Alaska Fisherman Catches Pike and Leaves Them to Rot, Then Wildlife Troopers Come Calling

Bodycam footage channel WildlifeWarden reported that an Alaska Wildlife Trooper traveled to McGrath, Alaska, after looking into a report that a northern pike had been left along the shoreline without being fully processed for food.

According to the channel’s host, the incident began when an off-duty Alaska state trooper was fishing with his family at the mouth of Wilson’s Slough and noticed a group arrive nearby. Among them, the host identified a fisherman named Billy Vanborg, who allegedly showed off several pike he had caught and encouraged others to fish in the same area.

The channel’s narration said Officer Brooks noticed a large pike lying near the shoreline. The fish had been partially filleted, but most of the meat was still left on the carcass, and the next day another person reportedly told the officer this was not the first time fish had been handled that way.

A couple of days later, Brooks went to Billy’s residence to ask about the fish. What followed, according to the footage, was a blunt and at times tense conversation about whether catching a fish also comes with a duty to use it.

Billy Admitted the Pike Was His

When Officer Brooks arrived, Billy appeared surprised and irritated by the visit, saying he did not want to be woken up that way. Brooks asked if he should come back later, but then explained that he wanted to talk about the pike left on the sandbar.

Brooks first thanked him for pointing out where the pike were during the earlier fishing trip, saying it had been fun for the kids and had helped them get away from other people nearby. Then he moved into the reason for the visit, asking whether the fish left along the shoreline belonged to Billy or someone in his group.

Billy did not deny it.

“That was mine,” he told Brooks in the footage.

From there, Billy was even more direct. He said he catches pike and throws them on the bank, adding that he is not a catch-and-release fisherman and does not like the species.

“They’re like bears to me,” Billy said, before adding that he kills bears and throws them in the river. He described pike as invasive and said he had been treating them that way for much of his life.

Brooks responded calmly and told him he appreciated the honesty, but also corrected one key point. While pike may be considered invasive in some areas farther south, Brooks said they are not considered invasive where Billy was fishing.

The Trooper Said Salvage Rules Still Apply

The central issue, as Brooks explained it, was not whether Billy liked pike, or even whether he had strong feelings about what they do to salmon and other fish. The issue was whether he had salvaged the meat after keeping the fish.

Billy said he had taken “half a fillet” and cooked it at home, but Brooks said there was still a lot of meat left on the fish when he saw it on the shoreline. Billy said he had tried to give the rest away, but Brooks pushed back, noting that Billy had not given it to him and that he would have taken it if he had heard the offer.

That exchange is where the case becomes more than a simple argument about one fish. In many hunting and fishing cases, the legal problem is not the taking itself, but what happens afterward. A person may view an animal as a nuisance, but once it is taken under subsistence or harvest rules, waste laws can still require that edible meat be salvaged.

Brooks told Billy that if he was going to catch and keep pike, he needed to take the meat home or give it away to someone who would use it. Throwing the fish to eagles or leaving it on the bank, Brooks said later, was not the same as using it for subsistence purposes.

Billy did not see it that way. He repeatedly argued that pike were destructive fish that ate salmon and other species, but Brooks made clear that personal dislike did not cancel the salvage requirement.

The Conversation Turned Heated

When Brooks told Billy he would receive a citation, the conversation quickly became sharper. Brooks explained that the violation would be reduced from what could normally be treated as a misdemeanor crime to a lower-level violation, more like a traffic ticket.

Billy said he was not taking the citation and not going to court. Brooks told him he could fight the ticket in court if he wanted, but that he was still getting it.

At one point, Billy said he thought Brooks was “a good guy,” while Brooks replied that he was trying to be fair. Billy insisted he was being fair too because he simply did not like pike and said he would continue throwing them on the bank.

That is where this kind of enforcement encounter can become frustrating for both sides. The fisherman was speaking from a local, emotional view of the species, while the trooper was speaking from the written rule he had to enforce. Those two viewpoints often collide in wildlife cases because local practice and legal requirements do not always match.

Brooks told him that if he had a problem with the regulations, he could talk to Fish and Game, but that he did not make the rules and still had to enforce them.

Billy also questioned whether Brooks had evidence. Brooks said he had pictures, including images of the boat near where the fish was left.

A Second Voice Joined the Argument

As Brooks prepared the citation, another person came out and asked what was going on. Brooks explained that Billy was receiving a citation for the fish left on the shoreline.

That person suggested someone else may have caught it, but Brooks pointed out that Billy had already told him the fish was his. Billy then shifted somewhat, saying “she caught it,” while the other person said they had taken meat from it.

Brooks did not accept that explanation, saying they had already discussed the issue and that “hardly any” of the fish had been filleted. He also reminded Billy that he had already admitted he throws pike on the bank and even made similar comments about bears.

The conversation also briefly veered into politics after Billy accused Brooks of being a Democrat, but Brooks declined to get into political arguments while working and kept the focus on the citation.

Brooks told Billy he was trying to treat him fairly and repeated that the issue was not personal. The citation was for failure to properly salvage a subsistence-caught fish, and the court date would be set in Aniak.

A Citation and a Court Date

According to WildlifeWarden, Billy was issued a citation after troopers determined that the pike had not been properly salvaged and had been left to waste. Brooks told him the matter would be handled as a minor offense, with a maximum possible fine of $500, though he emphasized that he was not saying the court would impose that amount.

The court date was set for July 3 at 9 a.m. in Aniak court, and Brooks explained that Billy could plead guilty, not guilty, or no contest. Billy continued to say the encounter would be posted on Facebook, while Brooks said that did not bother him.

Near the end of the encounter, Brooks returned to the point he had made throughout the conversation: if someone catches fish for subsistence use, the fish needs to be salvaged for that purpose. Leaving it for eagles or tossing it on the bank did not meet that requirement, he said.

The WildlifeWarden host closed the report by saying the case served as a reminder that hunting and fishing laws are not only about catching animals, but also about what happens after they are caught. That is a fair summary of what the footage shows.

People can disagree about pike, predators, or how different fish affect local waters, but waste rules exist for a reason. Once a fish is taken, the law may treat it as food that must be used, not as a nuisance to be discarded.