Release Those Trash Fish!

MTHeifer

Active member
Joined
Apr 12, 2020
Messages
33
Location
Montana
The terms “trash fish” and “rough fish” are relics from an age of naïve wildlife management, where fishery biology meant culling the undesirables to make room for a bass or a trout. What that meant for the suckers, burbot, gars, and other rough fish species is that they didn’t receive protection and populations weren’t monitored. Many of these species have become endangered and a few have even gone extinct. Some states even made it law that it was illegal to release these fish and mandated that these fish be killed and taken to shore. Generations of anglers were taught to kill anything that didn't have value as a "sport fish." Unfortunately, even though these laws have long since passed, the practice of tossing these fish up on the bank to die remains.

Last weekend I walked down to one of my favorite fishing holes hoping to catch some pike. As I approached the best eddy in the area, I was disappointed to see (and smell) the rotting carcasses of a dozen or so goldeye and a nice freshwater drum wasting away on the bank. Nobody would ever treat a walleye like this, so why would they do this to shad and drum? Well, they probably think that by taking some non-game fish out of the river then there will be more food for the fish they’re targeting, not realizing the complexity of the underwater ecosystems. You wouldn’t shoot a porcupine just because it shares habitat with mule deer, so why do we treat fish this way? Ignorance.

I know that I am likely preaching to the choir here, but it irritates me to think of the millions of burbot left on the ice, the bowfin tossed into the reeds, and the suckers left on riverbanks. I understand that goldeye and drum are both abundant species, but they are both native species and even beautiful in their own way. In my eyes, they deserve just as much respect and have a greater claim to habitat than the nonnative game fish. They certainly deserve more than rotting on a bank. If you want to use them, by all means, keep as many as you want. If the fish is invasive, I encourage you to kill them, just don’t leave them to rot on the shore.

As sportsman, when we have the opportunity to improve our practices, we do it. Culling native “trash fish” should have ended decades ago. Fortunately, most anglers don’t do this anymore, but for the ones who do, stop. Each fish species fits into a unique niche in a complex ecosystem and leaving them to rot on a bank is disrespectful to both the fish and to fishing as a whole.
 
Not to mention drum are pretty good to eat. Can't imagine just tossing them or goldeye on the bank.
 
We still have people here that will throw pike onto the ice or shoreline when they catch them. They think they are eating all the edible fish (walleye/bluegill/crappie) in the lake. Its incredibly frustrating and I can never seem to catch the idiots doing it.
 
Good post. I agree with your comments.
Annoys the crap out of me when people also clean their fish lakeside and leave the remains....especially at the "big" lake that has cleaning stations.
 
Agree with the opening post.

What fish are classified as, "game fish" w/respect to wanton waste MCA? Native to Montana, pre European settlement or ?

87-6-205. Waste of game animal, game bird, or game fish.
 
Well said. It annoys the hell out of me when walleye fishermen complain about “only catching junk fish” or when a trout fisherman complains about “only catching whitefish”. I guess they would have rather caught nothing at all then to bother with those nuisance fish on the end of their lines. This is coming from a guy that fly fishes for carp though.
 
What about shooting carp with the bow and dumping them in the field for the coyotes and to be fertilizer?
 
What about shooting carp with the bow and dumping them in the field for the coyotes and to be fertilizer?

Common Carp are considered a invasive species in Montana, so as far as I'm concerned shoot as many as you want and do whatever you want with them as long as I don't have to smell them.
 
Common Carp are considered a invasive species in Montana,
Where is the line drawn then, just based on what the state says? Just pointing this out because rough fish are kinda all in the same category. Invasive or not. And lots of fish we have that are game fish aren't native, like rainbows unless you live in the Pacific nw.
 
Where is the line drawn then, just based on what the state says? Just pointing this out because rough fish are kinda all in the same category. Invasive or not. And lots of fish we have that are game fish aren't native, like rainbows unless you live in the Pacific nw.

