The European Eel - A species under threat

[Dick Dastardly]

So, rather than fighting to retain their share to eat, shouldn't anglers as a group be putting all their efforts into campaigning against the commercial exploitation of a critically endangered species.

 

I do agree that the real issue is to protect the eel (or whatever species for that matter) Leon and if the truth be known I dont take eels to eat and these days very rarely take them for bait unless they are a odds on mortality.But the most important thing is that I "choose" not to do either of those things.

 

I have always agreed that as anglers our strongest arguments are as you say that we do care for the environment and our potential quarry even if it is for rather selfish motives. Giving up the taking even fishing for eels full stop would certainly give us the "moral high ground" and "whiter than white" position................but to who or in whose eyes? Maybe only our own.I refer you to the lead shot farce.We gave up lead shot before it was banned even though it was never proved that it was the main problem.Long before it was actually legally banned (once again the ban/laws were brought in with the help of us the angler)..............AND WHAT DID IT ACHIEVE? Swans are still dieing of lead poisoning (wont bother going into rthe whys wherefores as they are irellevant to this subject and will only detract) AND ANGLERS ARE STILL GETTING THE BLAME! We appeased no one or neither did we help find the real reasons in fact possibly hindered the finding of the problem as the buck simply stopped with us.

 

However if we "choose" to help out the eel in even the smallest possible way by not taking or even fishing for them fine but why do we continue to have to set our selves up as the bad guys/scape goat for the real problems.It does neither us as anglers,angling as a whole or the actual issue in hand any good at all. Surely as "Anglers who are within their legal rights to take and kill eels but choose not to due to concerns over the eels decline" we are in a far stronger position and potentially better "light" than simply "anglers who are banned from catching/eating eels"?

 

Am I cynical or just realistic? even I'm not sure any more.

 

I struggle to get what I mean across on most of these types of debates due to my poor communication skills it frustrates me immensely so please excuse me if I labour any points or come across aggressively or argumentatively.

Edited January 7, 2010 by BUDGIE

[Bob Bradford]

Here is a snippet from the e-mail I posted on another thread earlier today, the e-mail is directly from the EA to me;

 

 

 

"Since the earlier consultation, we have decided to postpone our eel and elver net fishing proposals until 2011 (the urgent need to introduce net fishing close seasons for 2010 will be provided through another route)."

 

I do not know what the "other route "is, though..................anyone know?

[Steve Coppolo]

By foregoing our own 'right' to eat such creatures, it puts us in a much stronger position to champion the case of the eel and its important place in the ecology of the aquatic and marine environments.

 

No, it doesn't.

 

One of the great defences of angling is our credentials as conservationists, and our vaunted role as the eyes, ears and defenders of the watery environment.

 

No, it isn't.

 

If we are to step back from that, and solely fight for our selfish rights to take and do with as we wish to any creature, whatever its conservation status, we will have marched a long way down the road towards losing our freedom and 'rights' to fish.

 

I strongly disagree. Sticking hooks into endangered species and dragging them out of their environment just for the fun of it is quickest route to losing our 'rights' to fish.

[Mark7]

No, sorry Mark, why should we ignore the commercial fishing issue? It is very relevant to the point you are trying to make and the quote you've posted. What you, and the AnglersNet member that you quote, appear to be saying is that it is alright to walk into a supermarket or fishmongers and buy as many eels as you like, but it isn't alright to hunt them to eat. Please tell me you posted that as a joke.

 

 

No, Steve, not a joke, and the fact that commercial fishing continues does not, in my opinion, justify the catching of an endangered species by a recreational angler for the pot. I have more sympathy with commercial angling, as it is someones livelihood, than I do with a recreational angler who could choose to help conserve an endangered species, albeit in a very small way by not taking them to use as food or bait, but chooses not to do so. It is always a long, slow process to restrict or limit any commercial activity because the individuals who make a living from it will obviously be disadvantaged, which is why you will not see a ban on commercial elver/eel fishing tomorrow. However, I do not believe that you, as a recreational angler, will suffer any fiscal disadvantage from not taking eels for bait or the pot.

 

As for Budgie's comments regarding the possible banning of eel fishing due to C&R mortality rates, then I would hope that we (National Anguilla Club) will be able to demonstrate that mortality rates experienced by our members will not impact on the survival of the eel. By working with the organisations that are shaping the future we will be in the right position to do this.

 

I guess that this post will now result in the usual flurry of requests for evidence of low C&R mortality rates, demands to know what we are doing to achieve a ban on elver fishing, accusations of being condescending and patronising, and a generally negative comment on the AT, men in suits, NGOs, specimen groups and single species clubs. This is always an interesting forum to post on, but I wonder how much more would be achieved if the "cup half empty" regular posters on here put their huge amounts of energy into a more positive approach to the challenges facing angling today.

[Steve Coppolo]

I do agree that the real issue is to protect the eel (or whatever species for that matter) Leon and if the truth be known I dont take eels to eat and these days very rarely take them for bait unless they are a odds on mortality.But the most important thing is that I "choose" not to do either of those things.

