Alright, I'm going to be a bit of a cynic here...

I live in Vermont, where brook trout are undisputed kings of the streams. Find any clear, cold stream, and it'll have trout. I don't fly fish (yet), but I've netted a few while going after other stuff and they're pretty amazing little fish: (see rarecichlids' pics at http://forum.nanfa.o...?showtopic=3063). I'd *love* to see them in an aquarium, but I've never had a setup that would be close to appropriate and wouldn't consider keeping them in anything less than ideal conditions. I'm thinking that'd mean at least a 125g tank with strong current and guaranteed low temps.

Anyway, I'll admit that I've occasionally collected fish that aren't strictly legal under the laws of the states where I was living. To some extent, I'm comfortable obeying the spirit of the law if not the letter -- and only because I'm confident that I know enough to understand what it is that the laws are *actually* trying to accomplish. To me, it makes absolutely no sense that I can kill and bring home 50 breeding-size yellow perch per day (and repeat day after day), but it's illegal to scoop up one 2" perch and put him in my aquarium. That aspect of the law is intended to prevent people from keeping live fish and reintroducing elsewhere, and I understand that. There is no chance my fish will ever be released, so that's a moot point as far as I'm concerned. But... your average fisherman isn't as clued in as I am, and so the states have written the law in a way that makes it easy for Fish & Wildlife to enforce -- when you leave the lake, everything in your bucket must be dead. Period.

Back on topic: If I ever did have a tank setup appropriately to keep brookies, I still feel like it'd be regarded as a cardinal sin to grab one or two 3" fish from a well-populated stream (there are plenty of places here where you can find a school of 10-50 little ones in every pool). Folks will look the other way to some extent on sunfish, bullheads, or perch, but I doubt it'd be the same with a trout. That's despite the fact that it's perfectly legal to kill and bring home 12 breeding-size brook trout per day.

What's the deal here? Do trout have this special status because it's so easy to wipe out an entire stream of them by polluting or habitat disturbance? Is it because there's such a fly-fishing industry dependent on them? Would it really be so much worse to grab a trout from a stream where they're incredibly abundant than a sunfish from the pond?

This isn't just an academic rant... My girlfriend and I just signed papers to buy a house right on a beautiful little mountain stream. I love the idea of keeping a 125g or larger tank in our basement set up to mimic the stream that's only 25 ft away. Yes, I could probably buy some small trout legally from a hatchery or something, but it seems to me like it would be far *worse* to have those in a tank inside than fish collected directly from the stream. I'll certainly never release fish back into that stream, but there's always the outside chance that a 100yr flood might knock the house into the steam or something. In that unlikely case, I'd much rather have it be a local brookie going back into the stream than some hatchery-bred fish coming from a completely different watershed...

Thoughts? What's an ethical fishkeeper to do? Have any non-professionals successfully gone through the process to get scientific collecting permits or whatever?

It's be *really* nice if we ever got some regulations recognizing native fishkeeping as an acceptable alternative use of fish on equal footing with angling, but it'll never happen. Fish & Wildlife agencies are too underfunded / understaffed, and there's just no incentive to develop and enforce regulations that would govern such a relatively tiny hobby as ours (tiny at least as compared to angling). I'd be surprised if there are even 100 people in Vermont regularly keeping native fish in aquariums -- I don't see legislation/regulations ever being passed even recognizing that it exists as a hobby.

Yaarrrr.... -Jase

Edited by jase, 05 April 2008 - 08:23 AM.

Allow me to sound like the cynic but the 'ethical fishkeeper' should follow the letter of the law not the spirit or a personal interpretation. We really don't like those discussions from blossoming either because as an organization we need to be following the letter of the law and promoting that stance. When the letter of the law may not seem logical you have avenues to persue to change the law. Gambusia just began contacting his state fisheries biologists to point out some of these very things; where temporart put and take trout streams have year round closures on bait collecting. Others have gone to their state agencies to 'talk some sense' or you go the route of a permit. Yes you are right that fishery regulations are ment for the average person, but because WE as a collective are more responsible or 'know better' does not put us above the law.

