Justification

[lutra]

It seems to have escaped several here that the initial question was to "justify" why you fish and not "why" you fish.Very different.

If i was to say i go fishing as a way of getting away from the pressures of work and every day life, could that not be justification and why i go fishing?

 

Sadly it might be more true that any pressure is because i go fishing to much.

[Dales]

It seems to have escaped several here that the initial question was to "justify" why you fish and not "why" you fish.Very different.

 

Very good point and I was one who interpreted it as why.

But can we really "justify" fishing?

 

Even using the argument that we fish as a way of harvesting fish as food does not stack up. Most of us fish catch and release and reducing fishing to a purely mechanical process does not seem right. We cant use this argument if we do not keep the fish.

 

Plus it seems like heresy to reduce the past time we love to a mechanical process. Most of us view it as almost an art form. I seem hard pressed to come up with one truly good way to justify it. Lets hope that its never down to me to defend it to the wider population.

 

As we like to take pictures of our captures and weigh them. Maybe fishing could be justified as an ongoing census of fish stocks and collection of scientific data, we fish to monitor the stocks and collect data. It might mean maybe having to measure, weigh every fish we catch. Not a problem for me as I catch so few, but a nightmare for the match boys.

 

Look I have done it, justification for fishing is the collection of scientific data

 

 

Reading back, have I just answered why again?

 

Damn this is a splendidly fiendish question.

Edited October 27, 2009 by Dales

[gozzer]

It seems to have escaped several here that the initial question was to "justify" why you fish and not "why" you fish.Very different.

 

That's true Budgie, but the obvious reply would be, "why should I have to justify it, and to who"? That's the real purpose of this thread, (as some who have read some of my earlier rants, will have guessed ).

 

You need to remember as well that the E.A has a large number of fanatical anglers in its own ranks. The organisation is very pro fishing.

 

A long (and therefore massively expensive) "anti fishing" advertising campaign.... a waste of money.

 

John, I know that many that work within the EA are fanatical anglers, (I have kept in touch with a couple that have helped me in the past, and very helpful they have been), but do you not think that some of those that believe angling should be stopped, would also find it useful to work there? A conspiracy theory? I'm just basing my thoughts on things I've been told by people who have more to lose by telling me, than not.

Tell me, why they would want to bring in legislation, when there was already adequate legislation in place? Legislation that wasn't being, or couldn't be policed properly. Will they be able to police the new legislation any better? Will the policing of the new legislation be contracted out to ease the burden on the EA? If so, will the licence fee have to be raised to pay for it? In the past every licence holder was a 'bailiff', looking after the welfare of their fisheries. Because they were involved in them, it was in their own interest to do so. It's not the case now, the age of 'the instant angler' is upon us, and all that many want is to catch fish, bigger in both size and number, anything else is down to those that run the 'fishery'.

The EA is a Government agency, and as such is subject to the whims and ideas of politicians, some of whom, we have seen are not averse to promoting policy in exchange for votes or other 'perks'.

A long anti angling campaign need not be "massively expensive", or a "waste of money", all it needs is the support of a company or organisation, willing to incorporate an anti angling message/idea, into an ongoing ad' campaign. We've seen something similar in recent weeks with a cosmetics company.

 

No you must be wrong there John are new Angling Trust thinks its a good idea to rub shoulders and involve animal welfare groups with angling. See here.

Don't get me started on the Angling Trust lutra, I'm not liking some of the things I'm seeing, so the jury is still out on that one.

 

The "modern way"? I fish for 'selfish' enjoyment and occasionally for food. I pay for the right to do so and my fanaticism is based solely on ensuring I do so in as sporting a manner as possible (for me and the fish) and also according to legislation and commonsense.......I'm sorry but I believe that there is an alternative agenda behind this misguided catch and release bullshine.

I'm very much with Nick on this. The "modern way" is a very controlled way, controlled by commercial interests. The changes over the past 20yrs or so have mainly been as a result of anglers wanting a 'higher profile' in the eyes of the general public and media. This brings in those who see it as a way of making money, and in my own experience, profit usually takes precedence over everything else. Angling is getting more and more 'controlled', and in many cases by people who are not anglers themselves.

