Offshoot from Wildfly's "Beauty and the Beast" Thread

by **Sasha** » February 4th, 2009, 12:55 pm

Here are my thoughts on the matter. When it comes to stockers I don’t care that much as long as nothing illegal was done in the taking of the said fish. Personally I don’t keep fish but that is my preference, when I went to that lake and my friend and his nephew decided to keep their fish I honestly did not care. I have been fortunate though as I have not caught a stocked fish in a very very long time. The last stocked fish I caught I released back into the pond but that is because I don’t ever keep anything that I am not going to eat. With wild or native fish I think that they should be released unless you need one for food when you are out in the bush. The only exception to this rule for me is with brook trout. They do not belong in the waters up here and they pose a threat to species such as the Bull Trout and other native species. I will keep (my legal limit) them if I catch them in waters that hold native species.

by **rayfound** » February 4th, 2009, 1:10 pm

I'm a bit doubtful about the age thing... I mean, how long do they keep them in the hatchery for? Its surely not growing in the lake there by any significant amount. My understanding, is that in fish-farming, fish can grow extremely fast. I have an uncle who is a chicken farmer in Canada, he was telling me about the economies of various protein production, and said this:

" For beef, you get approximately 1 pound of meat for every 10 pounds of feed. For pork, that number is about 4 to 1, chicken, is again, more efficient at about 2 to 1, but FISH... Fish farmers yield almost a whole pound of meat for every pound of feed"

My hunch is that the fish are just extremely overfed to become these big hog planters, and that once in the water, they will actually start to lose weight, rather than gain.

Not that a pellet-fed pig that's 18 months old is going to taste better than a wild fish of 6 years old because it is younger...

Now, onto your questions... Different species tasting better/worse. It is my opinion that the taste of the fish withing the Trout/Salmon family is almost entirely related to 2 things: Temperature of the water, and Diet.

FWIW - Brookies are less related to Salmon, as they are a Char, and evolutionarily further separated from Pacific Salmon than Rianbow/Cutthroat are, and further separated from Atlantic Salmon than Browns are. Though Mike, I also have heard the "Brook trout are closer to salmon" rationale... and while it might make sense, its just not true from a biology standpoint.

I keep fish occasionally when backpacking. I only ate 1 this last year, and will likely not bother next year (why waste time cutting fish up when I could be fishing!?!?!), but I have no qualms keeping a fish or 2 where the fishery can support some harvest and the laws are being observed. I have experienced varying meat color and taste between 2 backcountry sierra lakes, just hundreds of yards apart. Same fish (goldens), same elevation, water temp, etc... the only difference can be the food source, and the once lake with the dark salmon-colored flesh and more rubust taste, is known for having an abundant scud population.

This brings me to my beef with the pay-to-play lakes (for the record, I am eternally grateful that these places exist to lure "fishermen" away from our precious wild fisheries.):

You're not allowed to release fish. Now I've never fished there, and I probably never will, as it doesn't really tickle my fancy (Not a beautiful surrounding, not wild fish, and Expensive)... but seriously, why would a fisherman want to go there and only catch 5 fish, then go home. Oh well, we're not the target audience.

by **rayfound** » February 4th, 2009, 1:13 pm

Sasha wrote:HThe only exception to this rule for me is with brook trout. They do not belong in the waters up here and they pose a threat to native species such as the Bull Trout and other native species.

Their ability to interbreed with Bulls is a MAJOR concern, and once hybridized, there's no going back. Much more dangerous than browns in with rainbows, or brooks with rainbows... yes they can compete with the natives, but the greatest threat to native fish is hybridization with non-natives.

So I'd say, if you're in water where there are bulls and you catch Brooks, Kill 'em all.

by **Sasha** » February 4th, 2009, 1:17 pm

rayfound wrote:
Sasha wrote:HThe only exception to this rule for me is with brook trout. They do not belong in the waters up here and they pose a threat to native species such as the Bull Trout and other native species.

Their ability to interbreed with Bulls is a MAJOR concern, and once hybridized, there's no going back. Much more dangerous than browns in with rainbows, or brooks with rainbows... yes they can compete with the natives, but the greatest threat to native fish is hybridization with non-natives.

So I'd say, if you're in water where there are bulls and you catch Brooks, Kill 'em all.

Exactly!

