution and industry off the hook.

Originally Posted by 858king

I think fisheries like the East Slope should issue tags, maybe two a season. Let people keep the occasional, get some money out of it. Then push the stocking program like crazy. Stock the Bow -- it's not natural. Stock the potholes. Stock the roadside borrow pits in the cities. And in that light, throw those goofy little carp or perch in the borrow pits (not trolling with that comment).

I don't think more stocking in our rivers and streams is the answer, I have read evidence that streams are healthier without being supplemented by stocking. I do agree, however, that more stocked fish in places where no fish exist natively (put and take fisheries) does take pressure off native fish.

[858king]

^agree with both posts, more or less.

It seems to my non-scientific eye that the nicer the scenery, the more fragile the fishery. Clean clear water often means food-poor and nearly sterile habitat. Much of the habitat suffers from long winters, too. Combine that with any quantity of pressure and the fishery suffers.

Add to the mix metal mining, and you can have a real doozy. Copper and metal mines can wipe out whole watersheds and often take decades to show. I love copper plumbing as much as the next guy, and I really like gasoline, so can't be a hypocrite about it. But at the same time we ought to demand a reasonable and pragmatic amount of oversight, keep internal combustion vehicles out of rivers and watersheds when necessary -- and in a place like Alberta, that could mean most of the time -- and try to promote 'canned' fisheries.

The only way (I am convinced) to create a useful love for the environment among the population is to both make them work for it and benefit from it. I love the trout ponds I grew up on out there. They've been neglected and are no longer stocked, and in a small way, that's my fault. If we don't work for it views seem to get wonky; think yuppie on one hand and/or quad in redd. It's like a fishing welfare state. If people are tearing up creeks and blasting through springs on quads etc, then OHVs should be banned until the ground is frozen. There's untold millions of sq kms of private land to butcher if so desired, it doesn't need to happen in wild places.

[RisingRainbows]

All good points, 858king

[Astrocyte]

Originally Posted by clamlinguine

OK, prepare for the obvious. Man is not far removed from being hunter/ gatherer. Succesful humans are genetically inclined to want to hunt/seek/compete/ succeed.

I hope you do not buy from a grocery store then. That would go against your genetic nature.

Originally Posted by clamlinguine

Further, as a child, do you remember the thrill of an elder coming home with a catch. Have you ever brought home a catch to educate and inspire family members. Have you ever had a family get together to eat a fish. Has anyone ever instilled the righteousness of only killing what you are willing to eat. Maybe I'm lucky, but I remember these things and I am grateful.
I hope this helps you wrap your head around it.

I cannot speak for others but for myself my favorite memories of the outdoors were the fishing trips my Dad took me on. He would take me out in the boat and actually let me catch my own fish. I never had to wait for the catch to come home to see it. The thrill of fishing came from being there first hand. I learned the process of how we end up with that catch. From selecting which hooks worked best for certain fish, how water depth affects which fish are around, the bait selection, how to set the hook and bring the fish in correctly, the identifying markers on fish to know what I caught (and where not to place my fingers to avoid cuts), the importance of being careful handling the fish, and believe it or not the good thing of releasing fish to let someone else have the fun as well. To me that learning out on the lake was far more impressionable than just seeing the fish being brought home by someone else. I am beyond grateful that I learned all that I did out on the water from my Dad. And when I have a child they will be learning the same things. Still today I get a thrill out of any fish I catch, I would not bother fishing if it did not give me excitement each time a fish is on the hook.







Side note. What is the current fine rate for poaching? Is it still $1000 a fish or does that only apply to walleye?-thought I read it was only for walleye.