Jump to content

Cod, off the menu


barry luxton

Recommended Posts

CATFISH!!!!!

 

Anarhichas lupus

 

Also known as Wolf-fish

Eating wild caught fish is good for my health, reduces food miles and keeps me fit trying to catch them........it's my choice to do it, not yours to stop me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 211
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

And?

Was that a question?

Eating wild caught fish is good for my health, reduces food miles and keeps me fit trying to catch them........it's my choice to do it, not yours to stop me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is though that catfish are being presented as being a species that is of more importance to the rsa than to commercials and that they are a species that anglers are interested in catching

 

The problem with that is that i can't remember when I last caught a catfish with rod and line as its that long ago when I was just a kid. They used to be a regular catch in amongst the tangles and rocks beneath the cliffs and make the best eating of any sea fish but you never see one these days they really are as rare as hens teeth so for someone to suggest that they are a species that anglers would spend time targetting and catching is a bit wide of the mark and sort of lends itself to the question of whats really behind a report of that ilk and why?

 

I ask the question before I read the report which I'll do tomorrow but by virtue of the fact thats its included in such a report that may well do disservice to the millions of sea anglers begs the question and asks what are the motives behind such a statement

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was that a question?

 

Yes, I was wondering what the rest of your post was going to say. I thought, maybe, you might have been privvy to some information that made the professor's reference to catfish, relevant. Brian might not have seen one for many years, but I've been fishing for 44 years and I've NEVER seen one in the flesh, never mind caught one. To be honest, I never even knew they frequented our waters.

 

Still, the expert says they are an important species to me, so perhaps they are, eh? Personally, I think it's a load of old boll*cks.

DRUNK DRIVERS WRECK LIVES.

 

Don't drink and drive.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I was wondering what the rest of your post was going to say. I thought, maybe, you might have been privvy to some information that made the professor's reference to catfish, relevant. Brian might not have seen one for many years, but I've been fishing for 44 years and I've NEVER seen one in the flesh, never mind caught one. To be honest, I never even knew they frequented our waters.

 

Still, the expert says they are an important species to me, so perhaps they are, eh? Personally, I think it's a load of old boll*cks.

I understood the reference to catfish as fish that are targeted more by anglers than by commercials, along with conger, wrasse, mullet, flounder, tope, and midwater sharks. He then goes on to mention other angler caught species that are often seen in commercial discards. I didn't see the reference to them being specifically important to all anglers, rather as species that might be subject to recreational angling pressure.

Eating wild caught fish is good for my health, reduces food miles and keeps me fit trying to catch them........it's my choice to do it, not yours to stop me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understood the reference to catfish as fish that are targeted more by anglers than by commercials, along with conger, wrasse, mullet, flounder, tope, and midwater sharks. He then goes on to mention other angler caught species that are often seen in commercial discards. I didn't see the reference to them being specifically important to all anglers, rather as species that might be subject to recreational angling pressure.

 

But they aren't targetted by anglers any more, or less, than by commercial fishermen. Just by the fact that he mentions them at all, in a paper about sea angling and MPA's dated 2006, demonstrates that he knows sod all about sea angling and has been given bum information. Looking at some of the dubious sources of information he has used to put that document together, I'm not surprised.

 

How much notice should we take of the rest of the paper?

DRUNK DRIVERS WRECK LIVES.

 

Don't drink and drive.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understood the reference to catfish as fish that are targeted more by anglers than by commercials, along with conger, wrasse, mullet, flounder, tope, and midwater sharks. He then goes on to mention other angler caught species that are often seen in commercial discards. I didn't see the reference to them being specifically important to all anglers, rather as species that might be subject to recreational angling pressure.

 

The prof in his report made quite an issue of damage to conger eel based on just one encounter by divers off shore. Two and two make five. Seen too much evidence over the years of conger that are alive and well and being subsequently re-caught after catch and release as opposed to catch once and they die. Even if the emotive divers where correct and they did see three conger eels unwell, assumed caused by anglers, how many very well ones that were released by anglers did they not see? When we do manage to get out congering we may well catch fifty in a day, they didn't see the wreck littered with them, otherwise they would have said.

 

Regarding the wrasse, that one was a bit open ended within his report, he never gave any reason or example of damage caused by the angler. So, i don't know what point he was trying to put across.

