Topic

Disposal of Entrails


Forum Posting

A Membership is required to post in the forums. Login or become a member to post in the member forums!

Home Forums Off Piste Fishing & Tenkara Disposal of Entrails

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 10 posts - 26 through 35 (of 35 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1490908
    cary bertoncini
    Spectator

    @cbert

    Locale: N. California

    sounds like the real issue is seeing the fishguts, then

    not a problem – i throw them far into the lake. i don't care to look at them either

    everyone is happy :)

    #1490912
    Taylor Ginther
    Member

    @tippet

    Locale: San Diego

    I apologize for not being more clear. Let me give you an example of why throwing it out into the lake is not any better-

    A high lake in Idaho. Beaucoup fat, aggressive and non-selective trout, and we had the place to ourselves. I should scan a pic of some of those trout.

    Following year we went back, again we had it to ourselves but there were 4 guys leaving as we arrived. They'd been there several days and every fish they killed, they threw the guts and carcasses as far out into the lake as they could.

    And you could still see all of it, every single carcass and gut-ball, these pale objects littering the dark lakebed. It was disgusting. I went back in there several months later, just before the first snow, and it was all still there, didn't look a bit changed.

    So that's why I say, nutrient or not, throwing the stuff into the water may be the easiest way to rid yourself of the leavings, but burying it a foot or two deep in the nearest soil is a far more considerate method. And, in the long run, that still leaves whatever nutrient value it may have in that ecosystem.

    #1490913
    cary bertoncini
    Spectator

    @cbert

    Locale: N. California

    but I've rarely not managed to pitch them out of sight range – maybe I'm better at picking where to throw, because I don't have all that great of a throwing arm.

    I'll be careful to make sure I can throw the stuff so that it can't be seen.

    #1490917
    Nia Schmald
    BPL Member

    @nschmald

    Unattractive but not unnatural. Fish are nutrients to the water. The water ecosystem has invested heavily in their growth. To steal the fish from that ecosystem is a significant hit. To return even a part of that to the water lessens that hit and leaves more food for the next generation. Yes it takes some time for nature to clean up our mess, but hiding that underground doesn't really help the water.

    This of course only applies to natural spawned fish. Planted or invasive species are a whole different issue.

    I do try to huck them as far out as possible and hopefully in a place with a decent drop off. So I'm not insensitive to the aesthetics.

    On a side not I had a friend who was heavily involved with a native american tribe up in Oregon. We got to talking about fishing and he mentioned that the tribe believed that the spirit of the fish lived in the bones. If you returned the bones to its original body of water that spirit could be reborn. But if the bones were not returned the spirit would be lost forever. Puts a nice metaphysical twist on the cycle of life.

    #1490958
    Taylor Ginther
    Member

    @tippet

    Locale: San Diego

    "This of course only applies to natural spawned fish. Planted or invasive species are a whole different issue."

    AFAIK, in those high lakes, they're ALL planters or spawned of planters.

    #1490980
    Rick Dreher
    BPL Member

    @halfturbo

    Locale: Northernish California

    I think that's more or less correct, at least in most small western US alpine lakes not connected to perennial trout streams. They've been planted since the 19th century. Some proportion of the planted lakes have self-sustaining populations, but are replanted to support better fishing. Others aren't self-sustaining and must be routinely planted.

    Today, a segment of the planting has been halted to support restoration of native amphibians. Here’s a rollup list for California:

    http://www.dfg.ca.gov/news/stocking/

    And some background:

    http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/6366

    I've never seen research concluding fish offal is a benefit to these closed alpine environments; I also don't know whether it's ever been researched. It certainly doesn’t pass the logic test. I don't know what fish guts would be feeding other than bacteria. And if that bacteria is primarily anaerobic (a pretty safe bet) it would seem to be a source of harm rather than good.

    I’m an occasional and generally unlucky fisherman, but on those rare occasions when I do catch and keep I will only bury or burn the fish guts. I wouldn’t consider tossing them into a lake any more than I consider returning aluminum to the earth by pitching cans out my car window.

