Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mastercaster]

Could you not have bought a Perch or something instead of killing a Steelhead to show grade 5 kids who probably couldnt tell the difference between a Steelhead and an Antelope?

When you teach a unit on salmonid it's obviously a no brainer that you need to use a salmon for the dissection....it's not like any of the fish goes to waste...just finished eating it last night.  In other years we'll brine the fish and smoke it outside my classroom door.

 On another note I would safely bet that 80% or more of my students can distinguish the difference between all 7 salmonid...at least that's what their test scores show.

[Colorado Grinner]

Well why didn't you say that in first place? 
The idea behind fish retention is to eat your catch and thats what the guy did !!

[Gooey]

WS - it disappoints me that you feel sucked in...like this debate isn't a worth while use of anyones time.  Debates like this, flossing, the cutties, etc are all critical to the evolution of sports fishing in BC.  each and every fisher has their own view as to the value of a fish, this shapes their ethics etc.  This in turn affects how they  participate in the sport.

If you don't think that these debates can't help one of the 2340 members of FWR to change, improve, or develop the way that they view a fish or the resource, then how can you justify killing a steelhead for the benefit of a single class room?

Now back to your last post...making decisions, common sense...I don't think the regs should be left up to "interpretation" or "common sense".  That leads to the mess we have with flossing.  Back to the roe example, if a fish is killed for roe, then has it been wasted...what if someone wants to skin it to make a belt and throws the rest away...was it wasted?  As you can see everyone can determine what their own personal definition of waste is...so whats the point in having regs if we all just make up our own rules?!?

The regs state that "if a fish is not suitable for eating...return it to the water".  My interpretation of that is that the ONLY reason a fish should be retained is if it is going to be eaten (anything else is a bonues...ie roe, a discetion,etc).  Something tells me that a good portion of the membership here has probably never read that reg word for word nor thought about it this much...if this debate makes a single users here more educated, if it makes someone realize that killing a chum or a spring just for the eggs is wrong (and they don't do it again), then this debate has had an equal impact compared to the class room demonstration that sparked this thread!

[mastercaster]

WS - what makes you think that fish was legal?  As soon as he made the conclusion that it wasnt table worthy it should have been released.  Based on his comment, I assume that probably was done before he bonked the fish.

Where in my post did I say the fish wasn't table worthy.  I didn't say the fish was a boot or a spawned out kelt....I simply said it was dark which meant it wasn't chrome....it was still in prime condition without a mark on it.  It put up a great fight!

In the 16 years I've been teaching the salmonid program in the schools I've never retained a fish for the sole sake of a dissection.  The fish was always eaten!  And often by all the students in the class right after we smoked it (as part of our first Nations Food Fishery unit...another section of the salmonid curriculum)) Most of the time I take it home and eat it.

In conclusion, how many anglers can say a retained fish served as many uses as this fish did?  Afterall., most retained fish usually only get to the table.

[shmertis]

What the regs say is

It is illegal too:
Waste the fish you catch. If your fish is not suitable for eating or if possession is illegal because of
quotas, size limits or closed seasons, return the fish quickly and gently to the water.


It says if the fish is not suitable. No where does it say "if the fish is not to be eaten/consumed it must be quickly returned to the water. As you gooey have said you interpret the regs one way someone else could in turn read it another way. Neither is right or wrong. The original poster retained a fish that was suitable for eating, he then dissected it and then ate it end of story. So what if he didn't post his whole timeline of what was going to happen to the fish.

  Does he deserve to have the quoted regs shoved down his throat? No. Does he deserve the benefit of the doubt,you bet.

  You blindly waving the regs in his face saying" it says this so your wrong based on how I interpret it" is just as wrong


 Good on you mastercaster for bring some knowledge to your students. I for one hope that when my kids enter the school system there are teachers like you who use there resources to better educate them.

[Sterling C]

Could you not have bought a Perch or something instead of killing a Steelhead to show grade 5 kids who probably couldnt tell the difference between a Steelhead and an Antelope?

When you teach a unit on salmonid it's obviously a no brainer that you need to use a salmon for the dissection....it's not like any of the fish goes to waste...just finished eating it last night.  In other years we'll brine the fish and smoke it outside my classroom door.

 On another note I would safely bet that 80% or more of my students can distinguish the difference between all 7 salmonid...at least that's what their test scores show.

Thats what I figured you did with the fish Mastercaster. I can still remember the day we did the exact same thing way back when I was in grade 4. We got to dissect a sport caught chinook and much to the shagrin of my parents we were all permitted to bring back an organ of choice. Later we all got to have a sample of the fish after it was cooked up.

Believe it or not, that day in classes, along with our field trip out to Weaver Creek/Chehalis River hatchery helped to spark my interest in salmon fishing. In fact, the very next weekend I begged my Dad to drive me back out to the Chehalis to try and catch a salmon.

It's too bad the same people always come on here to slag others.

[Rodney]

Where in my post did I say the fish wasn't table worthy.  I didn't say the fish was a boot or a spawned out kelt....I simply said it was dark which meant it wasn't chrome....it was still in prime condition without a mark on it.  It put up a great fight!

In the 16 years I've been teaching the salmonid program in the schools I've never retained a fish for the sole sake of a dissection.  The fish was always eaten!  And often by all the students in the class right after we smoked it (as part of our first Nations Food Fishery unit...another section of the salmonid curriculum)) Most of the time I take it home and eat it.

MC, is this the "Salmonids in the Classroom" program funded by DFO? Do the kids also have the juveniles raised in a tank prior to releasing in the classroom?