What I'm saying is that we shouldn't haphazardly kill rough fish species. Although we tend to lump damaging invasives like carp and native suckers together in the same group, we should make the distinction between fish that have been in the waters for thousands of years and foreign invaders taking over the waters. You're right that there are a lot of nonnatives that have reached a healthy balance like bass, trout, and pike and are considered naturalized since they are not taking over the ecosystem. There's even places where these species are considered invasive like pike in the upper Missouri. I think that the line should be drawn between the species considered invasive (carp, lampreys, snakeheads, etc.) and the native or naturalized species.
 
I think that the line should be drawn between the species considered invasive (carp, lampreys, snakeheads, etc.) and the native or naturalized species
Muddy waters there....

What one views as naturalized is not the same as another.

I agree no single fish should be thumped on the head, gilled, etc and released or tossed up on a bank. Ruins it for the next guy in that area. But I have done some bowfishing for carp, sucker, garr, etc and I never did eat any of them. I did however make dog food with it so it wasn't a pure wanton waste.
 
For me the line would be a balanced population and to take out fish in a respectable manner if any were taken out. Throwing them on the bank isn’t cool.
 
IN MONTANA
Leaving nongame fish on the bank is littering and you can get a ticket for that.
AND if you hold a license, which you should if your fishing the fine can include your hunting/fishing privileges.
The Missouri river down I do believe you're supposed to return the entrails to the waters you catch them in.
Include brook trout in the nonnative fish, I like cut's in the water but they poison the bookies out to reintroduce the cuts.
 
There are legal and ethical components to this:

Legally, each state pretty clearly defines the number of fish of each species you may harvest and whether you must use the meat. Also, in many places you can’t legally dump carcasses even of a species with unregulated harvest. These points aren’t muddy water at all.

Ethically, even when legal, it’s a shitty choice to kill fish (or anything really) for the sake of watching them die, and even shittier to leave them on the shore for everyone to enjoy. Anyone who throws 30 carp on the bank and thinks they’re helping the fishery in any appreciable way is horribly misguided.
 
Last edited:
"Ethically, even when legal, it’s a shitty choice to kill fish (or anything really) for the sake of watching them die "

Like Gophers, P dogs, chucks, starlings, crows, EXT.?
 
I agree with the main post to the extent that I would exclude invasive species from consideration. Invasive species are very damaging to the local ecological balance because some have zero natural enemies and destroy the habitat for natural species.
 
This kind of crap flat pisses me off. Many fish are great eating, IF you are smart enough to clean them right and cook them right. I get so sick of the walleye snobs that we have around here. I laugh and throw all the drum and catfish in my live well. Drum, pike and yes, even carp are good eating. Utilize a resource, or turn them loose.
 
Muddy waters there....

What one views as naturalized is not the same as another.

I agree no single fish should be thumped on the head, gilled, etc and released or tossed up on a bank. Ruins it for the next guy in that area. But I have done some bowfishing for carp, sucker, garr, etc and I never did eat any of them. I did however make dog food with it so it wasn't a pure wanton waste.
There is good reason for understanding the difference. For example, in our local stocked lake, over the last 15 years we learned that Pike won't eat carp but eat a lot of suckers. Both might be considered "trash" fish, but their impact on their local environment is completely different. Car like to eat the roots and tubers of the aquatic plants (although they have quite a varied diet) and this destroys the shelter for that years hatch. The lake quickly gets out of balance. I think some people have good intentions but lack knowledge. Others don't care and just want what benefits them. I doubt that applies to just this topic, unfortunately.
 
"Ethically, even when legal, it’s a shitty choice to kill fish (or anything really) for the sake of watching them die "

Like Gophers, P dogs, chucks, starlings, crows, EXT.?

Whatever makes you feel good, man. This is the ethical side. Just prefer you don’t leave the rotting remnants of your blood lust for the rest of us to fish next to.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
113,589
Messages
2,026,142
Members
36,240
Latest member
Mscarl (she/they)
Back
Top