I would also disagree that there is no incentive to develop and enforce regulations. They are developed when stupid things happen like bait bucket and pet trade introductions. Virginia has banned the use of crayfish as bait just last year. They have clear regulations on the number of and type of fish that can be kept in home aquaria. While other states don't have something so explicit, it does not mean bait and personal collecting isn't on their radar. However, as long as stuff that shouldn't be in local waterways keeps showing up, regulations will be developed and enforaced, we just may not like them.

Onto your point of trout, specifically brookies. I will agree with you that the long history of trout flyfishing and conservation is likely a main reason that someone would gasp at captive brookies. The trout fishery in the United States has developed in such a way over such a long period of time that catch and release/fly anglers often feel they are gods among men when it comes to those who keep trout. We are still conserving habitat and fisheries of non-native trout all over the east coast because organizations like TU have engrained in peoples head the notion of a prestigous fish that shouldn't make it to the dinner plate. Even in a put and take fishery, where it makes no sense not to remove some fish, especially the river chickens that won't live for 3 months, you will always get a nasty look from someone for keeping a trout. The same thing has occured as tournament and trophy bass fishing has developed, which if you think, is a younger fishery than trout. Some people would run to the hills screaming if a limit of 2-3lb largemouths were kept for the dinner table. You know what, largemouth and smallmouth taste great. B.A.S.S., FLW, tournaments, bass 'conservation', didn't exist 50 years ago, what do you think people did with those bass? They ate them. Then it became more lucrative to not have that type of fishery and somewhere shortly after not acceptable.

We are still conserving habitat and fisheries of non-native trout all over the east coast because organizations like TU have engrained in peoples head the notion of a prestigous fish that shouldn't make it to the dinner plate.

If I'm not mistaken doesn't TU frown upon the protection and stocking of non-native trout?

TU works with the Indiana DNR to stock Brown trout. So I guess they are all for it.
http://lists.in.gov/...May/000263.html

It seems that they are moving in that direction in some places but I've done work in plenty of streams where TU is active and browns are the only salmonid. It's likely regional and lets face it brookies either weren't some places or can't be some places they were, but we've still gotta have our trout, right...?

Allow me to sound like the cynic but the 'ethical fishkeeper' should follow the letter of the law not the spirit or a personal interpretation. We really don't like those discussions from blossoming either because as an organization we need to be following the letter of the law and promoting that stance. When the letter of the law may not seem logical you have avenues to persue to change the law. Gambusia just began contacting his state fisheries biologists to point out some of these very things; where temporart put and take trout streams have year round closures on bait collecting. Others have gone to their state agencies to 'talk some sense' or you go the route of a permit. Yes you are right that fishery regulations are ment for the average person, but because WE as a collective are more responsible or 'know better' does not put us above the law.

Matt, I hear you, but I feel like I'm getting a smackdown for saying something that others don't/won't, and I find that pretty offensive. Let's be honest with ourselves -- many/most of the fish discussed in the "Sunfishes and Basses" Forum were probably not collected in full accordance with state laws. Of course NANFA has to encourage everyone to follow the letter of the law and not just the spirit, but let's not pretend that *all* of the fish we're discussing here were collected legally and that I'm the only one who has kept a sunfish that wasn't allowed by my state. Simply avoiding discussing it on official NANFA forums doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

I went pike fishing 2 weekends ago, and the guy I was with bought a couple dozen sickly-looking golden shiners and white suckers as bait. Vermont has new rules in effect because of VHS that restrict movement/use of live bait, but you're still allowed to take those sickly baitfish from who-knows-where and bring them to any body of water in the state. Those minnows sat on hooks under the ice for 4 hours, and a few were grabbed by pike that we subsequently released. At the end of the day, the guy I was with wanted to dump the rest of the bait into the pond. There was no way I would allow that to happen -- I insisted that we dump them all on the ice for the seagulls to eat instead. He couldn't understand why we'd do that rather than drop them in the pond as extra food for pike. Now *that's* the guy that the laws are written for...

Point being, I felt like I was violating the *spirit* of the law far, far more by bringing those sickly-looking baitfish out onto a lake (which we had full permits for -- part of the VHS rules) than I *ever* have felt when collecting/keeping natives. As long as that kind of hypocrisy exists in the system, I'm not going to lose sleep over following my own knowledge and background in conservation biology in guiding my collecting decisions -- regardless of what the *letter* of the law says.

