The law on catching and eating fish

[Sportsman]

This has been done to death on here in the past and views are very polarised, it might be a reasonable question, but it is from a non angler and his first question as a member . Call me Cynical but I think it's just meant to stir things up a bit, however you think it is perfectly reasonable, I don't, if we look at Poland for example where the fish stocks have suffered greatly due to Human predation then that could be something you should consider.

 

Personally I would not lobby a Whore House in favour of abolition of Prostitution

 

I might expect to get more than I bargained for

 

Do you have any evidence that the Polish fish stocks have suffered greatly from human predation? I can't find any.

 

I live in France where almost every French angler will take his catch to eat, Pike, Zander and Gudgeon being particular favourites. On my local lake there are some controls in force, for instance anglers are limited to no more that 4kg of Roach per angler per day (my local lake is stuffed with fish, particularly roach, as are all the other waters around here)

[Leon Roskilly]

Good point. You can get size limits for your area from the applicable Sea Fisheries Committee.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Sea+Fisheries+Committee

 

In practice, I'm not sure I would usually consider anything under their limits worth taking in the first place.

 

Oh, and you definitely don't have to pay to fish from the shore

 

No such thing as Sea Fisheries Committees anymore.

 

Since April, they have been replaced by Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities (IFCAs).

 

Oh! and certain sea-fish have to be returned whatever the size, eels, shad (both allis and twaite), tope..........

[Anderoo]

Things that eat fish are always used as the scapegoats for declining stocks. When I was growing up it was the zander that were supposedly marauding their way through the roach and bream, so we were all told to throw them up the bank and let them die. The real reason was irresponsible pumping of the drains that sucked out entire year classes of fish into the Wash. If the eastern European farm workers were around then, they'd have got the blame too. Or Otters, or whatever else is the scapegoat of the day.

[chesters1]

i think the fish were hit very hard in WW2 but in it and in the 50's there were plenty of fish the decline isnt down to a few poles and their barbi's ,the same applies to birds theres plenty of evidence just about every bird that could be caught was eaten in WW2 but the population didnt suffer .

i think the decline of both isnt down to them being eaten but some other cause (probably man made) some innocent chemical or practice were using that has at the moment no link to fish or birds (or perhaps covered up)

going by licences theres far fewer anglers today than in the 50's so somethings going on other than angling itself putting them back or eating them

Edited June 24, 2011 by chesters1

[SpecimenSean]

.I`d rather kill it and eat it then put it back, as don`t take this personally, i don`t agree with using animals for entertainment and non essential purposes.

 

yes we enjoy nothing more than the torture of fish we are all evil sadists!

 

ANTI, HES AN ANTI!!!! BOOOOOO

[gozzer]

Personally I would not lobby a Whore House in favour of abolition of Prostitution

 

No Neil, but you might lobby it in favour of Legalised Prostitution.

 

This whole eating fish thing has (as you say), been done to death, but that doesn't mean that the present legislation is, logical, well thought out, or even in the best interests of angling. It was brought about by pressure from sensationalised reporting, hysteria among certain sections of 'anglers', and promoted by those with a commercial interest in angling.

We don't need comments from non anglers to point out the hypocrisy in angling, there are those of us who will do it from within. It's noticeable that when I post something that is critical of what's now considered 'normal', I get very few replies, (I see that others get the same response). I can only conclude that most anglers either know it's true, (but don't want to admit it publicly), or just don't care enough to respond.

 

John.

[chesters1]

or like eating meat turn a blind eye to its production.

unfortunately i'v seen how its produced ,i even (for two hours until i could stomach it no more) helped produce it ,i still eat meat i just prefer not to look hard at how it ends up on my plate.

i can see the points of others ,i agree with quite a lot of their points but i like fishing as well ,so long as i dont injure fish more than can be helped in my pastime i can do it with a clean conscience ,as for the meat .......

 

i think angling is pretty safe fish are not "fluffy" if we were catching rats with hooks i think we wouldnt last long even rats are above slimey fish in most eyes ,get a fish kill it upsets anglers if a few moorhens are dead in the picture of a 1000 dead fish it upsets far more people

the difference i hope is that anglers are not so blinkered as the anti's ,we can talk and hopefully improve things rather than have blinkers and ban things because we dont like it

Fishing to Antis are like Otters to anglers your going to get tunnel vision from the blinkered "ban it" ones who probably dont really know what their talking about and just react to stimulus

Edited June 24, 2011 by chesters1

[Kappa]

This whole eating fish thing has (as you say), been done to death, but that doesn't mean that the present legislation is, logical, well thought out, or even in the best interests of angling. It was brought about by pressure from sensationalised reporting, hysteria among certain sections of 'anglers', and promoted by those with a commercial interest in angling.

 

:clap2: :clap2: :clap2:

 

Couldn't agree more.

 

Rich

[ColinW]

Ok sean will bear (spelt wrong i think) that in mind, totally forgot about the polluction.The reason i want to do it is because it just appealsto me.I`d rather kill it and eat it then put it back, as don`t take this personally, i don`t agree with using animals for entertainment and non essential purposes.

Now i know someone`s gonna say that why don`t i go to a supermarket etc for fish, but i want to try carp, bream, roach pike etc.

 

"Kill it and eat it then put it back.." What are you going to do, take a dump off a bridge?

 

If you are for real and not just some tree hugger anti angler on a windup I can tell you that coarse fish are called "coarse" for their eating quality. They taste ropey and are full of bones. The closest one to edible would be small pike, they taste only marginally worse than farmed trout (in other words they are only fit for fishcakes!)

[Steve Walker]

I would rate perch and eel as amongst the very best eating fish. And I used to eat a fair bit of Windermere pike, I would rate that above most fish, certainly above small stillwater rainbow trout.

Edited June 24, 2011 by Steve Walker