Bit of a moral dilemma

[gfisher2003]

Hey yall,

Recently I was fishing and found a place where I caught a few decent trout but then I caught one that I am pretty sure was diseased (It had a big lump a little behind its head that also extended down to its stomach). I was doing catch and release so I put it back in but I am wondering if I did the right thing. If the fish had been diseased and was contagious it could have infected the other fish in the pond, but if it was not contagious then putting it back in the pond was the right decision. Should I have killed it even though I wasn't planning on eating it, or should I have put it back although it could make the other fish sick as well?

I sadly did not think to take any pictures of the fish.

 

[poormanfishing]

Hey yall,

Should I have killed it even though I wasn't planning on eating it, or should I have put it back although it could make the other fish sick as well?

I sadly did not think to take any pictures of the fish.

IMHO, if legal to keep the fish, killing it would have been the thing to do, perhaps taking it home to dispose of in the trash, too (to keep the disease from seeping back into the pond). It's funny that we often think of these things after the fact, though!

 

[Aervax]

I do not know of any fish borne diseases that are transmissible to mammals, once it has been cooked to kill parasites of course. Maybe one of you fish biologists could chime in with professional feedback on that. I would consider keeping a fish like that and cooking it for my dogs.

 

[Aervax]

Did it look like any of these pics?

 

[gfisher2003]

Did it look like any of these pics? View attachment 615158View attachment 615159View attachment 615160

That's whirling disease right? It didn't look like that and acted and looked healthy in every other regard, I think if you imagined the hump on the middle fish but a little smaller and closer to the head that's kinda what it looked like but it's tail wasn't deformed at all.

 

[Aervax]

Yup. That is whirling disease.