If all the Carp went away what would replace them?

[Steve Walker]

Yes, the pheasant situation sounds similarly revolting to me too!

[Dales]

I get the feeling that this is just one of the areas like many in fishing that you will never get agreement on. Fishing is a personel thing and everyone gets something different out of it, for some its the places that fishing takes them. For others it may just be the size of the fish they catch. One person may like wondering on there own, or like having a fishing partner with them when they go out. Others like the cameraderie of going out with a big group of mates. We do what suits us.

 

Everyone will have there own views on stocking as well, one mans view of a heavy stocked water may be some one elses ideal stock. All the arguments against certain commercials are valid on moral and welfare grounds, well in my opinion anyway. But that does not mean that others agree and as we tend to vote with our feet, the fact they are popular leads me to believe that many are not to bothered.

 

I just find it hard to believe that some people can not see that others may enjoy this kind of fishing and choose to do it. I do not expect them to understand why they do it, as we base our opinions on our own idiosyncratic believes and values. One mans meat may be another mans poison.

 

I think that fishing for more species would no doubt increase the enjoyment of fishing for many people, but if they don't want to thats there choice.

 

I may be in the minority in thinking that we are in a time when fishing choices have never been so good, I doubt many would agree with me and some may well hate most of the choices available. To some extent the natural rivers and lakes do exist and those that say they are not as good as they once were are probably right. But we are in a time when Barbel, Tench and other species are reaching sizes never thought possible. You can fish for exotic ornamentals, go to holiday parks geared at anglers, in fact go all over the world fishing and yes even catch Carp in mud puddles.

 

What ever rocks your boat it's fine. If along the way you can introduce some else to the sort of fishing you enjoy and they find it rewarding, then you are indeed doing a good deed. But the chances are what ever they are currently doing it's becasue they enjoy it and they find it rewarding, it does not mean that others will and why should they. We do what we do because we like it.

[Anderoo]

I can completely understand why people would want to fish there.

 

But fishing choices have never been so restricted. This probably affects me more because I am obviously in the minority. I suppose in the future this minority will be so tiny that it becomes invisible, and then everyone will be happy. The tiny minority can club together to secure syndicates and go about their oddball ways in peace.

 

On stocking levels, catching any fish (except for food) that has to eat anglers' bait to survive is morally and ethically wrong in my opinion, and when that happens we lose any claim to be conservationists, or guardians of the waterways, and in fact we are being actively destructive towards nature. Putting the fish on an unhooking mat and using a bit of plastic that allows the lead to fall off the line is a useful distraction and nod towards 'fish welfare' but is actually just sleight of hand.

 

Yes, it is up to all of us to decide how we want to go about our fishing, but I expect given the choice a lot of footballers would double the size of the opposition's goal if they were allowed. That would pretty unsporting though, so it is a fundamental rule of the game.

 

So far in my lifetime we have abolished the closed season on stillwaters, as we don't have enough respect for fish to give them a break from us trying to catch them, attempted to abolish the right to take fish to eat, and allowed lake owners to treat fish as nothing more than pounds and pence, and stock them at such high levels that they are the finned equivalents of battery hens, and would, if we could, shoot dead any animal that eats fish in case it makes it harder for us to catch a fish and let it go again. But we MUST treat their wounds with klinik and take off out rings and watches before holding them for a photo.

 

I know I am in the minority but I just hate the modern attitude towards it all. Why are we not allowed to blank any more? In an age where we are supposed to be enlightened with regard to safe rigs and fish care, why don't we care about the actual day to day lives of the fish we profess to love and respect?

 

I look forward to your comments

[Tigger]

Yes, the pheasant situation sounds similarly revolting to me too!

 

 

At least they can bugger off if they have enough gumption. If you want revolting go visit a slaughter house, I know it's a necessity but that is revolting. Especially the fact that animals are legally subject to horrendous deaths by having their throats slit and bled to death whilst fully awake and other barbarrick methods which some religions insist on .

At least the fish in overstocked waters are caught and released and get a supply of expensive grub to eat, not perfect I know but....

Edited July 7, 2010 by Tigger

[Dales]

I can completely understand why people would want to fish there.

 

But fishing choices have never been so restricted. This probably affects me more because I am obviously in the minority. I suppose in the future this minority will be so tiny that it becomes invisible, and then everyone will be happy. The tiny minority can club together to secure syndicates and go about their oddball ways in peace.

 

On stocking levels, catching any fish (except for food) that has to eat anglers' bait to survive is morally and ethically wrong in my opinion, and when that happens we lose any claim to be conservationists, or guardians of the waterways, and in fact we are being actively destructive towards nature. Putting the fish on an unhooking mat and using a bit of plastic that allows the lead to fall off the line is a useful distraction and nod towards 'fish welfare' but is actually just sleight of hand.

 

Yes, it is up to all of us to decide how we want to go about our fishing, but I expect given the choice a lot of footballers would double the size of the opposition's goal if they were allowed. That would pretty unsporting though, so it is a fundamental rule of the game.

 

So far in my lifetime we have abolished the closed season on stillwaters, as we don't have enough respect for fish to give them a break from us trying to catch them, attempted to abolish the right to take fish to eat, and allowed lake owners to treat fish as nothing more than pounds and pence, and stock them at such high levels that they are the finned equivalents of battery hens, and would, if we could, shoot dead any animal that eats fish in case it makes it harder for us to catch a fish and let it go again. But we MUST treat their wounds with klinik and take off out rings and watches before holding them for a photo.

 

I know I am in the minority but I just hate the modern attitude towards it all. Why are we not allowed to blank any more? In an age where we are supposed to be enlightened with regard to safe rigs and fish care, why don't we care about the actual day to day lives of the fish we profess to love and respect?

 

I look forward to your comments

 

Everything you have just said is true and if everyone shared your attitude, commercials would not exist in the form that many currently do. Your values on this are to be commended, but I fear that many who fish have never given it this amount of thought or if they have they just do not care or share your views. If there was a way to change everyones attitude that would be great, but I can't see that happening any time soon.

[gozzer]

Everything you have just said is true and if everyone shared your attitude, commercials would not exist in the form that many currently do. Your values on this are to be commended, but I fear that many who fish have never given it this amount of thought or if they have they just do not care or share your views. If there was a way to change everyones attitude that would be great, but I can't see that happening any time soon.

 

 

This is the hypocrisy I mentioned in my earlier post which said almost the same as Andrews.

 

There are many divisions in angling, but none so big as the one between those that actually care, and those that just make a show of it. Much of the fish welfare paraphernalia has been designed more to appease any suppressed guilt that some have, act as a screen to show to those outside angling, and of course provide revenue for the tackle trade, than it has to the actual welfare of the fish.

If we have to have these grossly overstocked commercial enterprises, then we should call them something other than 'fisheries' and those that use them exclusively something other than anglers. Otherwise I can call myself an artist because I like to doodle, or a footballer because I like a kick around with my nephews when on the beach. There is a slight connection with the real thing, but only slight.

 

John.

[Steve Walker]

If you want revolting go visit a slaughter house, I know it's a necessity but that is revolting.

 

Totally agree, Tigger, I've no problem with shooting game for food in general - don't do it myself, but no problem buying game from the butchers. And I'm fussy about welfare standards for meat. Just don't much like the idea of what Sportsman described.

[Dick Dastardly]

I am now at the stage that I dont care if people are missing out on other types of fishing.....

 

I dont care if they ultimately dont get as much enjoyment from gradually catching bigger and bigger fish as I did........

 

I dont care if they want "mud holes" overstoked with suffering fish...

 

I dont care if they enjoy "their fishing" or not...

 

Just let all people enjoy what ever type of fishing they choose...all I ask is that "all people" reciprocate and let me enjoy the type of fishing I like.

 

AND thats the crunch for me...............they dont! (or probably more fairly ARE STARTING to impact on my fishing.I could give countless examples but surely I dont need to?

[Dick Dastardly]

Comparing this trend in fishing to that what happened in shooting is very good and the future of angling is there to see as well.

[Dales]

This is the hypocrisy I mentioned in my earlier post which said almost the same as Andrews.

 

There are many divisions in angling, but none so big as the one between those that actually care, and those that just make a show of it. Much of the fish welfare paraphernalia has been designed more to appease any suppressed guilt that some have, act as a screen to show to those outside angling, and of course provide revenue for the tackle trade, than it has to the actual welfare of the fish.

If we have to have these grossly overstocked commercial enterprises, then we should call them something other than 'fisheries' and those that use them exclusively something other than anglers. Otherwise I can call myself an artist because I like to doodle, or a footballer because I like a kick around with my nephews when on the beach. There is a slight connection with the real thing, but only slight.

 

John.

 

Oddly I agree with you John and Anderoo on most of these issues. I prefer to fish more natural lakes with a normal stock ratio, but I don't mind admitting I do fish commercials and the reason I do it is to catch ornamental and non native species. If they did not stock Golden Tench, Fantails, Catfish etc I would not fish them. I know the stocking of non-natives is not popular, but I like them. Ideally in my mind, these are the sort of fish that should be stocked in "commercials" at low density and not our native species that should be in a more natural environment.

 

Does that make me a hypocrite for thinking I care about fish, well yes it probably does. As to try to catch the one of the handful of golden Tench in a water, I have to go to a lake packed with tonnes of fish to keep the match boys happy. But I am not so much of a hypocrite as to have a go at some else just because they enjoy fishing these places all the time catching Carp, Roach, Bream what ever.

 

Anderoo compaired the fish in these places to battery hens and he is right, but does the fact that battery hen farms exist stop people buying the eggs they produce even after endless campaigns telling people about how bad they are, no it does not. Commercials are what they are, it's a business and they are there to make money and provide a product that enough people seem willing to buy. It may not be fishing by many anglers standards, but enough people seem to want the product.

 

They are commercial enterprises and like any other commercial rearing of livestock it will involve an element of overcrowding and yes cruelty.