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).]