 

I know I rant on at times, but all I want is for anglers to think, and not just about how to catch fish. Think about the other things that go hand in hand with the angling 'experience'. Don't be influenced by emotive and sensational headlines/articles, or those that might use angling exclusively for personal gain. Be a bit cynical (if you have trouble being cynical, I have plenty of cynicism, I can spare a bit ), and try and look beyond the 'promises' and 'sound bites', and think that maybe, just maybe, there might be an alternative motive to their actions. If you look and don't find any, great, that's how it should be. but look anyway, just in case.

 

John.

Edited October 27, 2009 by gozzer

[lutra]

In the light of the recent proposals for a ban on the taking of coarse fish for the pot.

Ive just been reading this in this weeks AT.

 

Its not saying an out right ban but I'm not sure what its saying about one for the pot.

[gozzer]

Ive just been reading this in this weeks AT.

 

Its not saying an out right ban but I'm not sure what its saying about one for the pot.

 

What a load of BS that is.

The success of an on line 'consultation'?

A questionnaire with loaded questions, filled in by less than 0.1% of angling licence holders, and about 20% of them voted against it! (that's assuming that all those that answered were anglers in the first place).

 

Archaic bye laws that allowed anglers to take untold numbers of fish from our rivers and lakes?

There were/are limits on numbers and sizes of fish that could be taken, (I would agree with a maximum size limit as well as the present minimum). These limits are not policed now, how the hell are they going to police the stricter ones?

 

Keith Arthur says that it's almost what he was calling for six years ago, and congratulates the EA for giving the majority of anglers what they wanted. Who says so? Not the so called online 'consultation'. It's also backed by Martin Salter and the Angling Trust. Is this the organisation that claims to represent "the whole of angling", yet has a membership that amounts to around 1.2% of coarse anglers, (not counting the anglers of other disciplines), and claims to represent the "whole of angling" without any remit from the anglers themselves?

 

I'll reserve a full judgement until the final (and obvious from the start) legislation is announced.

It still smacks of control and dictation to me though.

 

John.

[Jeffwill]

Don't forget Jeff, you are an enthusiastic fisher of the great River Wye.

 

The Wye didn't become famous for catch and release. it became famous for catch, kill, photograph, cook and eat.

 

Subsequent catch and release legislation was put in place to protect the mighty Atlantic salmon that made the Wye so famous.

 

The current proposed catch and release legislation is a misguided attempt to try and prevent fish thieves from breaking the law by imposing another law that will only hurt legitimate anglers.

 

The "modern way"? I fish for 'selfish' enjoyment and occasionally for food. I pay for the right to do so and my fanaticism is based solely on ensuring I do so in as sporting a manner as possible (for me and the fish) and also according to legislation and commonsense.......I'm sorry but I believe that there is an alternative agenda behind this misguided catch and release bullshine.

 

The EA may have "a large number of fanatical anglers" in its ranks but that doesn't make it good or right.

 

Nick, I see your making some tenuous link with acts of others.... generations ago.

 

Today the Wye is equally if not more famous for Barbel. Dont take my word for it, ask any angler you meet on the banks of the Wye or ask your tackle dealer. I bet the Wye & Usk Foundation sell more coarse day tickets. Going by the angler reports they do.

 

Taking for the pot...just like previous generations did. We must all live by the Law of the land on the day we go fishing and if a ban results in better fish stocks and a clamp down on illegal taking of fish, so be it. More fish for lutra too... and as you know they have more right to fish than anglers.

 

We have Tesco's which previous generations did not have. Perhaps thats why they made the wye famous for, as you put it 'catch, kill, photograph, cook and eat'. I like looking at modern colour photo's myself

[Vagabond]

the only true justification for catching a fish, is to eat it.

 

Agreed, although for me there is another - to gain knowledge about fish.

 

I participate in a number of tagging programmes (for skate, for shark, and for marlin) which assist researchers (and myself) to gain information about migration, longevity, growth rates etc. Most non-anglers would see that as justification.

 

Catching and eating a fish is part of my nature and heritage - if I choose to return it instead (because its unpalatable, too small, breeding stock, etc) that is my business.

[lutra]

What a load of BS that is.

The success of an on line 'consultation'?

A questionnaire with loaded questions, filled in by less than 0.1% of angling licence holders, and about 20% of them voted against it! (that's assuming that all those that answered were anglers in the first place).

