Does anyone agree with Stu Osthoff of BWJ that only one fish meal per trip is the limit? And that it's better to not keep any? I was shocked to read his opinion on this subject. I fish to have a meal not to see how many fish I can put through a traumatic experience.
Jon Bratt Bird Island

I could care less what Osthoff thinks.

I think you should consider how much pressure the particular lake you are fishing gets and then let your conscience be your guide.  I really don't think there is a one-size-fits-all answer.

Wally will tell you what you are allowed to do legally is the only limit you need to worry about and in one sense he is right.  He's also entirely correct that what Osthoff thinks should be a total non-factor.  Just because someone has the ability to share their opinion with large numbers of people doesn't make their opinion any more correct.

I will tell you that fish aren't capable of the level of higher thinking you assign them that they would require to be traumatized.  But that's just my opinion (based on the research I've done).  You are of course entitled to your own opinion.

Bottom line, if I'm fishing a heavily travelled/fished lake in the BWCA I'd be far less likely to eat a meal of fish from those waters.  If I was on a dead-end side lake with no campsites, I'd worry a lot less.  But I fish the Q far more often, mostly because there is a lot less traffic/pressure and a lot less need for me to worry about sustainability.  I will eat multiple meals of fish and I will not stop fishing just because I've caught a meal.

Yes, I agree that STU should only have one fish meal per trip.  Now if he would only take ONE (rather than 20) trips a year, we'd be good!

dd

I have always thought fishing pressure in canoe country was insignificant to fish populations compared to what I see going on on motor accessible lakes. So I'm glad you all seem to agree. I wonder why Stu feels so strongly. I am kind of joking about the fish trauma. I often chuckle when returning a fish, thinking about what a strange experience that must have been for the fish.
Jon Bratt Bird Island 

When I plan my menu, I plan on eating fish once a day.  Sometimes plans change.  For example, last September, my wife caught a 8 pound trout that died.  So of course we ate more than one fish meal that day because a 8 pound trout fillets to almost 4 pounds of meat.  To keep the fish fresh for the second meal, I used my basketball net which was intended to be used as a anchor to keep the fish fresh.  After the trout is filleted, put the meat in a plastic bag.  Put the bag in the basketball net with enough rocks and sink the fish in deep water.

I also think it makes a different on what type of fish you are eating.  If you are eating small mouth bass which many consider an invasive species in parts of Quetico, why not eat two meals a day.  I enjoy eating fish, but eating fish twice a day gets old. 

Westwood

Given Stu's a guide and focused on giving clients a grand fishing experience, it doesn't surprise me at all that he's an advocate for catch and release.  Nothing wrong with that.    Most folks who visit canoe country pay enough to catch and eat what they can...nothing wrong with that either.

Personally, I spend most of my money in the Quetico.  And given the fees, I'll eat eat fish every few days and not think twice about it.  With one exception.  I've found a couple of relatively small Quetico lakes with lake trout and/or big smallmouth and I won't keep fish from these lakes...but that's just me.

pine_knot wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 11:25pm:

Given Stu's a guide and focused on giving clients a grand fishing experience, it doesn't surprise me at all that he's an advocate for catch and release.  Nothing wrong with that.    Most folks who visit canoe country pay enough to catch and eat what they can...nothing wrong with that either. Personally, I spend most of my money in the Quetico.  And given the fees, I'll eat eat fish every few days and not think twice about it.  With one exception.  I've found a couple of relatively small Quetico lakes with lake trout and/or big smallmouth and I won't keep fish from these lakes...but that's just me.

I am very much inclined to agree with PK on this one. I have several friends who are professional bass guides. It is not uncommon for them to catch 50 to 70 bass in one day if they are chewing. All of them refuse to keep even 1 bass........The more your living depends on healthy populations of fish (or game) the more protective you are liable to be.

I also agree with PK on being selective about size and place. I won't think twice about eating a 16" eye out of Basswood but would certainly let all fish of significant size go. Remember that in the Canadian shield fish may tend to grow slowly........it seems a shame to eat the big ones.

And lastly........trauma? Fish can be physically traumatized by being played to long where they expend all their energy.......or from being brought up from the depths (such as lake trout in the heat of summer).........But what about the fish just going through a hurtful unpleasant experience? Remember a fishes musculature is quite different than ours. A hook in the lip is probably quite similar to a spine in the mouth when said fish is munching some poor innocent other fish.........Oh that's right........quite a savage realm they live in isn't it?