It's great that some folks are trying to change the laws in their states to be more favorable to collecting, and I might try the same here in VT, but I frankly don't think it will ever meet with any success. new rules might come in about baitfish over VHS, but I can't imagine that it would be possible to gain any traction on native fishkeeping as a part of that process. VT doesn't have nearly as many non-game fish suitable for aquariums as more southerly states (especially lacking darter diversity) , and I doubt there are enough of us interested in the hobby to get ourselves noticed. Fish & Wildlife is extremely short-staffed and underfunded. Since keeping native fish would not add anything to their budget or to the State's economy, I can't imaging Fish & Wildlife agreeing to develop a completely new set of regulations that their game wardens would need to know and enforce, given that their chance of ever running into anyone collecting for an aquarium is extremely low.

Yes, I want to follow the law. I don't speed, I don't steal, etc. But this is an area where the laws just aren't written even acknowledging that someone might want to keep a native fish in an aquarium, so that makes it a bit of a quandary for me. Just please don't pretend I'm the only NANFA member that feels this way...

-Jase

Edited by jase, 05 April 2008 - 10:33 AM.

On Matt's suggestion to look into getting a permit, I just started a new thread on that topic over at http://forum.nanfa.o...?showtopic=4472. If you have experience with getting a permit for just hobby purposes, drop a line over there, eh?

Jase you're reight that you would/will probably get an ear full about it. If it was from a healthy population, legal, and you provided a proper life support system, there wouldn't be a peep from me. I see what you're saying about the hypocrisy of some sides of conservation and fisheries.

All I can say is be responsible and present yourself in that manner to your state if you think something doesn't make sense. Irregardless of whether the spirit or the letter make sense, some of us have to follow it because our careers depend on it. I could go on and on about it but it's that cut and dry. I'm on that other side of the fence because I'm a state resource agency employee, so while I might not agree with my own states regulations I'm not going to interpret them how I see fit. That would be the ultimate hypocrisy.

You're also right that you aren't the only NANFAn that feels that way, some especially more than others; but remeber, it can be taken away in a heartbeat. I've said it multiple times for over a year now, the guise of 'collecting bait' is over because of the high rate of imperiliment in aquatic species, invasive/exotics, VHS, whirling disease, etc.

If I'm not mistaken doesn't TU frown upon the protection and stocking of non-native trout?

No. When I owned a flyfishig shop and was a member of TU, we had a southern brook trout restoration program in the GSMNP. It was discovered that browns and rainbows couldn't overcome a 12'-15' waterfall barrier so we had permission on selected streams to build the barriers and remove the browns and rainbows upstream by either fishing or electrofishing them. During a TU meeting to decide what to do with the caught fish I suggested to kill them since they are invasive and leave them for the bears and raccoons, yes I really spiced up the meeting and no I didn't have to close my shop. Southern brook trout = native, browns and 'bows = invasive/introduced. Just because it's wild doesn't mean it belongs, TU supports browns and 'bows.

I think a lot of what Jase is saying makes sense, and he is brave to say it.

By the way, trout are so beautiful! I wish I could live in a cabin in the Smoky mountains and just go fishing in a stream all day...

Matt, I hear you, but I feel like I'm getting a smackdown for saying something that others don't/won't, and I find that pretty offensive. Let's be honest with ourselves -- many/most of the fish discussed in the "Sunfishes and Basses" Forum were probably not collected in full accordance with state laws.

Yes, I want to follow the law. I don't speed, I don't steal, etc. But this is an area where the laws just aren't written even acknowledging that someone might want to keep a native fish in an aquarium, so that makes it a bit of a quandary for me. Just please don't pretend I'm the only NANFA member that feels this way...

-Jase

I don't think that you should be offended by Matt's comments, people who want bass and sunfish are constantly reminded to collect within the law. You are not being singled out. NANFA encourages legal methods of aquireing these fish through one of the vendors, a local fish hatchery, or hook and line. I once caught a trout on hook and line and kept it. It was legal for me to do so, so that is what I did. You could always catch an 8" brookie on hook and line and if it is legal for you to eat it you can put it in an aquarium. This way you can have the fun of catching it hook and line and keeping it in an aquarium.

