To keep or not to keep

[Royal Wulff]

Hi folks, RW here,

In the latest issue of "American Angler" the magazine of Fly Fishing and Fly Tying, their January/February Web Poll caught my eye.

"Is it ever okay to keep a trout to eat?" For someone as old as me that seems to be a stupid question. I've been eating trout since the beginning of time (my time, that is).
In fragile fisheries or where the law doesn't allow keeping trout, of course I release them. And I release a lot more besides. But I don't take the "carved in stone" stance that all trout should be released because in this day and age it is the politicaly correct thing to do. I mean, god forbid we don't want to go against the majority of fly fishers, one way or the other.

Well guess what?! It appears that the majority of fly fishers (an overwhelming majority) say it's okay to keep a few trout to eat.

I set my own personal limits, which are well below what the law allows. I generally keep about a dozen brookies a year, and a couple of salmon for special meals. For a full fledged fish-fry I'm generally targeting panfish...perch, gills, crappies, etc.

Now, for the poll results: Over 400 readers reponded to the January/February poll and ninety-two percent said that it is okay to keep some trout to eat. The final tally totaled 354 votes for keeping a trout on occasion and 29 for never catching/keeping a trout to eat.

How bout we take a poll on what FAOL'ers say.....keep occasionally or 100 percent catch and release? And please, no sharp tounged rants, holier than thou thoughts or moral judgements on the subject. Just a simple answer or brief thought will suffice.

I'd like to see if our percentages here on FAOL match up in similarity to the magazine's poll.

Later, RW

------------------
"We fish for pleasure; I for mine, you for yours." -James Leisenring on fishing the wet fly-




[This message has been edited by Royal Wulff (edited 05 February 2005).]

[DavidsonDuke]

RW,

I'd say my practice pretty much mirrors yours (except its stocked bows, not brookies).

So . . . yes.

[purebs]

Keep a few

Dear RW,

I rarely keep trout, but that is more a function of my inability to tote them along while on stream and my laziness when it comes to cleaning them.

If it is legal to keep fish then I see no harm in doing so within the limits of the law.

I will admit to crying everytime I have to throw back an undersized flounder or weakfish though.

Regards,
Tim Murphy

[This message has been edited by Tim Murphy (edited 05 February 2005).]

[stonefly71]

KEEP if I feel like it.

------------------
To each there own !

[flyfisherjoe]

I'll often keep stockers. In some cases a species of trout doesn't belong, and keeping them can help the fishery. A case in point is the Golden Trout Wilderness region in California. Brown trout were planted long ago and killing off the native Goldens in some areas. A recent research project is being conducted to determine what can be done to help the Goldens.

------------------
Joe

Keeping some fish is ok with me. I voted the same way on the American Angler poll.

[Garic]

Keep a few. There is a small stream near me that has no resident trout bigger than 8" due to no angling preasure whatsoever. too many fish, not enough feeding.

------------------
Work is a means for people to afford their fishing.

[splitditch]

Take what you need, they're a gift, thank the giver.

[Spud]

I have no problem keeping a trout if it is legal. In many wild trout fisheries I will release them anyway, but I will keep a wild fish under certain circumstances...like a brookie from a trout stream that is packed full of brookies. If it is a stream with a small population, they go back to the water.

I don't mind keeping a stocker at all in most areas. I like Landlocked Salmon the best (I catch them in the finger lakes, it's put and take in most of the lakes).

But, like I said, I don't keep fish often...just don't have problems doing it.

------------------
"If firearms cause crimes and kill people, all of the ones I have must be defective."