    #1490994
    cary bertoncini
    Spectator

    @cbert

    Locale: N. California

    bacteria, acquatic insects, shrimp & the fish themselves will all feed on fish remains

    #1491004
    cary bertoncini
    Spectator

    @cbert

    Locale: N. California

    i've never seen one in socks before…

    seriously, i'm not so concerned about where they won't stock, but where they are eradicating existing populations: haven't found a list yet from DFG & a couple years ago couldn't get anyone in any of their offices to give me a list. would really help for planning – don't want to plan a location & find out when i get there all the trout have been gil-netted and destroyed. this happened to me a few years ago – planned a base camp trip at a lake with big goldens that i'd scouted the year before. two weeks before our trip, roland knapp & his student interns horse-packed in and killed all the fish.

    i think some places should be chosen to test the theory about the extent of fish impacts on frogs, but there needs to be some careful thought into which lakes are chosen – i suspect this one was chosen partly because it's a pretty spot one day's ride in from the trailhead. very few of the lakes chosen are in the region most impacted by insecticide inflow (upwind currents carrying infected insects & insecticides) & at least one study showed that was the #1 recognizable impact on the frogs – i guess the central valley ag lobby is too strong to mess with, but it seems like a careful, scientific study would incorporate some of those lakes. most of the lakes i've managed to learn of are near east slope trails – the farthest from the central valley agricultural pesticide impacts.

    #1491018
    David Olsen
    Spectator

    @oware

    Locale: Steptoe Butte

    Much of the frog die off is also attributed to a fungus.

    http://www.nps.gov/yose/naturescience/frog.htm

    There is also a very high correlation for fish-no frogs in
    the sierra. The yellow legged frogs stay as tadpoles
    longer than other kinds and as such are more susceptible to
    predation by fish etc.

    When you hike over the Lamark Col and drop down into
    the basin, notice how much algae is in the tiniest of
    streams. Aeolian transport transport from the valley and China is
    my guess why there is so much nutrients there. I don't
    think there is a need to put more in the lakes and waters
    in the form or fish guts.

    #1491023
    cary bertoncini
    Spectator

    @cbert

    Locale: N. California

    yeah the fungus is now the #1 factor wiping out the frogs – it's a fungus common to amazonian frogs that was, tragically ironically, probably introduced accidentally by the biologists working on the frog studies.

    my theory on the trout vs frogs is in any given body of water, X number of trout will consume Y number of frogs/eggs/tadpoles & this is fairly constant on an average basis, so population (P) impact would be P-Y

    before the frogs were being inundated by environmental factors, most places their populations/reproduction rates were robust enough to remain viable

    but the environmental factors (acid rain, climate change, pollution via pesticides & other, etc.) affect the entire population at once, geometrically, on an average basis a percentage. So if combined environmental factors' impact is I, mortality would be a percentage: P-(I x P).

    what i'm saying is it's a win the battle but lose the war kinda deal – environmental factors (and now the fungus, which is killing them even faster than all other factors combined) won't be changed soon enough or radically enough to allow population stability. In the places where removing fish has removed P-Y, there is a short term bounceback in populaton, but the more gradual P-(I x P) is an inexorable glacier. The fungus is a newer and much faster and more deadly variable.

    I'll deal with the guts as seems fit for the water, as always. I didn't toss them in the streams along the Paiute Pass trail because they are such high use areas: they get a lot of horse packers, large groups, biologists & whatnot every year. Some of those lakes have shrimps & shrimps love to eat fish guts. And big fish love to eat shrimps.

Viewing 10 posts - 26 through 35 (of 35 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Forum Posting

A Membership is required to post in the forums. Login or become a member to post in the member forums!

Get the Newsletter

Get our free Handbook and Receive our weekly newsletter to see what's new at Backpacking Light!

Gear Research & Discovery Tools


Loading...