Taking a coarse fish for the pot

[Vagabond]

Maybe some one on here has some knowledge or even personal experience of "coarse fish for food" during times of food shortages such as the war?

 

If you are looking at me Budgie, I have tasted a fair few freshwater fish, during and just after the war.

 

Rudd, tench, carp - ghastly! only tried them once each (actually I did try carp a second time, in Roumania - as I thought they might have a better way of preparing it - but no, equally ghastly) I assume that roach, bream, chub, crucians, goldfish and barbel would be similar.

Gudgeon, dace, minnow - fine from a clear stream - rather like whitebait.

Pike - just about edible, but I would have to quite hungry to eat it again

Perch, zander - delicious, and the absence of sizeable perch from the EA list of takeable species is a big mistake. If they deleted pike, but allowed two perch of 12" instead, I could go along with it. A dozen bait-sized perch is really no substitute.

Grayling, trout, char, seatrout, salmon - unaffected by EA but one of my local clubs has just made trout catch and release only.

Eels...... ..... I might well take out a netsman's licence as the freezer is running out of smoked eel.

 

But the bottom line is that few people have the ability to catch enough wild fish to make a difference to stocks - if eating (say) perch caught on, there would be people farming them, and Joe Public would pick them up ready filleted, frozen and boxed at Tesco's. Some folk in the UK are already farming carp for the table.

 

Tigger has a good point about the unsuitability of fish from poor-quality water. There are many waters from which I would not take fish to eat - and the average fish-farm is one such!.

[Steve Walker]

Pike - just about edible, but I would have to quite hungry to eat it again

 

I have to disagree on pike - when I was a student at the FBA, the pike caught in the annual Windermere pike survey were brought back to the laboratory, weighed, measured, their opercular bones removed for ageing and then the fish were filleted and the fillets distributed to any staff or students who had expressed an interest. I always asked for some - they were excellent eating! I used to take the lower part of the fillet (which is boneless), cut it into goujons and deep fry it in batter. The upper part, which contains the troublesome Y shaped bones, I diced, deboned and casseroled.

 

I think water quality must have a great deal to do with it.

[Vagabond]

I think water quality must have a great deal to do with it.

 

The two pike I tried both came from (different) trout streams !.....from which the trout are fine.

Perhaps it is just me, but I find even the smell of a freshly caught pike is off-putting.

[Emma two]

I have to disagree on pike - when I was a student at the FBA, the pike caught in the annual Windermere pike survey were brought back to the laboratory, weighed, measured, their opercular bones removed for ageing and then the fish were filleted and the fillets distributed to any staff or students who had expressed an interest. I always asked for some - they were excellent eating! I used to take the lower part of the fillet (which is boneless), cut it into goujons and deep fry it in batter. The upper part, which contains the troublesome Y shaped bones, I diced, deboned and casseroled.

 

I think water quality must have a great deal to do with it.

 

 

I think that water quality is especially significant too. I eat perch caught here in the lake district and they are fantastic, better than anything farmed and that includes trout and bass. I only eat pike which have been badly hooked (so that has been one in the past few years), but they are good too. I remember cooking one from a midlands stillwater and it was awful (and stunk the house out) in comparison.

[Steve Walker]

The two pike I tried both came from (different) trout streams !.....from which the trout are fine.

Perhaps it is just me, but I find even the smell of a freshly caught pike is off-putting.

 

 

How strange - trout fed in clean running water sounds ideal. I haven't eaten pike from anywhere else, so lack data for comparison. Perhaps a diet of perch and char is needed?

Edited January 19, 2011 by Steve Walker

[Andy Macfarlane]

I think pike is very tasty as long as you treat it like a sea fish, with batter, chips and mushy peas etc. Treat it as a freshwater fish and it doesn't quite work.

[Steve Walker]

I think pike is very tasty as long as you treat it like a sea fish, with batter, chips and mushy peas etc. Treat it as a freshwater fish and it doesn't quite work.

