Keeping Brookies?

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by 10incher, Jul 22, 2013.

  1. Kent Lufkin

    Kent Lufkin Remember when you could remember everything?

    That's an interesting conundrum and one worth taking up with WDFW. There's an IFPAG meeting soon and I'll be happy to make the case.

    K
     
    Brookie_Hunter likes this.
  2. triploidjunkie

    triploidjunkie Active Member

    You sure it's not illegal to waste a gamefish?
     
  3. triploidjunkie

    triploidjunkie Active Member

    Some of the streams around here would be barren if not for brookies. There are several I don't think are worse for it that don't let them reach any streams where they compete. And there are several that they shouldn't be in, and F&G are trying to eradicate. They did get rid of all the brookies and restocked the one stream that had cutts with"native" westslopes on the rez. So one small victory.
     
  4. Kent Lufkin

    Kent Lufkin Remember when you could remember everything?

    I did't say it was necessarily legal, just ethical. Just because it's illegal doesn't make it wrong.

    K
     
    Brookie_Hunter likes this.
  5. Brookie_Hunter

    Brookie_Hunter aka Dave Hoover

    Please do Kent.
     
  6. triploidjunkie

    triploidjunkie Active Member

    I'm all for taking brookies from streams and rivers that have indigenous populations of other fish. But tossing them up on the banks makes no sense, is illegal, and yes, I do believe un-ethical. You can't make me believe you can't find someone to take tasty brookies off your hands.
     
  7. Brookie_Hunter

    Brookie_Hunter aka Dave Hoover

    I'll second the tasty part... ;)
     
  8. Stonefish

    Stonefish Triploid, Humpy & Seaplane Hater

    If you are going to toss them, at least toss them in a frying pan.
     
  9. Kent Lufkin

    Kent Lufkin Remember when you could remember everything?

    FWIW, I didn't say it made sense, only that some folk who feel that strongly about brookies do. Personally, I don't discriminate. I let all fish go after I catch them, even brookies.

    You're a big boy and can certainly believe what you want. But if you fish with me, I not only won't keep brookies, I sure as heck won't give them to you [just kidding!]

    K
     
    Stew McLeod likes this.
  10. scottr

    scottr Active Member

    To provide a different perspective on the ethical (not legal) comments replace the word "brook trout" with "northern pike minnow". How is throwing a 5" pike minnow on the bank any different than a 5" brook trout? What about a 5" lake trout on the shore of Yellowstone Lake?
     
  11. triploidjunkie

    triploidjunkie Active Member

    I wasn't aiming that at you Kent, I'm sure you'd never do such a thing. It just blows me away people do that. I was taught never to kill anything on purpose, unless you planned on eating it. That being said, I give the"ol'montana handshake" to all tench I catch now. And squawfish in a certain watershed that they almost destroyed, even though they are native. And that was at the insistence of local bios.
     
  12. scottr

    scottr Active Member

    I generally agree but when a species goes from introduced to invasive something needs to be done (like what they are doing with Pike minnow).

    I have only seen this issue in one Washington tributary (and the previously mentioned river that shall not be named). This WA creek was so full of little brookies I never caught a native in it. IMO a 5" dispatched brookie on the bank feeds the 4 legged critters and leaves a little potential carrying capacity for a native.

    BTW I'm not advocating or condoning illegal behavior. We all need to follow the rules. But from a theoretical perspective I don't have a moral dilemma about bonking brookies.
     
  13. 10incher

    10incher Active Member

    Sorry to be a "rules douche", but... You CAN keep brookies of any size in the Snoqualmie and it's forks. They do not have to be 10". And you CAN'T catch them and throw them up on the bank to die.

    EBT (eastern brook trout) are not included in the general "trout" species list and therefor fall under statewide rules for their species in open waters. Which, for rivers and streams, is no size limit and a bag of five.

    The "Harvest and Possession" rules state that "You May Not: Intentionally waste fish or shellfish. This includes mutilating or clipping fins and then returning to the water any live fish"

    So eat 'em if you keep 'em! Any of 'em!
     
  14. NPM are native; brookies are not. Brookies also pose a threat to bull trout where they co-occur.
    I believe that you are required to kill any lake trout caught in Yellowstone Lake, so there is no ambivalence there.
    D
     
    scottr likes this.
  15. 10incher

    10incher Active Member

    Actually...
     
  16. scottr

    scottr Active Member


    All true.

    I'm not advocating or condoning illegal behavior. We all need to follow the rules. In the case of the Yellowstone, yes it is illegal to put them back.

    But from a theoretical perspective I don't have a moral dilemma about bonking brookies.
     
  17. Mike Munro

    Mike Munro Member

    So for the purposes of this discussion, how does the species catch-and-keep rule reconcile with the "may not intentionally waste fish..." provision? Seems like "harvesting" an undersized brookie just to cull the population may be a conflict.

    (I get the sense that we're not going to arrive at a decisive conclusion in this discussion, but I find it fascinating, none the less.)
     
  18. 10incher

    10incher Active Member

    I don't have any problem recognizing the ambiguity of the stated rules. But... Semantics aside, you can't legally waste any fish intentionally. And that's how it will go down in any legal judgment. I don't mind playing with the possibilities NOT unimplied by the rules, but that'll only get you so far in front of a game warden or a judge.
     
    Kent Lufkin likes this.
  19. scottr

    scottr Active Member

    Fixed this for ya ;)
     
    Kent Lufkin likes this.
  20. Mike Munro

    Mike Munro Member

    Equivocation: it's what's for dinner ;)
     
    10incher and Kent Lufkin like this.