Bye bye Scottish West Highland sea-trout

[Cranfield]

With the public demand for more and cheaper fish (not just salmon) , commercial farming of various types is ultimately going to be the answer.

 

The impact on wild stocks and their environment, may well be considerable, even disastrous.

Unfortunately, the needs of the majority, combined with the commercial drive for profit, will supersede all other considerations.

 

I don't pretend to know what the ideal answer is.

So many things have changed since I was a lad, that I suspect fishing for truly wild trout, will just go on to the long list.

 

I am not a defeatist and have vigorously tried to protect the things I believe in and will continue to do so.

However, even I am realising that continually banging your head against a brick wall, eventually becomes a painful and fruitless exercise.

 

On the "introduced pike" question.

How long ago does a fish have to be "introduced", before it is considered indigenous ?

[Sandison]

Great news from the EU – it looks almost certain that an immediate ban will be introduced on all sandeel fishing in the North Sea (P&J today), and, from today’s P&J, those damned sharks are at it again…

 

"A rare species of shark has been caught in Scots waters.

The female sharpnose seven-gill shark, heptranchias perlo, was captured 100 miles north of Cape Wrath in a fishing boat net being trawled at 656ft, on May 31.

Scientists from the Fisheries Research Marine Laboratory, in Aberdeen, who made the discovery, said the species is not common in any ocean and extremely rare in Scottish waters. It is normally found in tropical, sub-tropical and temperate waters.

The female shark, considered harmless to humans although care when handling it has to be taken because it is aggressive, was nearly 3ft in length and weighed 5.21b.

Prof Monty Priede, director of Aberdeen University’s Ocean Laboratory~ said the species was very rare because there is only one seven-gilled shark species in existence.

“Most sharks like the Great White have five gills and a few species have six. This species is a hangover from evolution and is not supposed to venture north of the Bay of Biscay.”

Asked if global warming could be to blame for its displacement, he replied: “We do get warm flows of deep water from the Mediterranean around the outside of Ireland and round the west coast of Scotland and up to Shetland.

“I would suspect that this shark has been swimming along this current in the dark and found its way to the north of Scotland and into this net.”

The sharpnose sevengill shark is usually found on or near the bottom of the sea on outer continental shelves at depths from 98ft to 3,280ft. The name sharpnose distinguishes the fish from a dose relative, the broadnose seven-gill shark, notorynchus cepedianus.

Despite its small size, the species is a voracious predator and feeds on crabs, lobsters and squid as well as small fish including other sharks."

 

Also, Chris, good to read your posts. Honest. Bruce

[Jaffa]

[ 29. July 2005, 08:51 AM: Message edited by: Jaffa ]

[Guest Flybynight]

Hi Kreid,

 

I don't know any 'game' anglers who are inconsistent on the issue of introduced species (though I realise that they must exist of course...rainbows are exotics and are not really a game species to my mind). In 2005 there is quite a body of folks who are consistent in their disapproval of foreign species introduction - whatever the environment. I would not think it a good idea to introduce wild browns into an environment where they don't already exist for eg, though I love catching them.

 

I know that species will naturally move environments - but the less we help the better to my mind. There may be some very specific examples of where that is not the case (some organic farming techniques perhaps?) but I'd leave that to the experts. Otherwise, as a basic premise, I reckon we should avoid introducing species where they don't already exist and especially for sport/hobby/recreation purposes.

 

Cheers

 

FBN

[Guest Flybynight]

Hi Chris,

 

I don't know the debate about farmed salmon as well as others here maybe, but my understanding of the SFPG line (feel free to wade in folks/Bruce and correct me...no doubt about that in fact) was that farmed salmon was a)less healthy than wild - substantially so; and is misrepresented in terms of its health benefits. IF that comes across as an absolute in the press (ie farmed salmon is bad for you), that maybe partly because the media is not really capable of dealing with shades of distinction or relative positions. ie a report that says farmed salmon is not as good for you as wild is not news-worthy. A report that says farmed salmon is bad for you, is. And there was a study that said no one should eat farmed salmon more than x times per month (can't remember the study - no doubt someone here will say it was rubbish anyway...).

 

So the public is (deliberately) led to believe that salmon, is salmon is salmon, where clearly that is not true. Obviously it isn't good for us to eat PCBs, or high levels of farmed salmon fat (substantially different from the fats of the wild fish) or loads of antibiotics or many other routine-use chemicals in our foods. Where these are substances that do not exist in the natural fish, the salmon farmers become guilty of deception: they lead the public to believe the two are indistinguishable (hence the need for European law requiring farmed/wild labelling). As I understand it, the significant nutritional differences exceed the similarities.

