Salmon for fertilizer? or just eggs?

[Cascadian]

I won't name names but I have seen several comments lately about keeping chum or boot coho for garden fertilizer. Alternatively I have seen and heard more than a few people talk about just keeping a fish for the eggs. Sometimes it is hard to sense sarcasm over the internet so I will give them the benefit of the doubt, but I did read a comment from a WaLakes moderator that it is legal and therefore fine to do. This didn't seem right to me so I looked into it and found the following under Statewide General Rules for Harvest and Possession on page 12:

You May Not:
"Use salmon, herring, or halibut for
anything other than human consumption or
fishing bait."

"Intentionally waste fish.."

"Remove eggs from a salmon to use or preserve
them for bait without retaining the carcass from
which the eggs were removed."


It seems pretty clearly stated to me so I am curious why there seems to be an idea that this is an acceptable practice. Regardless of whether chum are decent table fare or not, they are one of the hardest hit species by commercial fishing and tribal netting. Throw wasteful recreational fisherman on the top and it seems like a surefire way to decimate the annual runs quickly. I, for one, love fighting big ugly chums every fall and make sure to revive and release them with care. I would hope that most of you are doing the same.

[jumpinjim]

This seems like a recently discussed topic.

[jd39]

Agreed Cascadian.
Wonder how long this thread will last.

[whorde]

If you want fish for garden fertilizer, do us all a favor and go catch dogfish. A blind monkey could catch 30 of them in a day no problem and they are DEFINITELY useless as table fare.

As for the original post, using fish for garden fertilizer is certainly not wasting fish. Not sure if you were trying to attach that quote to your first or your second protest though.

[mizm05]

I'm the guy. I do retain the carcass, and it is not a waste. It is being used for human consumption. It is feeding my vegetable garden that produces food for my family.

But also note, I don't intentionally target chum. In fact I try to avoid them because they get in the way of my Coho hunting. Haven't punched a single chum this season. If I caught a decent looking hen, maybe. But I've also been fishing down south where they don't get a chum run...been nice.

Either way, hope that clears it up because I'm pretty sure you're referring to me.

[Cascadian]

I'm the guy. I do retain the carcass, and it is not a waste. It is being used for human consumption. It is feeding my vegetable garden that produces food for my family.

But also note, I don't intentionally target chum. In fact I try to avoid them because they get in the way of my Coho hunting. Haven't punched a single chum this season. If I caught a decent looking hen, maybe. But I've also been fishing down south where they don't get a chum run...been nice.

Either way, hope that clears it up because I'm pretty sure you're referring to me.

I actually wasn't specifically posting about you and like I said I have seen these comments from several people lately. I was curious if those disposing of fish in the garden would use the argument that by proxy it is being used for consumption. I am not sure if that argument would hold up with WDFW or not?

Anyways, I was not trying to stand on a soap box and shake my finger. I was just caught off guard when I saw a walakes moderator defending these actions. It seems to be a gray area at best or possibly illegal depending on interpretation of the regulations.

[mizm05]

The way it's worded, that leaves it open to interpretation. There is a RCW in Washington that in legal matters, if there is any ambiguity in the wording of the law, the "benefit of the doubt" is awarded to the defendant.

They would have to re-word their definition of "for human consumption".

[fishindude]

What does WDFW mean exactly by "human consumption"? It isn't defined in the regs and therefore should not be against the law to use the fish as fertilizer. If a guy is sprinkling fish on his veggies that he is going to eat, that sounds like human consumption to me.

[jd39]

Maybe it truly is a coincidence and i'm off base but it seems to me that the only people having difficulty with the reg on page 12 are the same people that want to justify killing a salmon for it's eggs alone. You are not even killing it for fertilizer, your killing it for eggs, using it for fertilizer and twisting the meaning of "consumption" is just a justification or excuse to do so. Possibly also a salve for your conscious so you can continue to succumb to your greed for eggs without having to face the guilt you should feel for doing that. I could be way off base but that's how it all comes across to me.

[goodtimesfishing]

Not off base at all. This is why the previous thread was deleted, makes the walakes members look pretty bad.

[4n6fisher]

"human consumption" does not leave anything up to interpretation, that is humans consuming it. If you use it for fertilizer the microbes are consuming it (not humans) making the nutrients available for the plants to consume. Just because some of the atoms that used to be part of the fish may end up in your vegetables they have been "consumed" by at least two other organisms (possibly many types of microbes) before a human is eating the vegetables. You would have to have very deep pockets and a good lawyer to try and argue that point, and would still likely lose.
Just one forensic scientists point of view.

[ncwflounderer]

at least if you plant the dead fish in your garden as fertilizer, when they come looking for the carcass, you can direct them it, (in a court of law)

[Mike Carey]

Not off base at all. This is why the previous thread was deleted, makes the walakes members look pretty bad.

The only reason the previous thread got deleted was because it started getting pretty ugly. Not going to tolerate the forum being used to abuse each other. Up until that point I thought it was useful and learned /reassessed my own opinions, which is what I personally want this site to be about.

But when people use the forum to belittle others then it will go away, including those that are to blame.

[jrodell27]

"human consumption" does not leave anything up to interpretation, that is humans consuming it. If you use it for fertilizer the microbes are consuming it (not humans) making the nutrients available for the plants to consume. Just because some of the atoms that used to be part of the fish may end up in your vegetables they have been "consumed" by at least two other organisms (possibly many types of microbes) before a human is eating the vegetables. You would have to have very deep pockets and a good lawyer to try and argue that point, and would still likely lose.
Just one forensic scientists point of view.

