“I’m not a catch and release guy”: Man Catches Fish Just to Leave Them to Rot

An Alaska fisherman was cited after openly admitting that he regularly caught northern pike and threw them onto the bank, telling a wildlife trooper that he disliked the species and had no intention of releasing the fish alive.

The WildlifeWarden host said the investigation began after an off-duty Alaska state trooper noticed a large pike lying along the shoreline near the mouth of Wilson’s Slough while fishing with his family.

The fish had been partially filleted, but much of its edible meat remained attached to the carcass. Another person later told Officer Brooks that this was apparently not an isolated incident.

When Brooks visited fisherman Billy Vanborg at his home several days later, Vanborg admitted the fish was his and defended leaving it behind.

“I’m not the catch and release guy,” he said. “Everyone I catch, I throw them on the bank.”

Trooper Finds a Partially Filleted Pike

WildlifeWarden’s narrator explained that Brooks had been fishing with his family when Vanborg and several other people arrived in the area.

Vanborg showed the group several pike he had caught and pointed out where others could find the fish.

Brooks later noticed a large pike abandoned on the shoreline.

Although someone had removed part of a fillet, most of the animal had not been processed for food, leaving a considerable amount of meat to spoil or be consumed by scavengers.

The following day, a witness reportedly told Brooks that Vanborg had handled other pike in a similar way.

That prompted the trooper to visit Vanborg’s residence and ask for an explanation.

What could have been a brief conversation quickly became tense, partly because Vanborg made no effort to deny what he had done.

Vanborg Says He Throws Pike on the Bank

Vanborg initially reacted angrily when Brooks arrived, saying he did not want to be awakened and telling the officer not to return later.

Brooks remained calm and began by thanking him for showing the family where the pike had been biting.

He then asked about the fish found on the sandbar.

“That was mine,” Vanborg replied.

He immediately added that he routinely threw pike onto the bank after catching them.

Vanborg compared his feelings about pike with his dislike of bears, saying he had also killed bears and thrown them into the river.

“I don’t like pike,” he said, describing the fish as invasive and harmful to salmon.

Brooks corrected him, explaining that while northern pike are considered invasive in some parts of Alaska, they are native in the area around McGrath.

The officer acknowledged that there were many pike in Wilson’s Slough but said their abundance did not remove the legal requirement to salvage fish kept under subsistence rules.

Vanborg’s dislike of the species may explain his attitude, but it did not make the fish disposable under the law.

Wildlife regulations are not based on whether an individual angler considers a species valuable. They are meant to establish consistent standards for everyone using the resource.

Fisherman Says Catching Them Is Fun

Brooks asked Vanborg why he continued fishing for pike if he did not want to eat them or release them.

“Fun,” Vanborg answered.

He said fishing allowed him to get outside and escape the heat, but he did not want to return the pike to the water.

At another point, he said he had gone down to obtain fish, taken part of one fillet home, cooked it, and shared some with his mother.

He claimed he tried to give the remaining fish to other people, but no one wanted it.

Brooks disputed that account, saying Vanborg had not directly offered the fish to him and that he would have accepted it.

The officer also pointed to the physical condition of the carcass, which showed that much more edible meat could have been recovered.

Taking one portion from a fish does not necessarily satisfy salvage rules when most of the usable meat is deliberately left behind.

The central issue was not that Vanborg failed to eat every scrap. It was that he reportedly kept a subsistence-caught fish, removed only a small part, and abandoned the rest.

Trooper Explains the Salvage Requirement

Brooks told Vanborg that he was free to release pike if he did not want them.

However, once he decided to keep a fish, he was required to salvage the usable meat or bring it home so it could be given to someone else.

“You got to take the meat from them,” Brooks said.

Vanborg argued that he had salvaged half of the fish, but the officer said photographs showed far more remained.

The trooper also said witnesses had seen Vanborg throw the pike onto the shoreline.

Brooks told him the offense could ordinarily be treated as a misdemeanor but said he intended to reduce it to a violation similar to a traffic citation.

Rather than appreciating that reduction, Vanborg initially refused to accept the ticket.