 

Even that does not go far enough when you have Jamie Oliver (as an example) putting his name to an advert that suggested fish from a aparticular farm was better because the water was colder (colder than what I wondered?). Etc, etc. The public does need to know that there is an issue.

 

In absolute terms, is farmed salmon good or bad for you? Well - it's always a relative consideration. If you have nothing else to eat, its probably pretty good for you. If as an alternative you have a wild salmon - well the choice is pretty easy, on the health consideration alone.

 

But, better or worse for you, and by what order of magnitude - that is fair point of discussion and one that must warrant a lot of further consideration.

 

On the algal blooms: it would seem pretty likely that the eutrophication that surely must come from salmon farms would be implicated...load large amounts of nutrients into a loch and expect a large bio-explosion some way down the bio-chain. Makes sense to me? Am I being overly-simplistic?

 

Ditto seals and sharks. Not sure that I care about the sharks while their numbers remain relatively low, and some change of habitat must be due to climate change, I'd say. But put a large amount of an obvious food source into small cages all down the Scottish west coast, and that seems likely to have an impact.

 

The same effect must apply to the seals too I'd have thought, though their impact is going to be bigger given their high population densities. We are going to notice them more as well given the fact that they compete with us so directly for fish.

 

Cheers

 

FBN

[Guest Flybynight]

Sportsman,

 

I'm not over keen on the tax laws. Can I break those too? Where does that end? Do you ever whinge about any groups that break the law at all, I wonder?

 

To be out there and proudly breaking the law is an interesting place to be: and particularly as it isn't in order to further some social good, say: if I understand correctly it's just that you want to be able to fish how you want to and don't care about the consequences. Does that not render you ethically/consistently unable to protest about other law breakers, whoever they might be?

 

Our society only operates at all because we choose to comply with the law, even when it does not suit us as individuals. So you might think that this one is trivial perhaps, or wrong/misguided. That is a matter of personal judgement though, and therefore, ethically only as valid as the same judgement made by a drugs dealer for eg... And before I get flamed: I am NOT saying that using a fixed line rod is the same as dealing drugs in terms of its impact. I am trying to point out what individualistic approaches to law lead to.

 

A different point, but important as some anglers are getting harrassed, is that the damage that some forms of fixed line fishing do to the fish provide serious amo for anti's.

 

I'm not trying to be too personal here (I hate public slagging matches) - but I wanted to respond to your openly stated position as it is to my mind a worrying and dangerous one for us all.

 

Cheers

 

FBN

[Sportsman]

FBN

In your previous thread you referred to the damage that a "set" rod with a worm can do to a trout. Never having used one (or wanted to) I can't argue with you.

When I fish for trout (which is often) I fly fish

I fish for PIKE with ledgered bait, a method used all over the UK for many species(including in Scotland although technically illegal) It doesn,t seem to be particularly harmful anywhere else so I don't see why it should be here!

The reason I use rod rests and bite alarms is that they allow much better bite recognition, and therefore earlier striking, which reduces the potential harm to the Pike.

 

"A different point, but important as some anglers are getting harrassed, is that the damage that some forms of fixed line fishing do to the fish provide serious amo for anti's."

 

I think you need to find out more about modern fishing techniques

The "single rod in the hand" law, which is what we are discussing was introduced to outlaw the use, by poachers, of laying set lines for salmon and was never designed to take account of coarse fishing, which, at the time of it's introduction did not really exist in Scotland.

Are you suggesting that coarse fishing should be banned?

I will continue to use the safest / most effective way to fish for Pike (as will probably every other coarse angler in Scotland!) and will happily defend my actions should I be brought to account.

And yes, I do find it offensive to be compared to a drug dealer.

Dave

[jim doyle]

If we are only to fish "rod in hand" where does that leave the harlers on places like the tay and the tweed where the use of multiple rods on a boat are fished by one or two anglers. As for the laws reguarding fishing they are a mish mash of bylaws and local rules. For example you dont need permission to stock exotics in scotland, eg carp ,bass or any other "foreign" species to a water, unless its been designated a SSI . I,ve fished for pike in Scotland for

fourty years and have used the same methods I used in Norfolk , I will continue to do so untill some one comes up with a justafiable reason not to, and by that I dont mean an ill thought out , out moded piece of paper.!!