 

He critisised anglers for causing related damage to these two specis and portrayed that as the reason why they should be linked to inshore ntz's. Don't make sence. The only thing i can really consider then is that he has been given duff information in the past and come up with the answer five as opposed to four. Tell me do scientists deal in facts as opposed to guess work, no disrespects to the guy, perhaps he was too reliant on the men in suits or non-anglers for his report as noted and thanked at the bottom of his paper, than relying on anglers information?

 

 

Honest Steve, i did not read your post before i made mine, double act or what. :D

Edited by barry luxton

Free to choose apart from the ones where the trust poked their nose in. Common eel. tope. Bass and sea bream. All restricted.


New for 2016 TAT are the main instigators for the demise of the u k bass charter boat industry, where they went screaming off to parliament and for the first time assisting so called angling gurus set up bass take bans with the e u using rubbish exaggerated info collected by ices from anglers, they must be very proud.

Upgrade, the door has been closed with regards to anglers being linked to the e u superstate and the failed c f p. So TAT will no longer need to pay monies to the EAA anymore as that org is no longer relevant to the u k . Goodbye to the europeon anglers alliance and pathetic restrictions from the e u.

Angling is better than politics, ban politics from angling.

Consumer of bass. where is the evidence that the u k bass stock need angling trust protection. Why won't you work with your peers instead of castigating them. They have the answer.

Recipie's for mullet stew more than welcomed.

Angling sanitation trust and kent and sussex sea anglers org delete's and blocks rsa's alternative opinion on their face book site. Although they claim to rep all.

new for 2014. where is the evidence that the south coast bream stock need the angling trust? Your campaign has no evidence. Why won't you work with your peers, the inshore under tens? As opposed to alienating them? Angling trust failed big time re bait digging, even fish legal attempted to intervene and failed, all for what, nothing.

Looks like the sea angling reps have been coerced by the ifca's to compose sea angling strategy's that the ifca's at some stage will look at drafting into legislation to manage the rsa, because they like wasting tax payers money. That's without asking the rsa btw. You know who you are..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honest Steve, i did not read your post before i made mine, double act or what. :D

 

Great minds, and all that, Barry. ;)

 

I must say, the inclusion of that email from Mr D Iver regarding sick Congers didn't do the paper's credibility any good, either, did it? :schmoll:

DRUNK DRIVERS WRECK LIVES.

 

Don't drink and drive.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must say, the inclusion of that email from Mr D Iver regarding sick Congers didn't do the paper's credibility any good, either, did it? :schmoll:

 

Bu@@er, missed that bit, here i go again, back in a while, maybe. B)

 

best bit i liked in the guys paper was:

 

Low management burden

If the system is currently meeting its objectives then continue to monitor. Or to put it another way, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.

 

 

Thats how i consider the angling scene.

Edited by barry luxton

Free to choose apart from the ones where the trust poked their nose in. Common eel. tope. Bass and sea bream. All restricted.


New for 2016 TAT are the main instigators for the demise of the u k bass charter boat industry, where they went screaming off to parliament and for the first time assisting so called angling gurus set up bass take bans with the e u using rubbish exaggerated info collected by ices from anglers, they must be very proud.

Upgrade, the door has been closed with regards to anglers being linked to the e u superstate and the failed c f p. So TAT will no longer need to pay monies to the EAA anymore as that org is no longer relevant to the u k . Goodbye to the europeon anglers alliance and pathetic restrictions from the e u.

Angling is better than politics, ban politics from angling.

Consumer of bass. where is the evidence that the u k bass stock need angling trust protection. Why won't you work with your peers instead of castigating them. They have the answer.

Recipie's for mullet stew more than welcomed.

Angling sanitation trust and kent and sussex sea anglers org delete's and blocks rsa's alternative opinion on their face book site. Although they claim to rep all.

new for 2014. where is the evidence that the south coast bream stock need the angling trust? Your campaign has no evidence. Why won't you work with your peers, the inshore under tens? As opposed to alienating them? Angling trust failed big time re bait digging, even fish legal attempted to intervene and failed, all for what, nothing.

Looks like the sea angling reps have been coerced by the ifca's to compose sea angling strategy's that the ifca's at some stage will look at drafting into legislation to manage the rsa, because they like wasting tax payers money. That's without asking the rsa btw. You know who you are..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We and our partners use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences, repeat visits and to show you personalised advertisements. By clicking “I Agree”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit Cookie Settings to provide a controlled consent.