Perfect explanation.

I disagree with people catching fish for eggs and fertilizer, not here to argue that - just my opinion. Although I do believe that "there is nothing left to interpretation" is clearly incorrect - there are enough people here who are confused, misinformed, or have differing opinions. IF the WDFW create rules that are to be followed, they need to be specific and un-interpretable. The issue I see is using the broad word of "consume" to define "human consumption". I use "consume" as in "to eat" for most of the context in this situation. But to others, as it is clearly evident in this thread, the term "consume" is used as in simply "using of a resource or a thing". I believe that if the WDFW are creating laws and rules and guidelines for sports fisherman they need to clearly state what they mean. Not leave it up to us to bicker and discuss in a forum. It would be AS EASY AS simply putting, "human consumption, as defined by the ingestion or eating of fish by a human". It's really not that hard to correct an issue that seems to have differing opinions on something that simply shouldn't have differing opinions. Just my 2cents.

[mizm05]

The way the wording is currently, it would never hold up in court. They would have to define "for human consumption". WDFW can see it any way they like, but in a court of law, it wouldn't make it. It's a civil ticket and would be tried in traffic court, and lawyers aren't even allowed in those hearings.

Case in point...I just beat a barbed hook ticket because of the definition of barbless in the regs. The officer checked my hook at almost 9pm on a summer night when it was almost completely dark, and his method of checking my hook was running his finger up and down it, and he felt a bur that was left after crimping it with pliers. In his interpretation, he considered that a barbed hook and wrote me a ticket. But in court, I submitted the hook as evidence along with testimony from my fishing buddy that was there with me that day, and I also submitted a copy of the definitions page showing that it simply uses the term "pinched down", and doesn't define "pinched down" any further than that. The judge agreed and dismissed the ticket.

When it comes to legal matters, especially in today's legal system, you really have to slice and dice every word and phrase and clearly define it if there is any question on how it may be interpreted. If anything is left ambiguous, it's in the favor of the defendant.

For some of the comments regarding it all really being a front just to harvest eggs...I don't even want to run into chum. I don't like their meat. I want Coho or Steelhead, and am ok with Kings and Pinks too, but Coho and Steel are my absolute favorites. Chum get in the way of my Coho fishing. Which is why I haven't punched a single one this season. I'm loving the fact that the systems I'm fishing don't get a chum run, actually.

[jumpinjim]

The problem is not the definition it is the fact that our culture thinks it is ok to bend Truth or Fact to suit ourselves. Mizm05 had you properly pinched your barb no warden would have dicked you around, I have dealt with them. You more than likely left as much of the prick hanging so you could do exactly what I am talking about. BEND the law based on some definition you can use to suit your purposes. The argument should not be about a freakin word.

The argument should be about when a person should retain a fish. No one.... correction, not many here would say it is ok to retain a native steelhead for just it's eggs and then compost the body. Why is that different than Chum? Is it because the population of that species is so much lower? yea I think that is why. But look at the flippin numbers, this is how you get "rare" species. Harvest all the re-producing fish. Oh the WDFW, NOAA, NMFS, NPS, The FBI they are all there to do this for us. Yea they did a banger job with so many other species. Reality check these organizations are made of people that do our bidding. So if you want to see numbers decrease just keep spreading this wasteful mentality and these organizations, budgets and public policies will follow en suit.

Unfortunately this difference in opinion is why that HOG group is cruising around harassing people now. Just yesterday I watched two of these guys push a kid into the Green river who was trying to floss a chum right off it's Redd. Poor kid lost his pole and had to walk out soaking wet.

[Cascadian]

I am relieved to see that some members here see these issues similarly to the way I see it. That is the reason why I created this thread to begin with. I wanted to see if I was in the minority in my beliefs.

There have been a few good points made here. I don't know what would/wouldn't hold up in court, but I do agree the state should me more clear and specific in the writing of their regulations. Many parts are difficult to clearly understand and/or easy to interpret incorrectly. That being said, there will always be people that want to bend or break rules.

The way I see it, regardless of any rules and regulations, is sportsmen should feel a moral obligation to preserve what is left of our fisheries. There is already enough adversity that these fish face with commercial harvesting, gill nets, etc. I am proud to say that I fish ethically and I support others that make the choice to do so as well. Unfortunately, I often see people on the rivers attempting to snag fish, fishing with illegal tackle, keeping foul hooked fish, harvesting multiple limits, and leaving trash everywhere. It is too bad that WDFW does not have the resources to enforce more violations and better protect what is left of our natural abundance.

[spoonman]

Some of us dont need a law to tell us that this is wrong. I was raised to respect all our wildlife, no matter how gross or useless you think it its. If you kill it, you eat it. My grandpa made me eat a garter snake the i blew up with an m80 when i was a kid. THAT will make that lesson stick in my head the rest of my days and thats what i teach my children. Maybe thats whats missing these days.

[Cascadian]

Agreed. Respect for wildlife is something that some people don't seem to understand.

I frequently take new fisherman out from this message board that are eager to learn how to catch salmon. I enjoy sharing my knowledge about this resource with those eager to get into the sport, and I hope that they pick up on the ethical way to do things from me. I have made some great friends from this website by doing this and will continue to offer when I can.

I wish there was a fisherman safety class (similar to hunter safety) that is required before first buying a license (or at least a catch record card for salmon/steelhead). Perhaps this would offer the education that some folks need to learn before hitting the water and slaying chrome for the first time. Many people are not fortunate enough to grow up in a family where it is taught to respect nature and wildlife.

[goodtimesfishing]

Spoonman and Cascadian, well said.