 

I have always agreed that as anglers our strongest arguments are as you say that we do care for the environment and our potential quarry even if it is for rather selfish motives. Giving up the taking even fishing for eels full stop would certainly give us the "moral high ground" and "whiter than white" position................but to who or in whose eyes? Maybe only our own.I refer you to the lead shot farce.We gave up lead shot before it was banned even though it was never proved that it was the main problem.Long before it was actually legally banned (once again the ban/laws were brought in with the help of us the angler)..............AND WHAT DID IT ACHIEVE? Swans are still dieing of lead poisoning (wont bother going into rthe whys wherefores as they are irellevant to this subject and will only detract) AND ANGLERS ARE STILL GETTING THE BLAME! We appeased no one or neither did we help find the real reasons in fact possibly hindered the finding of the problem as the buck simply stopped with us.

 

However if we "choose" to help out the eel in even the smallest possible way by not taking or even fishing for them fine but why do we continue to have to set our selves up as the bad guys/scape goat for the real problems.It does neither us as anglers,angling as a whole or the actual issue in hand any good at all. Surely as "Anglers who are within their legal rights to take and kill eels but choose not to due to concerns over the eels decline" we are in a far stronger position and potentially better "light" than simply "anglers who are banned from catching/eating eels"?

 

Am I cynical or just realistic? even I'm not sure any more.

 

I struggle to get what I mean across on most of these types of debates due to my poor communication skills it frustrates me immensely so please excuse me if I labour any points or come across aggressively or argumentatively.

 

Not at all, BUDGIE. you've explained perfectly why a ban on anglers taking eels is pointles and will achieve nothing.

[Dick Dastardly]

Here is a snippet from the e-mail I posted on another thread earlier today, the e-mail is directly from the EA to me;

 

 

 

"Since the earlier consultation, we have decided to postpone our eel and elver net fishing proposals until 2011 (the urgent need to introduce net fishing close seasons for 2010 will be provided through another route)."

 

I do not know what the "other route "is, though..................anyone know?

 

 

Exactly Bob! I dont believe people are as stupid or blind as they often come across.Issues like this prove it they no damn well what the problems are and what needs doing just that they (for whatever reason and I sadly believe this is often financial) dont want to! They simply "fudge" the issue/"muddy the waters" with replies/statements like this .Far happier to be seen as stupid/blind by the knowing than have to face up to the backlash if the true reasons were known.

[Steve Coppolo]

No, Steve, not a joke, and the fact that commercial fishing continues does not, in my opinion, justify the catching of an endangered species by a recreational angler for the pot. I have more sympathy with commercial angling, as it is someones livelihood, than I do with a recreational angler who could choose to help conserve an endangered species, albeit in a very small way by not taking them to use as food or bait, but chooses not to do so. It is always a long, slow process to restrict or limit any commercial activity because the individuals who make a living from it will obviously be disadvantaged, which is why you will not see a ban on commercial elver/eel fishing tomorrow. However, I do not believe that you, as a recreational angler, will suffer any fiscal disadvantage from not taking eels for bait or the pot.

 

As for Budgie's comments regarding the possible banning of eel fishing due to C&R mortality rates, then I would hope that we (National Anguilla Club) will be able to demonstrate that mortality rates experienced by our members will not impact on the survival of the eel. By working with the organisations that are shaping the future we will be in the right position to do this.

 

I guess that this post will now result in the usual flurry of requests for evidence of low C&R mortality rates, demands to know what we are doing to achieve a ban on elver fishing, accusations of being condescending and patronising, and a generally negative comment on the AT, men in suits, NGOs, specimen groups and single species clubs. This is always an interesting forum to post on, but I wonder how much more would be achieved if the "cup half empty" regular posters on here put their huge amounts of energy into a more positive approach to the challenges facing angling today.

 

To me, Mark, that is idealistsic, misguided and twisted logic. By accepting an angling ban you are decreasing the chances of a ban on commercial elver netting. I don't even think elver netting will ever be banned, anyway, because there is too much money involved. It'll be just another case of hitting the easy target. Anglers.

Edited January 7, 2010 by Steve Coppolo

[Bob Bradford]

Here is a snippet from the e-mail I posted on another thread earlier today, the e-mail is directly from the EA to me;

 

 

 

"Since the earlier consultation, we have decided to postpone our eel and elver net fishing proposals until 2011 (the urgent need to introduce net fishing close seasons for 2010 will be provided through another route)."

 

I do not know what the "other route "is, though..................anyone know?

 

 

Anyone?

[Elton]

When I catch eels off the beach, the mortality rate is high. Bootlaces and 5/0 hooks don't seem to go well together. It doesn't happen all that often, but it happens.

 

It looks like rather than use those dead eels as bait, I will now have to 'return' them.

 

I believe they call them 'discards' in commercial circles.

 

I want to be a conservationist - should I approve, or disapprove, of discards?

[Elton]

Anyone?

 

Looks like they're just saying that they will try to tackle net fishing for eels using different legislation.

 

By the sounds of it, the commercial eel fishermen were consulted about this particular draft and told them to ram their proposals, hence they are happy to concentrate on anglers.