Largemouth Bass: Freedom or Eat'em?

@singout (980)
United States
August 4, 2008 9:21am CST
Fish have been a part of the human diet since history began. But one fresh water fish, in particular seems to have become a "sacred cow" to many fishing enthusiasts. The Largemouth Bass (and sometimes the Smallmouth Bass) seems to have been able to acquire their freedom more than any other fresh water fish. The Largemouth bass is a great tasting fish when eaten, but I've noticed now, a strange pang of guilt associated with my even considering it. I watched my son release an eight-pounder without even thinking about it; but not before he had his picture taken with it. There is a photo of that fish now, as my fishing avatar. So the question is: Do you give them their freedom or do you eat'em? And why do you do what you do where this fish is concerned? Now, the extremely large Bass do have a distinct problem though. They could end up on somebody's wall. So, there are drawbacks to getting too big also. Where do you stand?
1 person likes this
2 responses
• United States
4 Aug 08
As an omnivore with the ability to reason my way through a decision such as this, my response is: eat 'em. In my my estimation, fishing for sport is far more cruel. You injure the animal for your own pleasure, take a picture with it then release it, injured, back into the wild where it could easily succumb to infection or other predators. I wouldn't bother fishing for anything I didn't intend to eat.
2 people like this
@singout (980)
• United States
4 Aug 08
Thank you for that great response, goinliveinfive. It does force one to think about it. I don't suggest that any injured fish be released, especially when it is bleeding. There is a couple of things about the largemouth, though. First is that it's mouth is very boney and seldom do you ever hook a vital part. The other is that this fish is a very hardy fish. It can live in a livewell practically all day without harm if the livewell is properly circulated with fresh water. You are right about one thing, though. Sometimes these fish do swallow a hook which is very difficult to remove without injury. In cases like that---enjoy the flavor.
1 person likes this
@shrashira (438)
• United States
4 Aug 08
In my opinion, I think that throwing more fish back than you keep can actually harm a lake or pond. This can reduce the overall food supply, therefore reducing the overall size of the fish therein. I too think that catch and release is a harsh action to take on a fish that is within the legal limit to take home. Catch and release was new to me. Before last year I was not aware of that policy. Or should I say , the unwritten rule. I caught a fish and my fellow anglers gave me this whole speech on why I should let it go. Due to this I feel like a thief in the night when I catch a fish. I find myself rediculously looking over my shoulder if I want to keep it. I don't fish for sport, I fish to eat fish. Just my thoughts...
@singout (980)
• United States
4 Aug 08
Thanks for your response, shrashira. Your thoughts are what this discussion is all about. Well, so far, that is two people who think that those fish should not be released. I don't know when this unwritten rule started but it has made a lot of people feel guilty about keeping their fish. Do you think it may have started with professional fisherman?
1 person likes this
• United States
5 Aug 08
I guess another issue that affects whether I catch or release the fish is this. Most freshwater spots I fish at require some sort of fee along with the fishing license itself. Now, if there was no fee for fishing (other than the license), I would be more inclined to return the catch. On days that I don't catch anything (which is common and frustrating), I feel like I just threw my cash in the fire. Which makes me want to keep any fish I catch, to justify all the money I have "donated" to the act of fishing. I think pro fishermen want the catch and release program to make sure they have a nice size fish to catch.
1 person likes this