I laugh when people look across the lake early in the morning with just a wisp of fog........."It's so peaceful" they are apt to comment........when just underneath the surface creatures are biting and killing with reckless abandon........

I agree with many of the above posts. The "trauma" bit I think can be summed up by deep catches, being played out, deep mouth/gill hooks, and fish handling (most of that was summed up above).

Stu can have one fish meal per trip. Good for him. When I go, I hope to eat fish every day. I don't keep everything I catch. Large fish go back in the lake regardless...there is just too much meat on a big fish for two guys.

I'm one of the people who think the smallies are taking over a lot of the northern lakes. I don't hesitate taking and eating smallmouth even if my paddling partner doesn't eat bass.

I know that pregnant women aren't supposed to eat fish due to contaminants. I get this and that sort of thing should not be risked regardless of location. That said, for the rest of us, the water up there is very pure, where the water is coming from is very pure. I don't think twice about drinking straight from some of the lakes up there, and as for fish contamination, it is a non-thought.

Fish regulations are in place for a reason. Follow them and the fish population should do just fine.

I want to thank Stu for giving us something we ALL can agree on!  Go Stu! 

prouboy

I don't subscribe any more. I just never read it. (I have a bunch if....) No qualms with eating Q fish here. Size is an issue for me plus it's mostly mercury and not PCBs up there right? Either way I'm old and playing with mercury was as science project in like 4th grade and asbestos was everywhere...

FWIW - I've not seen this before:
  (You need to Login or Register

Taking a limit home waned when fish became a border issue. Not sure if it's still an issue - they do ask - I just got out of the habit plus it was kind of a pain for something not quite as good as fresh.

The mercury contamination is not a good thing, but the recommended ingestion limits are very reasonable and show that the water quality of the BWCA/Quet. is very good.  Take a look at some of the lakes near your home for a comparisson.  We tend to eat fish for 2-3 meals on a 10 day trip, try to keep the eating size rather than the trophy size, and plan meals so that we never are required to eat a fish meal.  Our major consumtion is smallmouth bass, which are an invasive species.  Therefore, I don't ever feel bad for catching as many as we can eat, which is certainly less than the legal limit.

I don't begrudge Stu about his opinion.  I bet he feels that he's providing good information and hopes that people will be responsible with that info.

Why do we care about what Stu thinks??

I would eat fish for breakfast & dinner if my trip buddies would. No such thing as too many fish dinners. Of course my opinion is coming from someone who makes a trip once every 2-3 years. And my fish come from a variety of lakes, so it is difficult to believe that is going to damage the population...

Quote:

And my fish come from a variety of lakes, so it is difficult to believe that is going to damage the population...

I agree completely. I can understand that on certain lakes that get heavy traffic overfishing can be a problem.

I also know that fewer people fish that used too.

Some fish and catch and release or limit their meals to a few times a trip.

I don't see a problem on the more remote routes and in areas where the lakes are all interconnected and not land locked.

Quite frankly, that is on of the reasons I go...to eat fish.  My wife doesn't like it, so I will eat fist for Breakfast, launch and dinner as long as i'm fishing and can catch them.  If there is two of us, which ther normally is, that amounts to maybe 6-7 fish at the most kept.  That is much less pressure than what people do at home.

One of the things I also really enjoy are common sense fishing regulations.  I love that MN wants you to eat the small ones and throw the big ones back.  Here in MI, I'm supposed to measure every fish.  Throw the small ones back and keep only a limit of bigger fish? 

Anyway...When I'm in BW I prefer to eat so much fish that I won't want to eat another until next year's trip.  :)

^-----Paddle Guy, I like that line of thought.  I'd eat it every meal if so inclined.

When I go to the BW I usually base camp now and on days we catch fish we eat fish for dinner.  That usually means anywhere from 1-3 meals of 2-3 fish.  Not much pressure

Stu is an elitist.  I quit reading his magazine 5-6 years ago when I got tired of reading his pontificating opinions.

