Ethics on a dead fish out of season

Just leave it,  it won't go to waste ,it will be food for the ecosystem.

The ethical thing is to eat it.  The legal thing is to let it be, as difficult as it is.  

ethics and legalities parallel.  it is ethical to follow the rule of law.  unfortunately, the law doesn't make exceptions.

Eat it on the spot....tear into it like a bear.

hey it's only illegal if you're dumb enough to get caught

ethics and legalities parallel. it is ethical to follow the rule of law.

Surprised to hear that from you, Rap. I gotta totally disagree on that. There's nothing more or less ethical about keeping a trout the night before the season opener instead of a few hours later. Legally, its like night and day, ethically, its a guy keeping a fish, just with a few hours difference. Its the same in this situation. Unfortunately, the law prevents the practice of good ethics.

ORIGINAL: spoonchucker

Why is it any more "ethical" to keep the fish for human consumption, than to leave it for consumption by other life forms ( even microbial )? Just as would occur should the fish die naturally. By that logic, it would be "ethical" to snag, and rip Kings, rather than just let them die, and float down the river.

In that case you could argue that it is ok to shoot a deer and leave it lay because something would eat it.  I'm not saying I totally disagree with you but I don't think ethics follows the law to a tee. 

Say your fishing and there isn't another person around for miles and miles of water.  Then someone you don't know walks up and fishes within arms length of you, its not against the law but I would say its against the ethics that most fisherman follow......I would like to emphasize the word MOST there.

Why is it any more "ethical" to keep the fish for human consumption, than to leave it for consumption by other life forms ( even microbial )? Just as would occur should the fish die naturally.

The reason, IMO, is because the fish didnt die naturally, and far more dead fish (in these parts) result from angler input (not necessarily mishandling, just added stress due to the angler's presence) than would die simply of "old age" without any angling pressure.

Again, other than violation of some law, what makes keeping a fish on saturday morning somehow right and sporting, while keeping the same fish, an hour earlier (before 8am) somehow wrong and evil? Without that law's existence, there is no difference.

As far as seasons being meant to improve the fishery...for PA trout, I simply dont but it. Trout season exists to sell licenses for the opener in PA, plain and simple. 8 am opening saturday doesnt allow for the fish to follow age old instincts they've been following for thousands of years...it allows for the age old stock truck to drive to the stream to dump in thousands of fish...with fairly confused instincts. For the regular gamefish (bass, walleye, etc.), sure. For trout...sorry.

Surprised to hear that from you, Rap. I gotta totally disagree on that
 
 
when a politician violates a law, he is brought up on ethics charges.
 
when an attorney abuses his legal responsibilities, he is brought up on ethics charges.
 
when you live ethically, you are also living within the law. 

.

My bad I read the post wrong then... GO Stillers

Rap... it's only 1:40 and I see your drunk already

ORIGINAL: spoonchucker

JMZ,

The difference being, in that in your scenario the mortality was intentionally caused. But let's say you shot the deer in season, and tagged it legally. You then take it home, and feed it to your dog. It may appear as a "waste/unethical" to me ( perhaps you as well ), because I like venison. But to another of different background/culture, it may be a perfectly acceptable/ethical use of the game.

Ethics are subjective. The law can not be, or it has no worth. One can "ethically" exceed the law ( creel 2 fish, when the limit is 5 ), but not "ethically" fall short of the law ( creel 6-7 ).

I'm not in total disagreeance,  I guess my point is something can be unethical but not against the law, and something can be ethical and against the law.  I would say a 15 year old driving his dying parent to the hospital because no one is around is ethical but it is against the law.  I don't mean to pull the dying person card....its just the first thing that came to mind.

ORIGINAL: spoonchucker

"evil"? No. Wrong? Yes.

The law can not "establish" ethics, but must for the common good, and the function of society, draw a line which is not to be crossed. One can not legally, OR ethically decide which laws they follow, based on THEIR view of ethics. It is wrong, AND un-ethical to violate the law, while others abide by it.

I agree 100%. (This may be a first) We are a society of laws. Without them we descend into anarchy. You can't pick and chose which laws you want to obey. You do, however, have the option of trying to change a law you feel is unnecessary or unjust.

Fair enough, and I meant nothing other than to express mild surprise. Still, I feel that you cant legislate morality, and laws that are designed to do so are bound to fail in their purpose sooner or later. They do a good job of reigning in many of the less moral members of society, but often impede some at the other end of the spectrum
 
exactly.  and i have not always been legal or ethical, but when you live by your heart, you have a good chance of being an outlaw.  i had a similar situation years ago, that is much like the hyothetical opener here.  in that situation, i kept the harvested game and ate it.  this is not the goose story.  i was wrong, and it bothered me for a long time, though it was a complete mistake, falling into a gray area.  i was both illegal for keeping it and unethical for not being sure.  if it happened all over again, i still am not sure what i would do, but i think i would leave it for the fox and coons.