Eating Perch...or any other prized species.

[Nightwing]

I kill(yes..KILL), and eat quite a few of the fish I catch.

Mostly trout, salmon, perch, walleye(zander over on your side of the pond), and pike.

If YOU chose to practice only catch and release..great. But...judging someone who choses to keep a fish for the table to be somehow "wrong", is a morality judgment that's just a slim hair away from that of Peta.

I am fully aware that the situation here in the U.S. is different..we have waters and fish populations on a scale unheard of in the UK, and much of Europe. But...that does not change the fact that in some waters even in the U.K., it's perfectly feasible to take some fish for the table,and won't hurt the population a bit. That being the case..there is no moral reason NOT to be able to do so.

[Bob Bradford]

"....catch and release is based on sound conservation reasons,..."

 

Yes Bob, but not even remotely in the context you're using the word. We catch-and-release purely to conserve our good fishing, not to conserve the fish. If you want unadulterated fish conservation then stop fishing. It's every bit as simple as that.

 

I'm surprised that a match angler who's happy to use the widely considered 'unconservational' tool the 'keepnet' has so much to say about fish conservation. Plenty of anglers, not myself I hasten to add, think that keepnets and competition fishing should be banned, because they are not as conservationally sound as specimen fishing and non retention. So where does it end? Well that's easy to answer in your case isn't it? It ends where it suits you.

 

If I couldn't take away a fish for the table where appropriate, even though I never do, then I'd stop fishing immediately. I can't think of a more pious, self-serving or downright damaging viewpoint to level at your fellow anglers.

 

Thats right Slodger.. ...match anglers practice catch and release so that they may catch their quarry again,and again and again... that makes perfect sense to a competition angler, catch and kill does not, I make no secret of the fact I fish for sport and not food and never have!! so what is your point?

 

As for the use of modern keepnets..well! ..I have repeatedly read on here utter rubbish and downright lies regarding their use by match anglers, I have come to realise that there are a considerable number of non match fishing anglers all to eager to stick the boot in with scurrilous lies, but in reality they do not have a clue! don't believe me? OK.. I will offer this then... the next match I fish will probably be on good Friday, it will be at the commercial venue of Barford just outside of Norwich, there will be large bags of carp caught and the winner will have somewhere in the region of a 100lbs in 5 hours.... I will pay out of my own pocket £1000 for every fish fatality caused through the use of a Keepnet...... but in return I want £5 for every healthy fish returned...any takers?

 

My conscience is clear Slodger, because I know if it were not for anglers the rivers would still be open sewers and the fish population in England sparse, I know that no-one else gives a flying fig about fish....not even the anti's ( they just want to ban fishing because they can, and then move to something else without a second thought for the fish) So I wholeheartedly agree my motives are self serving, as are all match anglers, I do not pretend to do anything else other than catch fish for pleasure, again and again...what is wrong with that? it's better than killing them and depriving others of the pleasure!!!

 

When are you lot going to realise the non angling public are not the least concerned about fish and fishermen? so who are you trying to impress with morality? the anti's? give me a break!! they are fanatical and no amount of concession will appease them, they want angling banned...period. My views are purely selfish... absolutely no different to the anti's in that respect , so I confidently hold my head high and proudly tell anyone that will listen what I do and why.

[Peter Waller]

Squirrels, lovely.

 

The reality is that, as has been said, we need to retain the right to eat what we catch, purely as a moral high-ground.

 

But the grim reality is that if we all started eating what we catch then pretty soon there wouldn't be much to catch, let alone eat.

 

Unless it is farmed, or even imported, like carp, then, really, we shouldn't eat coarse fish. Purly self interest, we need to return what we catch.

[GlennB]

Don't German angling laws *require* all fish over a certain size to be killed?

It seems to me this must represent a far far higher mortality rate than merely taking the odd fish for the pot, so how are German fisheries doing? Judging by some opinions expressed here, they must be virtually empty (or are those German anglers sneakily returning the fish when nobody's looking? )

[gozzer]

I've sat on my hands when reading this thread, vowing not to post but they went numb so here goes.

 

I cannot believe the hypocrisy of some anglers. Fish fatalities are a part of angling, intended or not.

 

I cannot understand anyone decrying an angler for taking a fish to eat, while still fishing waters that are stocked to a level that is detrimental to the welfare of the fish.

 

Why is it ok to eat trout etc but not perch, carp and pike, tradition I suppose.

 

Bob, what you say may be true about the open matches you fish, but what about the thousands of club matches that are fished every week? I have seen fish handled badly by both club anglers and world champions.

 

The practise of stocking every available drop of water with easy to catch small carp, just to satisfy the modern 'instant' culture, is to the detriment of the other species present.

 

The 'sex change' due to estrogen levels has been with us since the 70s, and we are still catching fish.

 

The quality of fishing in many waters could be improved by the removal of some fish, but that would upset the " this waters crap it needs restocking" brigade.

 

It's been a while since I took a fish to eat, but as long as it's legal, I reserve the right to do so, in front of a bailiff or not. I have never seen anyone take enough fish to "decimate" the fish population, nor have I seen anyone salivate at the sight of a large fish, both of which have been suggested.

 

While there are anglers on the bank, fish fatalities are inevitable, those who don't think so are living in cloud cuckoo land, and should wake up to the real world.

 

There are far worse things threatening our waters than anglers taking the odd fish to eat.

Edited April 10, 2006 by gozzer

[Steve Walker]

Really Ken? do you mean an illegally small net ? if so , have the EA been alerted?

 

I emailed them when they were selling undersized keepnets last year. I got this response:

 

Dear Mr Walker

 

Thank you for your email dated 21 April 2005, regarding the Lidl store.

 

You will be pleased to know that our National Fisheries team are aware

of this fishing equipment being sold, and have contacted Lidl about it.

 

Thank you very much for bringing this matter to our attention.

 

I trust this information is useful to you.

 

Kind regards

 

Alys Logan

 

 

National Customer Contact Team

Environment Agency

Tel 08708 506 506

Fax 01709 312820

[Andy Macfarlane]

200/1 odds. I'll take that any day of the week Bob.

[Leon Roskilly]

Check the rules under which you are fishing.

 

Some areas have byelaws limiting the fish that you can take.

 

On stillwaters, all the fish are the property of whoever controls the water and removing fish without specific permission to do so is theft.

 

On rivers the fish are considered wild, but the controlling club, or local authority on free stretches, may have rules about removing fish which is part of the permission you have to fish there.

 

Break any of those rules or byelaws and you might find that you are in considerable trouble if the controlling body decides to take action.

[Anderoo]

I've killed and eaten pike and zander. The last time was about 10 years ago, but I may choose to do so again in the future. I kill and eat trout too. Zander are very good, pike a little less good, and both very bony. Trout I kill because I have to - I'd rather put them back as I don't like the taste. Ironic, eh.

 

It's legal and within club rules and in reality is doing no harm to nature's balance. To hear some people talk you'd think we'll wake up one morning and find all the fish gone due to various people eating them. I'm pretty confident this won't happen.

 

Which is worse for the natural world - eating a pike (or other freshwater fish) you caught, or a cod (or other sea fish) caught at sea by a trawler? And which one do you do?

Edited April 10, 2006 by Anderoo

[dogfish]

An interesting further thought about the Australian situation.

 

It seems that Perch do best in waters that do not have significant stocks of Carp.

 

I suspect the sustainability and health of any fishery has more to do with Stock/food ratios than whether or not any are taken for eating.