Sometimes I feel those consumption regs don't really apply....at an arthritic 50+, I'll be dead in 20 years anyways....

monjon wrote on Feb 1^st, 2012 at 5:30pm:

Stu is an elitist.  I quit reading his magazine 5-6 years ago when I got tired of reading his pontificating opinions.

"Pontificating opinions".........

Wouldn't labeling Stu as an "elitist" qualify as a pontificating opinion? I mean that is dogmatic in the extreme is it not?

There is some piling on happening and while I have a few reservations with the originator of that fine publication I will offer a defense..........

Overall I think Stu is a fine fellow. I suppose we could pick him apart but who wants to cast the first stone? Just remember when you point a finger there are 4 pointing back at you.

monjon wrote on Feb 1^st, 2012 at 5:30pm:

I quit reading his magazine 5-6 years ago when I got tired of reading his pontificating opinions.

I quit reading Stu's stuff about that far back.  I'm just not into wearing jeans in the bush or carrying a refrigerator on my back. I also disagree with with philosophy that most every article must be laced with the litany of the manufacturers of gear used, especially when you can find it in the back of the issue.  But then I'm not trying to make a living in the northern bush.

I do still scan each issue to see what people like Jimbo and Kingfisher have written.


pine_knot wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2012 at 1:41am:

Sometimes I feel those consumption regs don't really apply....at an arthritic 50+, I'll be dead in 20 years anyways....

Not to criticize, but maybe you need to visit one of those on-line life expectancy calculators.  Based on your life style and physical condition, I suspect that you might be pushing your 90s before you pass on to the here after.

dd

I like Stu's magazine, depsite his "pontificating" etc. He is trying to make money so I give him some leeway with that stuff. Since I don't get to go up to the northwoods very often I like reading about whats going on up there and stories of people's trips etc. I don't agree with his style of trips but that is his choice as well as mine. I'll let him eat one fish meal per trip and when I'm there I'll pat my belly and smile after eating each fish meal I have.

Stu's OK, even our opinionated QJ political posters are OK too.  ::)
Nothing wrong about having an opinion, even a strong one you try and encourage others to share. We still own our own.  8-)

I enjoy Stu's pontificating. For those who don't, at least it keeps him busy so he is not interferring with all of the pontificating here.

Oh yes, eating fish. I have seen lakes get fished out in my life and it disgusts me. On the other hand, eating fish is part of the aesthetic of a wilderness trip. So some sort of balance is reasonable. I do not look to the government for definitions of reasonable balance. Depending on the length of the trip, will eat 0-3 times. But I am never in a large group. Send a dozen teenage boy scouts in there and they could eat a lot of fish.

Just my opinion, but it seems that people who eat the most fish also keep larger fish which is unfortunate.

I am new here, and I see this discussion thread kind of fizzled out a couple years ago.  But as an angler and a professional fishery manager, I would like to offer a perspective on eating fish. 

I have worked as a state agency fishery biologist and fishery management supervisor for the Missouri Department of Conservation (1979-2002) and now the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (2002-present).  There is no doubt that angler harvest can significantly structure fish populations, and that harvest regulations can be our most effective tool for managing fish populations (single species) and communities (multiple interacting species).  In NW Wisconsin we have the luxury of being able to sample the fish populations in our lakes with much greater frequency and much better gear (because of motorboat access) than fish managers in the relatively inaccessible, non-motorized lakes of the boundary waters region.  So we are able to obtain enough information to customize harvest regulations in order to meet specific objectives consistent with lake-specific potential.  But in canoe country, it's pretty much "one size fits all" for harvest regulations, because agencies just can't afford to know or do any more than that.  That leaves the "eat or release" decisions largely up to anglers.  The base regulations are very liberal, and could easily result in overharvest of certain species in pressured waters.  But that does not mean there is not a harvestable surplus of fish for human consumption.  And some types/sizes of fish are safer to eat (from a contaminant standpoint) than others.

I would like to revive the long-standing ethic first recommended by In-Fisherman magazine decades ago -- SELECTIVE harvest.  It starts with the notion that eating fish is OK.  It's not amoral or selfish if done in moderation.  It simply takes advantage of a healthy source of home-grown protein that is consistent with an environmentally aware, sustainable lifestyle.  Selective harvest also means that we should try to learn enough about each lake we fish to know whether we have a harvestable surplus (a particular species or size range of that species); or if any level of harvest could trigger a population crash, undesirable shifts in fish community composition, lower catch rates, or poorer size structure of the catch than we would prefer.

