"BETHEL A Vermont fisherman who caught a 9.5-pound salmon captured
something else, too a homing device that ended up leading
authorities to the illegally-taken fish in his freezer."
If he knew and took the fish anyway, he should get a big fine. Many of us
would have had no clue though, and just taken the fish. In that case, cut
him a break.
Man-- the differences between Brown Trout and salmon are pretty
subtle. I can see how he might be fooled-- but I'm with you- no
excuse. Pay up buddy.
In the field, with just one fish- I think I'd have to go with the
poorly arranged teeth on the roof of the mouth of the Brown. Now-- If
I just caught the biggest fish of my life, was fishing for Brown's-
and caught what I thought *was* one, would I think to check his dental
work? Probably not.
If this fish was so important to the state it should have had a visible tag
that alerted the unwary.
I have caught tagged fish that were ok to keep but asked for a report about
size and whereabouts.
It just seems to me that the biologists running this test/experiment /study
should have been more careful about protecting this fish.
Especially as it was one of two specimens. And a variety that could have
Sounds like a case of professional negligence.
It wasn't *the fish*. It is the species. Atlantic salmon are catch
& release in VT. [or were when this was caught anyway.] The
burden is on the fisherman to properly identify a species.
When I was a kid I wasn't sure of a surefire way to tell a big Rock
Bass [an unprotected species] from a smaller Largemouth Bass. [had to
be 12" long] So I tossed any of those questionable ones back unless
they were 12" & Bass season was open.
The introduction of an 'outfitter' is what bothers me in that account.
The outfitter apparently saw the fish and knew the guy was keeping it-
very publicly, BTW.
That would have been the easy thing for the state to do-- and maybe
they would have learned even more about the fish in the process. But
it doesn't excuse the fisherman for keeping a protected species.
Jim, I am not condoning the guy keeping a fish that is a protected species.
But if this one particular fish was part of an important experiment, it
should have been adequately identified as such.
If the guy had caught others that were not being tracked he would still be
wrong but he would likely not have been apprehended.
It's pretty hard to check everybody's catch. We have to depend on peoples
integrity. Some have it others don't.
Here on the Florida SW gulf coast snook fishing as been in limbo for about a
year and a half with another year to go. We had an unusual cold snap that
set back the snook population. Catch and release is allowed. Release is the
Yeah-- It isn't immediately clear in that article, but the problem
wasn't that the fish had a device in it-- The problem was that it was
a Salmon-- not a Brown.
This article is a little better-
And points out that he was with an 'outfitter' - not sure exactly what
that means in VT-- but if I was paying someone to help me fish &
*they* didn't point out that I had to toss that beauty back-- I'd be a
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.