there are certainly places i won't fish because of what you refer to, but keep in mind that almost all the high sierra lakes with fish were fishless originally - the fish are there because of planting and for catching (even in those that are no longer stocked).

a good example would be a place like Bishop Lake just below Bishop Pass. Hard rock, crystaline water, little biomass. it is filled with brook trout - even with short food supply, they will continue to propagate, but they will be stunted (and the strain of brookies there and in most sierra waters mature sexually faster than normal fish) - you end up with a lake filled with 5" - 9" starving fish. it is possible to catch 50 fish in 75 casts should someone desire it - because they are ravenous.

but in other places i'm thinking of, the fishing pressure is low due to remoteness. large lakes with self sustaining populations and very little mineral feeding from runoff only (no resident inflow streams). taking a fish or two there won't ruin the fishery, but returning the nutrients of the unused remains is practical for the bio content. and of course the lake would naturally have been fishless. i think these are the types of lake cutter was referencing.

i think the key is to be aware of impacts and address each situation uniquely according to the location and its needs/capabilities.

below treeline fish waste should almost always be buried though, and well away from running water.