Message boards like this can serve a valuable function by allowing anglers to share information about the relative abundance and size of fish available in remote waters that biologists like me cannot reach with effective survey gear.  Then the conscientious anglers among us (a majority, I truly believe) can decide what to release and what to keep for a meal.

I came to this site because I will be taking my first trip to the BWCA with my son during the first week of June, 2014.  We plan to explore and fish the Knife Lake Route from Seagull to Saganaga during a 7-day period.  We are counting on eating fish for supper, though we will have other food for breakfast and lunch.  I have spent quite a bit of time reviewing old MDNR survey records for lakes gill-netted anywhere from 10 to 40 years ago.  Gill-netting can tell us quite a bit about lake trout, walleye, and northern pike, but it is generally ineffective as a tool for assessing the population of smallmouth bass.  Bottom line:  I still don't know a lot about the lakes we plan to fish along the Knife Lake Route, but here is my early read, in general:

It seems that several, though not all, of these lakes will have walleye.  They should still be relatively shallow in early June this year (late spring expected), so we should be able to catch some.  We would certainly eat a small (<18") walleye or two in the evening if caught late in the day, but early in the day we would probably catch and release all walleyes.  At that time of year, we suspect it will always be possible to pick up a northern pike in the 24-26" range -- the perfect size to fillet and remove Y-bones from, so there is no real pressure to keep any fish early in the day in order to ensure an evening meal.  Anything bigger goes back in the drink to thrill the next angler.  And if the water isn't too cold this spring, we think it will also be possible to catch a smallmouth bass or two for supper in most of these lakes.   Because the big ones are such exceptional game fish (pound-for-pound the best fighting freshwater fish, in my opinion), we probably would not eat one longer than 14 inches unless we were desperately hungry.  We would also release walleyes >18" and pike >26" in order to reduce total intake of methyl mercury, which makes its way into fish even in remote wilderness areas (airborne product of coal-fired power plants hundreds of miles away).  Many research studies show that methyl mercury concentration is directly proportional to fish age (even more than length).  You don't have to be pregnant to be legitimately concerned about this.  But you don't have to abstain from eating fish either, if you choose your species and sizes wisely. 

Smallmouth bass are probably the safest to consume of all game fish in the BWCA, because they usually eat mostly crayfish when available, whereas walleye and northern pike usually eat substantial numbers of fish.  Eating "lower on the food chain," it takes smallmouth bass longer to build up mercury in its tissues than it does the predominately fish-eating predators like walleye and pike.  Small fish accumulate mercury (from eating plankton) and "biomagnify" it in the larger predator fish. 

Which species is most likely to be available in harvestable surplus?  Walleyes and pike CAN be, but not knowing the waters we will be fishing, it is more likely that there will be more smallmouth bass than are necessary to sustain a quality fishing experience.  It is possible that some culling of fish in the 10-14" range may even be desirable in some lakes, resulting in a higher proportion of 15-20" fish to catch and release for fun in the years ahead.  I will let our catch rates and sizes of fish caught be our guide as to whether keeping some smallmouth bass will help the population or hurt it. 

One more note on smallmouth bass.  I see a lot of folks referring to them as "invasive" species here.  I realize they may not have existed in many of these lakes a few decades ago, but smallmouth bass have always been an integral member of fish communities in northern glacial lakes what support walleye.  Despite what you may have heard, these two species are quite compatible -- rarely eating each other or competing significantly for the same food.  If you are a lake trout enthusiast, you may have a better case against the "invasion" of smallmouth bass, because the bass have been shown to consume many critters in the shallows that lake trout USED to eat, forcing the trout into a more deep-water, open-water existence than before.  But the thermal conditions created by climate change are likely to be a bigger threat to lake trout than the appearance of smallmouth bass, so let's appreciate these superior fighters at the same time we are enjoying whatever harvestable surplus of smaller ones Mother Nature may provide. 

OK... that's more than I intended to say, but hopefully it will offer a perspective not yet shared that some may find helpful.  If anyone reading this can offer some advice on what my son and I can expect to encounter on our early June trip around the Knife Lake route (so we can make conscientious decisions about what to keep and what to release), I will be most appreciative.

Dave