“I’m not taking that citation,” he said.

Brooks explained that refusing to agree with the allegation would not prevent the citation from being issued. Vanborg could challenge it through the court process if he believed the officer was wrong.

The exchange showed considerable restraint from the trooper, who continued explaining the law despite repeated insults and interruptions.

Conversation Grows Increasingly Hostile

Vanborg accused Brooks of betraying him after initially appearing friendly at the fishing spot.

He insisted that pike were destructive and said he intended to continue throwing every one he caught onto the bank.

“That’s wasting a fish, man,” Brooks replied.

Vanborg rejected even the idea that a pike deserved to be called a fish, arguing that it ate salmon and other valued species.

The officer reminded him that wildlife troopers do not write the fishing regulations but are required to enforce them.

Vanborg demanded evidence, and Brooks said he had photographs showing the fish, the boat, and the location where it had been abandoned.

The fisherman also threatened to post the encounter on Facebook and accused the officer of political bias.

Brooks declined to discuss politics while working and again returned the conversation to the facts of the case.

That was the correct approach. The argument had nothing to do with political identity and everything to do with whether a fish taken under subsistence rules was properly used rather than wasted.

Vanborg Tries to Shift Responsibility

When another person came outside during the encounter, Vanborg briefly suggested that someone else had caught the fish.

Brooks reminded him that he had already admitted it belonged to him.

The officer also referred back to Vanborg’s earlier statements that he regularly left pike on the bank and had done the same with several other fish.

Vanborg continued claiming that he had taken half the meat and attempted to offer the rest to people nearby.

Brooks said the evidence and Vanborg’s own admissions did not support that defense.

At one point, Vanborg acknowledged that there may have been about half a dozen other pike he had left behind.

The officer thanked him for being honest, even though the admissions strengthened the case against him.

Honesty can help officers understand what happened, but it does not make repeated waste lawful.

In this case, Vanborg appeared almost proud of the practice until he realized it would result in a citation.

Citation Required a Court Appearance

Brooks issued Vanborg a citation for failing to properly salvage a subsistence-caught fish.

He explained that the violation carried no fixed fine and required an arraignment through the court in Aniak.

Vanborg was given a date of July 3 at 9 a.m. and told that he could enter a plea of guilty, not guilty, or no contest.

The maximum possible fine was $500, although Brooks emphasized that this did not mean the judge would impose the full amount.

The officer also clarified that Vanborg would not automatically face a warrant or jail for the minor offense as long as he properly handled the court requirement.

Vanborg continued calling the situation terrible and complained that enforcement resources should be directed elsewhere.

Brooks responded that his job was to investigate wildlife violations, including the waste of fish taken for subsistence use.

“If you’re out there catching fish for subsistence uses, you got to salvage it for subsistence purposes,” he said. “Throwing it to the eagles is not subsistence purposes.”

Fishing Laws Cover What Happens After the Catch

WildlifeWarden reported that Vanborg was ultimately ordered to answer the citation in Aniak court.

The footage did not provide the final outcome of the case.

The incident involved only one documented pike, but Vanborg’s own statements suggested a broader habit of catching fish for entertainment and leaving them to die because he considered them undesirable.

That is exactly the kind of conduct salvage laws are intended to prevent.

Subsistence rules recognize that fish and wildlife provide food and other essential resources, particularly in remote Alaska communities. They also place responsibility on the person taking an animal to make reasonable use of it.

Someone who dislikes pike can choose not to target them or can release them when lawful.

Catching them for amusement and throwing them onto shore is different because it wastes edible meat while removing animals from the ecosystem outside any formal management program.

Vanborg believed he was helping by killing a species he blamed for eating salmon, but individual fishermen do not get to create their own wildlife policy one carcass at a time.

Brooks repeatedly gave him a simple choice: release the fish or keep it and salvage the meat.

Instead, Vanborg admitted he intended to keep doing what he had always done.

The citation served as a reminder that the legal responsibility of fishing does not end when the animal leaves the water. It continues until the catch is released properly or used rather than left to rot.

For more info, watch the WildlifeWarden video here.