Catch and release.

[Guest challenge]

There seams to be a lot talked about catch and release on different forums at the moment.

If some kind of catch and release was introduced (and I am certainly not saying that it will be) what would be acceptable to the average angler?

Now is it about the fish? or is it about the right to fish that seams to be annoying so many people.

Regards.

[Steve Walker]

You mean if the right to take any fish at all for the table, sea or freshwater, were taken away?

[Worms]

If (when?) catch and release is introduced in either/both fresh or salt water angling I would like to see some reasoning behind it. By that I do not mean anecdotal 'evidence' from a minority group with an axe to grind.

 

If evidence shows that certain species of fish are suffering a decline due to catch and fillet then perhaps bag limits might be an answer. This has been used successfully on game fisheries for decades.

 

Size limits are also a factor. In my opinion the current proposals for the grayling size limits based on fish stock conservation are ridiculous. Two fish of approximately first spawning size are allowed. These are relatively small fish and has the potential for removing a large proportion of one age range of a population every year. The quickest way to reduce a population size!. A range of fish ages should be allowed to be taken. I was going to suggest excluding the smallest non-breeding fish and the largest specimens that potentially produce the most eggs but that is variable depending on species.

 

Fish that are protected e.g. shad and sturgeon are already 'non-target' fish and must be returned if caught. Fair enough for the moment. If numbers flourish then I see no reason for not including them in the bag limit suggestion (mind you Twaite Shad aren't the nicest of fish to eat in my opinion, they were caught in the thousands up until a few years ago for their roe).

 

It is likely that freshwater eels will gain some kind of protection in the near future.

 

Where anglers are restricted from taking fish that are classified as endangered then I believe that ALL commercial exploitation of that species should stop.

 

As for which bit annoys me well, the main thing is the lack of communication between the powers that be and the anglers. The ranting of angling publications of "fact" based on the views of a few who wish to increase circulation figures. The (hopefully a tiny minority) of selfish/uneducated anglers from single species clubs who target individual fish day after day, with no thought for the health of the target fish or the considerations of other anglers/species etc.

 

I can't give you a short answer to your question Challenge as there are so many variables and these are just my opinions. However, I strongly believe that the right to take fish depends on the angler realising his responsibility for maintaining the fish stocks that he is using and the associated environment that the fish require for a sustainable population. By being responsible (as the vast majority surely are) no restrictive legislation should be necessary for anglers alone.

 

A stronger voice is needed.......to come from anglers themselves, but as you know, that's another story

[Guest challenge]

Hello worms and thank you for your reply.

I certainly didn’t think that there would be a short reply.

Would some kind of bag limitation on certain species make a difference? Would it make a difference to that spices recovery or even a difference to the angler trying to catch that spices?

Let’s take for example the part of the world that I am from. North east coast. There is some great angling achievable in this part of the world. But like most fisheries it depends on the weather and the time of year.

What could possible be achieved by implementing some kind of licensing scheme or bag limitation?

Well from the powers that be side of things I suppose it will create a better tool for them to improve a monitoring and control of fishing activity. But then does the RSA need controlling?

From the RSA side of things I suppose it (bag limitation for example) could give them more accountability and a platform on which to put forward there concerns for there hobby or industries that they are apart of.

I read about great catches being caught and also about the decline of angling in this part of the world in recent years. In reality in an ever increasing world of bureaucracy who are the bureaucrats going to listen too? The man who says everything is fine so leave us alone? Or the man who says I will accept bureaucracy in my sport as long as I have a democratic say in what that bureaucracy will consist off.

I certainly don’t know the answers to all these questions but I would love to know what all sides of this debate have to say on the matter with all there valuable years of experience.

Regards.

Hello Steve.

I think it would be a sad world to live in if we where to have the right of taking any fish home be it fresh water or salt water variety. I was asking about the views on limitation rather than total bans.

Again regards.

[gozzer]

Worms post covers just about everything that I believe. All it needs is a bit of education, a sprinkling of openness from those making the legislation, and a dollop of common sense from all concerned, and any legislation needed would be minimal.

 

Yer, and I still believe in Santa Claus!!!

 

John.

[Steve Walker]

Ah, I see - I asked because the EA are already about to implement something which goes a long way towards a total ban for freshwater coarse fish - most coarse anglers don't take any fish anyway, of course, but some of us don't want to lose the right in principle. Meanwhile, there is a substantial movement amongst game anglers towards the idea that only stocked trout are for eating, and that any wild fish is a sacred cow - even to the extent that some argue that it is just flat wrong to kill a wild spawned trout even for fishery management purposes where a population needs thinning (because they are scarce and precious, you see, so you can't kill one even when there are too many of them...)

 

If you are coming at it from the angle of the sea angling community, who are unaccustomed to being told what they may and may not do, I would say that any restrictions whatsoever need to come backed by evidence that the impact on stocks of catch and fillet is significant. They would be ill advised to submit to "regulation", "governing bodies" or any other such nonsense willingly, in my opinion.

[Steve Coppolo]

I think that if an angler wants to release the fish he catches, he should be allowed to. Any rule that prevents an angler from releasing fish is unnecessary and unacceptable, in my opinion.

 

Just the same as any rule which prevents an angler from taking fish home to eat is unnecessary and unacceptable.

 

Anglers should be able to use their own judgement, much like they do now, (except where busy bodies have meddled).

 

Tell you what, why not leave things as they are? That would be acceptable to me.

[Guest challenge]

I think that if an angler wants to release the fish he catches, he should be allowed to. Any rule that prevents an angler from releasing fish is unnecessary and unacceptable, in my opinion.

 

Just the same as any rule which prevents an angler from taking fish home to eat is unnecessary and unacceptable.

 

Anglers should be able to use their own judgement, much like they do now, (except where busy bodies have meddled).

 

Tell you what, why not leave things as they are? That would be acceptable to me.

Hi Steve.

I think that in this part of the world anglers could be split into 3 separate camps. There’s (if you where in this part of the world) your camp Steve, the leave things as they are camp. This camp I would imagine is made up of mostly die hard anglers who spend a lot of there time (in all sorts of weather) angling and also have a commercial interest in what happens to angling in this part of the world.

Then there’s the don’t care camp, quite a large camp, people who just like to go out and have a fish occasionally and don’t really take any political notice of what is happening to there hobby and really don’t care one way or the other. And then there’s the we want change and want to play a big part in that change camp. I believe this is a small camp in this part of the world but one who could recruit quite dramatically from the don’t care camp if needs should be.

I believe that the hardest camp to be in is your camp Steve. The leave things as they are camp. Why, well we are all going to be apart of change with the marine bill etc. your camp (at the moment) hasn’t got much to offer to the decision makers about change because just leaving things alone doesn’t go to well in the circles of bureaucracy. But I do believe that your camp has got the determination to fight the hardest to try and overcome change.

Regards.

[Steve Walker]

Then there’s the don’t care camp, quite a large camp, people who just like to go out and have a fish occasionally and don’t really take any political notice of what is happening to there hobby and really don’t care one way or the other.

 

I suspect most of them would also be in the "just leave us the hell alone" camp if they knew what was happening.

[Jim Roper]

With the mess that we are in, economically, who is going to pay for all this extra bureaucracy that some people want?

Extra non-productive jobs don't pay enough tax to pay their own salaries.