[Sportsman]

FBN

It's 2 am on a deserted motorway, perfect weather and the car your driving is in A1 condition. never been tempted to drive at say 75 MPH?? Really???

Shooting's too good for you drug dealer types

I think we all choose the laws to break from time to time

Dave

[Guest Flybynight]

Dave,

 

I tried hard to make it clear I was not comparing you nor your fishing activities with the people or activities involved in drug dealing. So to be clear - and I am really sorry if I wasn't the first time: I do not think that fishing with a fixed line has similar impacts to drug dealing. Neither do I make similar ethical judgements about those two activities.

 

I chose that more extreme example, as is often the case in debate, to ensure that the principle I was trying to make (obviously failed) came through.

 

So be offended if you must...but you might try a little harder to understand the point, maybe? I'll make it again for you.

 

It was the fact of going on record to say that you deliberately choose to break a law, planned and with forethought, that caused me to comment. I did make some presumptions about why that might be - and addressed those. If my assumptions were wrong, then fair game to challenge them - absolutely. Do you spewnd much time trying to get the law changed by the way?

 

I hate overly intrusive law. But if we pick and choose which laws we will comply with - and then defend breaking those inconvenient to us, I feel we leave ourselves unable to criticise others who do the same, whatever those other laws they might choose to break. What we find pallatable, others don't. And vice versa. That's how laws and societies work. If we screw around with that, we end up with unjust societies.

 

Yes - I do sometimes break speeding laws...but, when I find that I'm doing it, I try to stop, and I cannot and would not defend breaking the speeding laws. If I get nicked for speeding, (happened once - 43 in a 30 zone) I whinge but pay the fine, recognising that it is reasonable. Do I think that there is scope for reform? Of course. But I don't get in my car and plan to break the law.

 

Obviously speeding is a worse bit of law breaking than fishing with a fixed line. I can kill people in my car. Unlikely with a fixed line, though I haven't seen your casting action. (Sorry - couldn't help myself...). But that's my point...it is dangerous to pick and choose based on some relative viewpoint because it leaves us in a tricky position when we don't like someone else's choices. I'm trying (and failing...) to be as brief as I can... but what about: the kids walking past my house in North London each morning smoking dope on their way to school.

 

Does it do me any harm? Not really. Do I object? Yes strongly...my kids might meet them one day and for not very well defined reasons, it makes me feel a bit nervous. That's their bit of law breaking. In itself doesn't really change much.

 

There might be scope for change with the Scottish fixed line laws. But having an attitude of 'this doesn't suit me, so I'll choose to break the law and be public with that' seems strange to say the least. If more people did this with their pet 'bad' law, the implications would be significant. Actually - they are already significant. Ok - I think I have explained myself as well as I can.

 

Jim - I'm not defending or attacking the specific's of a law. If it is a bad law, then lets get it changed. And if individuals feel like breaking it - well whatever, but as a principle it's difficult to defend publicly unless it is part of a serious campagin to get the law changed.

 

But obviously I could lead us down a path here from breaking a little law, to breaking bigger ones - along a spectrum where everyone would find a different place to find the next item on my list unacceptable. And my 'little' law (say doing 75 mph at 2am on a deserted motorway) might be the next guy's enourmously important law (say if he'd been hit by someone driving at that speed at 2am on a motorway?).

 

I can't find it OK to plan to break law, except as part of a group strategy to get bad law changed perhaps (like the invasion of Kinder Scout [sp?], say), or where complying is manifestly going to cause serious harm.

 

As ever just my view...

 

Cheers

 

FBN

 

PS The fixed line thing with trout is just me observing coach loads of ledger types raping some water with worms on the bottom. It is rare to see a trout caught like that that could be released so all get killed and taken or left. Big, small, spawning, rare etc. Those are common experiences unfortunately, and use all the latest, modern techniques. And I do feel that the anti's will have a field day with that if they want to.

 

You are right though: there might well be other methods I am not familiar with that do not have that effect, and I cannot comment on those. If it seemed I was doing so - I do apologise. I know you are tongue in cheek with your 'do you want to ban all course fishing?' question... Obviously I'd only want to ban course fishing where it got in the way of me with my fly

 

PPS Maybe there is more scope in a thread that goes..."laws I'd love to break..."