No one is pretending that you are the only one that feels that way, BUT we as an organization must promote, encourage, remind, and ensist that laws are followed. If we do not do so we would not get cooperation from state/federal organizations. What if we wanted to approach a state about changing a rule but were associated with turning a blind eye to breaking the "fish" laws, state officials would not take us seriously and not consider our recomendations. Please don't take this personally, we do not single people out, we simply state the obvious when we observe that it may need to be stated.


Respectfully

Edited by Scenicrivers, 13 April 2008 - 09:21 AM.

I live in Vermont, where brook trout are undisputed kings of the streams. Find any clear, cold stream, and it'll have trout. I don't fly fish (yet), but I've netted a few while going after other stuff and they're pretty amazing little fish: (see rarecichlids' pics at http://forum.nanfa.o...?showtopic=3063). I'd *love* to see them in an aquarium, but I've never had a setup that would be close to appropriate and wouldn't consider keeping them in anything less than ideal conditions. I'm thinking that'd mean at least a 125g tank with strong current and guaranteed low temps.

Sounds like you need TroutSkyCamHD hooked up to the big-screen TV.

The best of all worlds.

Once you've solved a few minor technical details.

Sounds like you need TroutSkyCamHD hooked up to the big-screen TV.

The best of all worlds.

Once you've solved a few minor technical details.

Ah, you laugh, but it *will* happen, and I'll broadcast over Internet for you all. I actually have a bit of background in using cameras to monitor wildlife:
http://www.cloudfore...cam/history.htm
http://www.cloudfore...highlights1.htm
http://www.cloudfore...cam/history.htm

-Jase

Hi Jase,
I think some the discussion you're seeing isn't due to laws so much as it is captive care requirements. A number of newly-registered people have asked about keeping trout, and they don't realize that it can be rather difficult indeed. Most of the conversations I remember seem to first discuss the need for a chiller and a very, very large tank, both of which are rarely considered at first. Then, the legality issue comes up. It's probably for the best - I can imagine that there would otherwise be a number of new native fish keepers who had their sipirits crushed when keeping trout didn't work out and gave the whole thing up. At least we can steer them towards something easier to keep (never mind less expensive!).

But you are right in that trout seem to have a halo in many circles. Some TU types really frown on those who don't catch-and-release with a very holier-than-thou attitue. Myself, I will keep each and every legal brown and rainbow in my area as part of my personal invasive exotics removal program (and as part of the yummy dinner program).

I opted out of responding to this for "diplomatic" reasons back when first posted but now decide to put in my $00.02.
First, as a life long flyfisher and trout fanatic, I have to say antipathy toward the TU crowd is misdirected.
True, some of the brethren of the long wand can be a bit full of themselves and look down on mere mortals who are crude enough to dangle a lowley worm in a pristine river.
Nevertheless, as a whole, they tend to be well educated and strong in their support of the environment. There probably isn't a single branch of the hook and bullet fraternity that is closer to the values shared by most in NANFA. As a national organization, TU is very vocal and active in the restoration of native trout. That is particularly true in the mountain west where some streams have been reclaimed for golden and cutthrout trout.
Local chapters are autonomous and philosophies vary from region to region. Typically, in places where native trout have little to no chance of being restored to historic waters [like much of the urban east], or where native trout were historically limited or nonexistent [like parts of the southeast], brown and rainbow trout are embraced as better than nothing.
Also, bare in mind, public policy is dictated by the squeekiest wheels and the freezer filling, stringer carrying worm guys demand that put & take trout fishing are the ones who have the most influence. Their licenses pay the salary of the F&G managers. Those guys want their trout plentiful, easy to catch and bag limits be liberal, and they damn well don't want limitations or regulations limiting their enjoyment. They don't like seeing guys dragging seines in their rivers either. At best, guys with nets might be poachers honing in on the freezer fodder. At worst, they might be limpwristed liberal commie scientists looking to pass more laws to spoil there fun.
In all honsety, I don't see that ever changing in the larger scale.
For the record, I am a devoted environmentalist who wishes all rivers were pristine and all species native. However I am also a realist who loves to fish for trout and recognizes that exotic trout will always be an intergal part of trout fishing for the forseeable future. I'm more likely to kill the genetically inferior farm raised brook trout and release the much hardier and difficult to catch browns for the future.

Also, I have successfully kept brook trout, legally obtained, in captivity with a tank no bigger than 100 gallons and no chiller. Anyone who is interested in how can PM me with no fear of being flamed.