 

I'd agree with that. As above, I battered some of it and the rest got casseroled, either fish pie style or Spanish style with tomato, peppers, olives, etc. Basically all dishes you would normally use white sea fish for.

[Emma two]

How strange - trout fed in clean running water sounds ideal. I haven't eaten pike from anywhere else, so lack data for comparison. Perhaps a diet of perch and char is needed?

 

 

Our Lakes don't all have char in 'em but still yield tasty pike.

[chesters1]

1909

"Frensham Pond still lies open and wild to the sky, though it may not be long before its shyer visitors leave it for more secluded waters. The motor omnibuses from Farnham have not yet frightened them all away. Coot and moorhens paddle in and out of the reeds, and great grebes float leisurely about its surface. It has always been famous for its fishing. In Aubrey's time it was "well known for its carps to the London fishmongers," and to-day it holds pike, perch and tench. I heard of no carp. Who would eat a carp?"

 

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28057/28057-h/28057-h.htm

 

remarkable in that both frenshams and most of the lakes around here were "built" to house carp in the 12th century there are carp ofcourse there always have been i suppose but when numbers fall and its easier to fill the pot elsewhere no doubt its easier to say theres no carp rather than a few carp .

aubrey frequented the area in approx 1673 so few sea fish ever reached the masses in the area it was far too expensive so of course then carp were no doubt on the menu for anyone who could catch one ,filling the stomach over being hungry usually wins if there's no choice.by the time the book was written i have no doubt the taste of sea fish so long as it wasn't rancid was preferable although even with the railways still very expensive!

it wasmt just food but our little fishes were caught for the jewellery trade as fake mother of pearl from all parts of the country ,freshwater fish was big business so taking the odd one for the pot even by every angler in the country today would have little effect on numbers unless there were other factors determining fish numbers today,i have no doubt there are other factors

 

if millions of people were taking fish for the pot themselves

&

thousands of people were catching them commercially

&

waters were not the pretty things we see today then a high proportion were nothing more than muddy holes ,most waterways heavily used and little more than handy sewers

&

there was no major restocking as we know it

&

fish welfare was unknown (you can see that with the sea fish stocks being "raped" industrially at the time)

 

there must be a factor in the water other than the reverse of the above we see today and going by the decline i ave seen in the last 50 years of fishing its probably a chemical and probably well known about but expensive to remove from the water in sewerage farms ;) not sewerage itself but something else and used in the last 60? years?

 

THINKS! big chemical company.... "these chems are great for business half the worlds taking them" hopping round tables with glee "better not mention its killing the fish though its bad for business" ,nothing new typical chemical company thinking even killing humans can be overlooked with profits in mind

 

other than mystery chemicals the only thing that is different is we let fish live now then they died! it plainly isnt logical

Edited January 20, 2011 by chesters1

[Worms]

it wasmt just food but our little fishes were caught for the jewellery trade as fake mother of pearl from all parts of the country ,freshwater fish was big business so taking the odd one for the pot even by every angler in the country today would have little effect on numbers unless there were other factors determining fish numbers today,i have no doubt there are other factors

 

if millions of people were taking fish for the pot themselves

&

thousands of people were catching them commercially

&

waters were not the pretty things we see today then a high proportion were nothing more than muddy holes ,most waterways heavily used and little more than handy sewers

&

there was no major restocking as we know it

&

fish welfare was unknown (you can see that with the sea fish stocks being "raped" industrially at the time)

 

there must be a factor in the water other than the reverse of the above we see today and going by the decline i ave seen in the last 50 years of fishing its probably a chemical and probably well known about but expensive to remove from the water in sewerage farms ;) not sewerage itself but something else and used in the last 60? years?

 

THINKS! big chemical company.... "these chems are great for business half the worlds taking them" hopping round tables with glee "better not mention its killing the fish though its bad for business" ,nothing new typical chemical company thinking even killing humans can be overlooked with profits in mind

 

other than mystery chemicals the only thing that is different is we let fish live now then they died! it plainly isnt logical

Ooooh! Scary Chesters, some good points there mate, you're starting to sound more normal every day