Carp what to do

[City_Slicker]

Alright what are you suppose to do with carp and other ruff fish when you catch them. I thought you were suppose to just throw them on the shore but someone on the board said you are suppose to throw them back. I throw all fish back if I dont plan to eat them.But evreyone I fish with just throws them on shore.

[LaVoi]

No offense to you here city slicker- but the people you fish with in my book are called Slob Fisherman. I am glad to hear you throw yours back to swim another day, but it is disgusting to fish next to dead/maggot infested fish that were thrown on shore. It is very much illegal to do this as well. There is a reason that rough fish have their own spearing season as well with high limits, but as far as I know there is no season for throwing fish on shore and leaving them as an eyesore to the public, as well as a horrible waste to our natural resources. My $.02, LaVoi

[City_Slicker]

Not all my fishing buddies throw ruff fish on the shore. And its not like they are fishing for ruff fish just to throw them on shore. But I see your point. I throw the fish back because a fish is life and nothing should have to suffer.

[LaVoi]

I really like your theory city slicker and I wasn't meaning to bash you or all of your fishin buddies. I just wanted to send a point across to anyone that might come across this forum. I also forgot to mention that if anyone chooses to throw fish on shore they better think twice, cause game wardens will periodically check shore places that they know people are fishing. It's an individuals choice to toss the fish on shore, but a fair warning that if caught they may face a stiff fine. Good fishin, LaVoi

[Guest]

I remember the days when it was common practice to throw them on the shore.I even remmember being told by my dad that it was the law.Today it is illeagal,and I might add rude to leave fish rotting on the bank.
I think the whole throwing the fish on the bank started because carp are non native to North America and were considered"exotics" that over ran the lakes and rivers that they were introduced to.

[Sarge]

I also remember a time when I thought it was illegal to put "rough fish" back into the water. I wonder how many people grew up thinking the same?

The MN law is clearly stated now "Any fish that is caught and will not be utilized must be returned alive back into the water." This was a new regulation put into effect for the 2001 season.

But interestingly just above that on the same page is stated "Rough fish taken with hook and line may be returned alive to the water from which they are taken." The word "may" must have thrown me for a loop. I must have taken this as "permission" to return them alive to the water. Was there a time when this was not permissable? I thought so, now I am beginning to wonder why?

I think I understand less every day.

[hydro]

The same laws apply to those who choose to harvest rough fish with a bow or spear. Many of the best carp spots are disgusting because of the piles of fish people have stabbed and thrown up on the bank.

[City_Slicker]

LaVoi I know you were not bashing my fishing buddies. I was discussing this topic with one of my buddies and he thought it was a law that you were suppose to throw ruff fish on shore. His Father told him that and my father also told me that. I think alot of fisherman think it law to throw ruff fish on the shore.

City Slicker

[Guest]

If I remember correctly the old law stated that it was "illegal" to return any rough fish to the water. This did not mean that they were to be tossed on the bank to rot. They were supposed to be taken home for the garden or in our case , food for the hogs.
A previous post did point out the law was recently changed to release these fish back to the water. For those of us who actually go out and target the carp as a sport fish find that the fight is much fun. Pound for pound they hold their own and in some cases may be much better.
Dino

[vern]

Hey Dinosaur, that's the way I remember it too. But I'm sure it only applied to carp, not the native rough species like suckers or buffalo. It was kind of a bad law if you wanted to fish for carp. I fished for them a lot, but I never wanted to bring a bunch of big carp home. When I was a kid, people would fill the Lake Harriet garbage cans full of carp. When the park guys would come by to pick up the trash, there was no way they could lift those cans. They weighed about 400lbs! It's much better not seeing dead carp all over the banks. I think it was a failed attempt at getting rid of them. Unfortunately, when I was at the Rum River Dam in Anoka last year, there were carp laying everywhere and the garbage cans were full. It looked bad & it stunk. I just don't understand it. Vern

[This message has been edited by vern (edited 04-05-2002).]

[SpikeRoberts]

Since sarge quoted the regulation about the utilization of fish, and Dinosaur brought up the age old practice of using carp for fertilizer, what is the etiquette/ethic about catching carp soley for use as garden mulch? Is that an appropriate utilization of fish? Given that very few pepole target carp, does it really hurt the fisheries that much?

[vern]

I don't see a problem with someone taking as many carp as they want for garden mulch. I just don't like to see them laying all over shore or piled up in garbage cans. Carp are always going to be here & since most people are not going to eat them, they should let them go or take them home for the garden. I recently saw some 8-10 lb channel cats that were left on shore next to some Y sticks. Now that really ticked me off! I can't believe some people are that uneducated on catfish. I called the TIP line. Vern

[fishtrap2]

I agree with vern. Take as many as you want, just use them for something and don't leave them on shore. You'd have to be on bussy fella to do any damage to the carp fishery. I fish acarp tournament every year on a fairly small lake where 100's of carp are taken and there is never a shortage the next year.

[perchpro]

I have never seen a person coming from a lake with a stringer full of carp, but I hope people do!

[LaVoi]

Hey guys, here is an article I dug up on the DNR webpage. Thought you guys might be interested being it pertains to this thread:

Regulation Review

Q. I saw in the new 2001 DNR Fishing Regulations a highlighted feature that anglers must return any fish back to the water if it ”will not be utilized.” Does this pertain to carp and other rough fish? I thought we were not supposed to put those fish back in the water.

A. That’s a common misconception because, at one time, it was illegal to release rough fish. That old law was removed from the books in 1981, because the DNR realized that it made no sense, for the following reasons:

Only a few (carp and bullheads) of the 35 rough fish species cause any problems to lakes, and even these only harm some shallow lakes, not all lakes, and generally not rivers.
The minuscule number of carp and bullheads caught by anglers has no effect on a lake’s overall carp and bullhead population. In the 1950s, the DNR had a six-person crew whose full-time job was to net carp and bullheads from lakes. It was a waste of money. The species are so prolific that if you miss just a few fish, they can repopulate an entire lake in a year or two.
Because of the old law, anglers were simply tossing carp and a wide range of ecologically valuable rough fish--such as redhorse, mooneye, gar, suckers, and buffalo--up on to shore to rot. The law seemed to encourage wanton waste, which is illegal.
The situation now is this: If you catch a fish--whether it’s a walleye or a mooneye--and you don’t plan to keep it, return it to the water alive so that another angler may catch it someday.

[fishtrap2]

LaVoi,
I guess that pretty much settles it! Thanks.