 

Archaic bye laws that allowed anglers to take untold numbers of fish from our rivers and lakes?

There were/are limits on numbers and sizes of fish that could be taken, (I would agree with a maximum size limit as well as the present minimum). These limits are not policed now, how the hell are they going to police the stricter ones?

 

Keith Arthur says that it's almost what he was calling for six years ago, and congratulates the EA for giving the majority of anglers what they wanted. Who says so? Not the so called online 'consultation'. It's also backed by Martin Salter and the Angling Trust. Is this the organisation that claims to represent "the whole of angling", yet has a membership that amounts to around 1.2% of coarse anglers, (not counting the anglers of other disciplines), and claims to represent the "whole of angling" without any remit from the anglers themselves?

 

I'll reserve a full judgement until the final (and obvious from the start) legislation is announced.

It still smacks of control and dictation to me though.

 

John.

Like you say John "a load of BS" and it doesn't make a lot of sense. The headlines say "Catch and release to become law" yet it clearly says that isn't totally the case.

 

If the only changes will be an upper size limit for some species and a tightening of numbers that can be taken, then it doesn't sound to bad to me. But like you say lets wait for the final legislation to be announced.

Edited October 28, 2009 by lutra

[Worms]

Nick, I see your making some tenuous link with acts of others.... generations ago.

 

Today the Wye is equally if not more famous for Barbel. Dont take my word for it, ask any angler you meet on the banks of the Wye or ask your tackle dealer. I bet the Wye & Usk Foundation sell more coarse day tickets. Going by the angler reports they do.

 

Taking for the pot...just like previous generations did. We must all live by the Law of the land on the day we go fishing and if a ban results in better fish stocks and a clamp down on illegal taking of fish, so be it. More fish for lutra too... and as you know they have more right to fish than anglers.

 

We have Tesco's which previous generations did not have. Perhaps thats why they made the wye famous for, as you put it 'catch, kill, photograph, cook and eat'. I like looking at modern colour photo's myself

I take your point Jeff, but, don't forget, the coarse fishing scene on the Wye as it is now (read barbel) is very much a Johnny-come-lately affair compared with the (still massive) Wye salmon "business" . As for the excellent Wye and Usk foundation, what species do you think all of that barbel and chub money is being thrown back in to help?

 

Unfortunately the advent of the giant supermarkets has put the small family fishmonger out of business. Gone are the days when you could go and buy yourself a pike for tea from the fishmongers near the cathedral (I forget the name)......What cost to the environment with the desire for red snapper, gilt head bream and swordfish? If they advertised it the same way they could just as easily sell pike, perch, gudgeon (found them to mushy myself), carp and dace......no damage from 'food miles' then.

[gozzer]

Like you say John "a load of BS" and it doesn't make a lot of sense. The headlines say "Catch and release to become law" yet it clearly says that isn't totally the case.

 

If the only changes will be an upper size limit for some species and a tightening of numbers that can be taken, then it doesn't sound to bad to me. But like you say lets wait for the final legislation to be announced.

 

Maybe this little snippet from Martin Salters speech on the MCB will help clarify things.

 

 

Later in his speech Mr Salter paid tribute to coarse anglers for overwhelming endorsing proposals to introduce new catch and release byelaws in freshwater.

 

He said:

“I turn briefly to the Government amendments that seek to amend and improve the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975. The Environment Agency has just concluded a consultation on the removal of freshwater fish that the Bill allows for. The consultation overwhelmingly came down in favour of a catch-and-release regime for our freshwater fisheries. Henceforth, the archaic, anachronistic system of regional byelaws is to be replaced with a national catch-and-release regime for coarse fish, which is long overdue. Yes, there will be some exceptions for fishery management, predator fishing or conservation purposes, but in their response to the Environment Agency consultation as part of this Bill, freshwater anglers overwhelmingly came down on the side of conservation, and it is to their credit that they did so.”

 

Again the reference to the "overwhelming" results of the 'consultation'.

 

Maybe I'm thick but, I'm having trouble seeing how taking fish for one reason (food), is more harmful than taking fish for another reason (bait), in regard to sustaining fish stocks. Unless of course, that's the next thing on the agenda, (a thicker part of the wedge).

 

John.

Edited October 28, 2009 by gozzer