[mastercaster]

The reason I didn't do a play by play on what I did with the fish is because it was simply a fishing report.  In my reports I rarely tell the readers on this site how the fish was prepared, how it tasted, etc.  Those things are for other sections in the forum.  Just because I didn't say that I ate it in the original post doesn't mean it was not my intention to do so.  People just jumped to conclusions without even getting the facts.

FWI, DFO  kills hundreds of salmon each year for the purpose of classroom dissections when teaching the salmonid program.  They don't get anywhere near a dinner table.  I choose to use one I catch myself.  It has absolutely nothing to do with trying to look like a hero.....it has everything about using a fresh fish whose organs aren't pickled by phormaldihyde (sp.?).  If any of you can recall your old science days in high school that stuff reeks to high heaven and tatolly turns off 10 year old kids and me, as well.

[mastercaster]

Where in my post did I say the fish wasn't table worthy.  I didn't say the fish was a boot or a spawned out kelt....I simply said it was dark which meant it wasn't chrome....it was still in prime condition without a mark on it.  It put up a great fight!

In the 16 years I've been teaching the salmonid program in the schools I've never retained a fish for the sole sake of a dissection.  The fish was always eaten!  And often by all the students in the class right after we smoked it (as part of our first Nations Food Fishery unit...another section of the salmonid curriculum)) Most of the time I take it home and eat it.

MC, is this the "Salmonids in the Classroom" program funded by DFO? Do the kids also have the juveniles raised in a tank prior to releasing in the classroom?

Yes, at the moment we have 52 coho alevin in our classroom incubator which will be released into the little Cambell R. in early April.  They give us 50 eyed eggs, used to be a 100.  In the last 16 years I figure my classes have put back well over a 1000 fish back into the system.

[Rodney]

Yes, at the moment we have 52 coho alevin in our classroom incubator which will be released into the little Cambell R. in early April.  They give us 50 eyed eggs, used to be a 100.  In the last 16 years I figure my classes have put back well over a 1000 fish back into the system.

Exciting. Has the support (funding-wise) of this program from DFO gone down in the last few years? You guys also should also consider booking a field trip to the Fraser Valley Trout Hatchery for a hatchery tour and look at steelhead/rainbow trout spawning. There is also a visitor centre with aquariums, lab etc for classroom activities, plus two trout ponds for fishing (not sure if teachers are permitted to wet a line too ). If you want more information feel free to email me and I'll give you the direct contact info.

[JustinG]

Thanks for the post Mastercaster, I appreciate the report, I am heading to the Stamp this weekend for my 3rd guided trip this season. My expectations are not that high but then again we seem to always get into something.

BTW - good on you - my mom was a teacher in the BC system for just under 25 yrs so I have a great appreciation for people like yourself who go that extra mile.

Don't let the few posts by the self-appointed Internet DFO officers on this forum bother you too much. When I posted on my 1st guided trip of the year on the Stamp my simple fishing report (which did not give a "play by play") got hijacked with people getting on soap boxes and waving regs in my face.

Was Ken your guide?

[Stratocaster]

Unfreekingbelievable 

The reaction to Mastercaster's original post is one prime reason why I rarely post a report here anymore.  There was no where in his post that said that he threw the fish away uneaten after the dissection.  If you truly go by the letter of the law, then any fish you retain must be eaten, even those that you thought were edible but turned out mushy. For those critics, you better not let me catch you throwing out any fish that turned out bad or I will report you to DFO !  Firstlight, sorry but its rather insulting that you feel the kids couldn't tell a perch from a salmon.  You should give them more credit than that.  My daughter's school has the "Salmon in the Classroom" program as well and ironically I was talking to one of the teachers about donating a fish next year for dissection.  We bitch and complain when we hear of kids who throw rocks at spawning salmon with no respect for them or their habitat and yet when someone does something positive to educate these kids (our future leaders) they jump all over them and accuse them of breaking the law without getting their facts straight.

[Gooey]

I really don't know what you guys expect...when you post something in a public forum EXPECT people will share their comments, thoughts, and feelings! 

Lets recall the guy who had his fingers in the gills of a wild steelhead he released, as I recall he later commented about netting the fish as well...yes he took a lot of critism for that, some people said "leave him alone", "I'll never post here again", wah wah wah. Lots of people quickly jumped in on both sides of the fence...some dircreatly and other "balls out" bottom line is that by the end of that thread the fisher agree he wont be using a net on fish to be released and I think he thank everyone for the "feedback".  So positive change has and will continue to come for discussions like this.

By definition, a fish that isnt to be eaten should be released so will I apologize for my position.  Not a chance...I still believe that wasting a fish is wrong.  Will I apologize for my comment, specifically that what MC did was wrong, sure, in light of the fact that the fish was consumed, the regs weren't broken...like I mentioned earlier though, if you put something online, be prepared for people to comment.  Master casters original post talked about seeing stale fish, hooking 2 dark fish, and finally, keeping one for a dissection so I guess be careful what you say in a public forum...you never know how it may be interpreted!

[firstlight]

That is exactly the way i interpreted it as well.
Sure didnt sound like something i would want to eat by the discription that was posted.
I still stand by the fact that if you are going to kill a fish for a class lesson it might be wise to choose something a little more available such as Chum or Pink.
Besides they are Salmon.

[canso]

the pinks in my freezer are not going to waste. 
they will be consumed by my pet piranhas, and the crabs in my crabtrap.

so I'm safe right?
btw: I have a pink in the freezer with guts still in, if anymore teachers need a fish for class.
oh you better bring back whats left so the piranhas can eat it, to keep it legit.