Now let’s just hope that the newly proposed dams don’t happen.

by **Sasha** » February 4th, 2009, 1:20 pm

Oh and one more thought we all know that pelletheads AKA Summer Truck Hatch taste better

by **Flyjunkie** » February 4th, 2009, 1:44 pm

Sasha wrote:Oh and one more thought we all know that pelletheads AKA Summer Truck Hatch taste better

Yeah, just dump Ketchup all over that cardboard and it will taste a lot better.. :lol:

by **Sasha** » February 4th, 2009, 3:40 pm

Flyjunkie wrote:
Sasha wrote:Oh and one more thought we all know that pelletheads AKA Summer Truck Hatch taste better

Yeah, just dump Ketchup all over that cardboard and it will taste a lot better..

So lemon and butter isn’t the best choice for them

by **flybob** » February 4th, 2009, 3:44 pm

As for me, as if anyone really cares, I am not much of a freshwater fish fancier, save for the occasional fresh caught bullhead cat out of Havasu, last one I caught was over 10 years ago and it was delicious!
I really don't like the oiliness of most freshwater breeds, I prefer the stoutness of the Briney deep varieties. Thresher, grouper, yellowfin, swordfish, my faves.

I am not savvy on the genetics of trout and who can date who, I am strictly catch and release for all species, so I really do hope that when I release a fish I am not doing more harm that good!
Sasha, if I ever fish with you, and I really do hope it is in the cards, I will take my cues from you!

That's why like sticking around this place, there are no pretenses and I learn a lot!

blob

by **Papasequoia** » February 4th, 2009, 5:25 pm

I thought redbands were supposed to be the tastiest? :roll:

Just kidding, Sasha.

by **Sasha** » February 4th, 2009, 6:06 pm

Papasequoia wrote:I thought redbands were supposed to be the tastiest?

Just kidding, Sasha.

Only if they come from the McCloud

by **midger** » February 4th, 2009, 8:16 pm

Papasequoia wrote:I thought redbands were supposed to be the tastiest?

Actually I think goldens are tastiest. It just takes too darn many to fill you up.

by **1mocast** » February 4th, 2009, 8:50 pm

Don't know about taste...Haven't had trout in years.

I'm more of an Angus Ribeye type.... :mrgreen:

by **Sasha** » February 4th, 2009, 9:51 pm

midger wrote:
Papasequoia wrote:I thought redbands were supposed to be the tastiest?

Actually I think goldens are tastiest. It just takes too darn many to fill you up.

Well I guess that depends on where you get them from

by **super dry fly** » February 5th, 2009, 9:08 am

Well this thread has started to slip off the Doc's topic before I could even jump back in, so I'll be brief.

What was mentioned previously about the age of the trout is true, these put-and-take mutants are exactly that, fish genetically selected for their ability too grow fast, and then stuffed full of augmented feed to again boost their growth rate.

Would I eat one today? Probably not. But then again I haven'y been in that situation in a long long time. Growing up we lived within walking distance of a lake that got 'planted' throughout the winter months, and as kids we proudly came home with stringers of ugly trout and gobbled them up with a grin. Perhaps ignorance back then was bliss. I guess my question of wildfly in the other thread came more out of curiousity, given the situation, with a big, fat, dying stocker in my net, would it be worth a trip down memory lane to try a stocked trout as dinner fare again? My hunch is that I have so many preconceived notions about stocked trout, and treasured experiences with their distant wild cousins, that my pallete would be flavored by these biases and I wouldn't enjoy the meal. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't give it a try.

The put-and-take fisheries serve a valuable resource for the C&R crowd, and take quite a bit of pressure off our wild fisheries that I'm not sure they could survive if all of the bait dunkers had our wild rivers, streams and lakes as their only avenue to bring home a couple of fresh trout for dinner.

I won't get started here, maybe it would be more valuable as its own unique post someday, about the future importance of aquaculture, both freshwater and marine, related to our world's dependence on fish/seafood as a part of diet. If you enjoy eating any kind of fish today, the reality is that in the future the fish on your plate will most likely be farm raised. Certain stigmas will have to be overcome.

I said I would try to be brief, I guess I didn't try hard enough, sorry...

by **Rob909** » February 5th, 2009, 10:09 am

rayfound wrote:....but seriously, why would a fisherman want to go there and only catch 5 fish, then go home. Oh well, we're not the target audience.

C'mon Ray......

Sitting next to the freeway all day long listening to traffic go by......walking to McDonald's for a quick breakfast......then driving a mile or two down the road to Fry's on your way out to catch their weekly sale.....

Sounds like fun.....right :lol: