help with perch preperation

[Dick Dastardly]

you can take 15 fish up to 20cm for bait yet you guys (and gal) believe its wrong to take them for personal consumption.

 

 

And that (despite the fact that I dont personally want to eat coarse fish or even understand why others should wish to do so other than just out of curiosity) is why you will never see me chastising some one for legally taking a fish to eat. Also one of the many reasons I will always fight to keep the right to take fish to eat.

 

As Ive said before Joe Public finds it easier to accept angling if he thinks we eat our catch than he does if we tell him its just for "fun".Imagine how us arguing that its wrong to take fish for food but ok for bait would sit with him?

[Fours]

Don't worry about what other anglers think, those anglers were opposing the law which now restricts the fish you can take. I don't understand either.

 

If you can do it within the law you have a right to take fish so if you want to try perch then go ahead. I've never tried it but popular opinion is that they taste good. In my youth I caught what seemed like a huge perch once and wanted to take it home but had no way to carry it so back to the river he went. The next weekend I went back to the same spot with a carrier bag and the assurance from my mum that she'd cook it when I got home. Of course I'd overlooked the small matter of catching it again so we had to settle for cod and chips that night.

 

That was probably the only time I would've eaten coarse fish, now the thought of a stripey or a carp sitting on my plate doesn't really appeal but that's my choice and shouldn't influence yours.

Sorry??

On my thread 'Carp in distress' you very clearly suggested that I should have knocked it on the head for the plate!

[gozzer]

And that (despite the fact that I dont personally want to eat coarse fish or even understand why others should wish to do so other than just out of curiosity) is why you will never see me chastising some one for legally taking a fish to eat. Also one of the many reasons I will always fight to keep the right to take fish to eat.

 

As Ive said before Joe Public finds it easier to accept angling if he thinks we eat our catch than he does if we tell him its just for "fun".Imagine how us arguing that its wrong to take fish for food but ok for bait would sit with him?

 

Hi everybody, not posted for a while, but looked in occasionally. I hope everyone's well.

 

Nomnomj, you've hit on a very emotive subject here, and I'm surprised that there hasn't been a few harsh comments, as in past discussions. (I've been accused of being a "vandal" for suggesting that we should retain the right to take fish for the table!).

I'm not surprised that you feel confused by the current laws relating to the taking of fish, most people are. It's an ill conceived, unworkable, unenforceable, useless piece of legislation. It was initiated by the furore created by the sensationalist reporting of the actions of a minority.

Many on here voted against the legislation when the EA had the farce of an on line 'consultation', but the majority, (backed by the self appointed "governing body" for anglers) voted for it. If I remember rightly there were less than 900 replies, with about 60/70% voting for the legislation, (a true representation of the estimated 3,000,000 anglers, it seems) .

I, and many others, have had several conversations with the EA, questioning the reason for this ridiculous "law", as well as it's validity, and it's feasibility. I have received a load of waffle in reply. It was suggested by Adrian Taylor that if I wanted to take fish for the table, that I took the 15 a day under 200mm. When I said that taking 15 small fish instead of 1 medium fish seemed counter productive, I didn't get an answer, (not one that made sense anyway). I also questioned Mr Taylor about the alleged record grayling, that was eaten, and the news splashed all over the press. He wasn't aware of the story, (he'd been on holiday), but would look into it, and report back, I've heard nothing as yet.

I firmly believe that (as Budgie said) that we should have retained the fundamental the right to take fish for the table, even if we chose not to exercise that right, we should have the choice. We have a situation now where carp, (arguably one of the most numerous and invasive species in our waters), have more protection than the eel, which we are told is on the brink of extinction.

This legislation has too many holes in it to mention in one post, but it seems to be what the majority of 'anglers' want, whether it's what they actually 'need', is another thing.

 

John.

[Anderoo]

you guys (and gal) believe its wrong to take them for personal consumption.

 

In case I wasn't clear I'll just repeat this:

 

My personal view is that it's madness we can't take the odd fish of a sensible size to eat. A situation that I really believe will come back to haunt us in the future. But we are where we are, so unless the council allows you permission, you won't be legally entitled to do so.

 

I thought you might be trying to set off a big argument, so my apologies for that assumption. My answers have just been about the current legal situation, I don't know any recipes, sorry!

 

As Gozzer says, it's an emotive subject that usually ends up in a very long topic with people falling out, hence the general lack of replies and the factual/legal nature of most that did reply.

 

The recent bye-laws were introduced as an idiotic knee-jerk reaction to pacify an enraged and incredibly stupid anging media. Previous laws were already in place to prevent fish theft. The new laws will make no difference to those who want to break the law anyway, but criminalise the rest of us and make it oh so easy to position us ready for an outright ban.

 

On a personal note, take as many perch as you like of a sensible size, it won't make any difference to fish stocks and the laws aren't enforced anyway. The only reason they were introduced was to shut the Anging Times up, which appears to have worked. Nothing's actually changed.

Edited October 15, 2010 by Anderoo

[Newt]

It was suggested by Adrian Taylor that if I wanted to take fish for the table, that I took the 15 a day under 200mm. When I said that taking 15 small fish instead of 1 medium fish seemed counter productive, I didn't get an answer, (not one that made sense anyway).

Hi John. Nice to see you posting.

 

The advice was pretty sound I think.

 

Larger fish will produce more eggs with a higher survival rate and generally higher quality fry than smaller fish so leaving the larger fish to reproduce seems a sound idea to me.

 

Ponds that are overrun with smaller fish tend to keep the entire population smaller and less healthy than ponds with reasonable stocking levels.

[Steve Walker]

But in one of the two cases where they have implemented a size limit for the table (grayling) they have imposed a slot limit. The other is pike, with just an upper limit.

 

It seems to me that any kind of size limit introduced nationally and without reference to local fisheries data is highly dubious. The grayling slot limit is 30-38cm. That applies whether the grayling are from a rich southern chalk stream or an upland spate river in Northern England - I don't know how that would be justified in terms of pure fisheries science.

 

I don't think a 20cm perch is really going to be worth eating, there isn't going to be much meat left after you've gutted and head and tailed it. If I wanted to eat a perch, I would want one from either a clean river or a large oligotrophic lake. Most of our largest lakes and all of our rivers are now no-take zones for eating size perch. I think the best places now would be water supply reservoirs and upland tarns.

 

Or Scotland.

[Rusty]

Sorry??

On my thread 'Carp in distress' you very clearly suggested that I should have knocked it on the head for the plate!

 

It can't be too clear Fours because I haven't posted on that thread, you must be thinking of somebody else.

[gozzer]

Hi John. Nice to see you posting.

 

The advice was pretty sound I think.

 

Larger fish will produce more eggs with a higher survival rate and generally higher quality fry than smaller fish so leaving the larger fish to reproduce seems a sound idea to me.

 

Ponds that are overrun with smaller fish tend to keep the entire population smaller and less healthy than ponds with reasonable stocking levels.

 

Hi Newt, thanks.

 

I appreciate and agree with what you're saying, but it applies to any water whether there are stunted fish or not. The legislation has little or nothing to do with the sustainability of stocks, (the EA admitted that themselves), it's just about appeasing a misguided few that take the angling press as gospel.

As Steve said, it doesn't take the local conditions into account, it's just a blanket rule to cover the country, a 'one size fits all' fix, that in reality, doesn't fit the majority of cases.

 

John.

[Dales]

I believe pan fried with shallotts is popular in some parts of Ireland, but can't help thinking that a pan fried trout would taste better.