Livebaiting for pike

[Guest tony jolley]

Dear Bruno

I think you will still be waiting this time next year, for answers from the condemmers on this subject.

 

------------------

Tony B.T Jolley

[Guest BarbLess]

I agree with pikehunter and the others who question livebaiting..concessions may have to be made in the future, amd will do our sport good.

Barbed hooks, trebles, livebaiting and various other old fashion ideas do our sport no good at all.

Maybe some are too greedy, or are so bone idle as not to even consider other options.

[Guest TheDacer]

Bruno,

 

As one of the "condemners" - I like the name btw Tony! - are you expecting the "proof" from me??

 

If you are then sorry - I have none.

 

And if you read what I've said, I've made it clear that there is no proof to support one view or the other. It's more a question of belief.

 

If you're not - and someone out there has said that there is such proof - then I'm with you. Let's hear it!

[Guest trent.barbeler]

Hi Geoff,

 

Sorry about my slight gaff.

 

Angling Unity is indeed two words.

 

"ANGLING UNITY" I just love those two words.

 

I myself am fairly well educated. But; I can be arrogant and opinionated faced with certain issues. I am self-made in business but not in creation. Like yourself Geoff, I am ecologically minded and am actively involved in many area's of angling conservation. Nothing more than loads of other anglers really.

 

There is no doubt that you are anti-livebaiting and of course Geoff, you have the right to express your views. Many times in the past, I have expressed my opinions on certain angling issues I hold dear to my heart. Barbel in stillwaters being just one example.

 

Livebaiting? Well Geoff, I happen to be a neutral who doesn't think that the practise is cruel. As Bruno knows, there has been much research conducted on the brain and nervous systems of fish that proves beyond doubt that fish do not have the same senses as do we humans. Is then, such proof enough to settle this debate?

 

Clearly for some, it is not.

 

Morale stances are very powerful. I feel that your stance given your correspondence concerning live baiting is morally based. Am I correct Geoff?

 

If that is the case, I doubt if your opinion on this issue could be swayed. Nothing wrong with that Geoff. I hold similar opinions on other issues where I cannot be swayed either.

 

Given that fact Geoff, it seems hypocritical of me to say what I say now. Forgive my hpypocrisy Geoff if that is what it is.

 

As a barbel angler, I back to use of live baits as a legal method of fishing. My reasons for doing so are previously well documented and are to some extent based on my favourite TWO words; Angling Unity.

 

Of course Geoff, to those coming to sites like this for the first time, "angling unity" maybe a bit of a joke given the open warfare on some threads.

 

Still, having said that, I regard predator anglers as my brothers/sisters and because I agree with live baiting, I stand by their side.

 

Angling Unity should mean many things.

 

For myself Geoff, it means that you and I can disagree even on deeply held opinions but still walk towards the shining light together as brother anglers after stating our cases, then move on.

 

To me, that is what angling unity should all be about.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

[Guest poledark]

Lee, I'm not having a go, but how do you feel about using Barbel as livebait?

 

------------------

poledark ANMC

[Guest JackPike]

Livebaiting is OK,but reading the previous postings about catching fish for baits which other anglers target like matchmen do is quite laughable because how many pikers will sit with poles for hours catching a few roach and others whilst doing this loosing valueable piking time with the shorter days now creeping in. Another point is someone mention hella of lot fish is caught for livebaits on waters where top class matchmen are only getting nets of 2lbs as I said before more piking time wasted .JP

[Guest BarbLess]

Good post Lee.

In my opinion, this 'Angling Unitity' debate that appears in many messages in this forum is aload of BS.

At the end of the day, we would 'all' give our backsides to continue fishing the rest of our lives. That is teh one thing we 'all' agree on.

I can't stand people knocking angling unity just because people happen to share different angling practises/techniques.

It's a total cop out.

[Guest trent.barbeler]

Hi Dennis,

 

I like your question. One that really opens up or could open up a whole can of worms.

 

Especially for ME!!

 

But Dennis; In my usual style, I will answer your question openly and honestly but stating that this is only MY answer to your specific question. OK Dennis.

 

How could I openly defend live baiting stating that I stand with the predator anglers then say it's not ok to use my chosen species as a live bait?

 

Well Dennis, I cant and I wont.

 

A barbel is no more precious to me than a roach is to a roach angler, a trout to a trout angler, a bream to a bream angler and so on.

 

Live baiting as you know, is a legal method whereby a live fish is used to tempt a predator in simulation to the predators natural way of finding its food. i.e. feeding on live fish within its natural environment. It follows then that river pike must surely feed on river barbel at some stage just as it would on any available species.

 

In reality, whatever fish species that are chosen for live baiting is down to the predator angler that uses them. Overseas catfish anglers use barbel as live baits do they not? Clonking or something.

 

I have to say though Dennis, I dont think a barbel would make a good prospect for a live bait over here. I would imagine that a barbel live bait would be more trouble than its worth to a predator angler.

 

Just imagine all those rods being pulled of their rests!

 

I just hope that you come to cut me down Dennis after the barbel anglers have hung me.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

[Guest Steady On]

Bruno Broughton's request for evidence of fish feeling pain, or being aware in any way of any crulety is at the heart of this debate. I think all the evidence points to the opposite view.

 

I mentioned in an earlier post that I have never seen any indication in a fish that it was in any kind of mental distress. I will elaborate; like any angler with nearly thirty years of fishing behind them I have caught several thousand fish, I have used perhaps a couple of hundred as livebait (it is a lot of trouble for a lazy angler like me so I seldom bother), among those fish I have (like many other anglers) seen and handled fish bearing the most horrendous wounds that they must have incurred in the course of their normal existence. None of these fish have ever behaved in any way that would suggest that they were in any pain or that they might be suffering some mental anguish.

 

I have seen some of these badly damaged fish recover, (a pike with terrible gaping wounds recaptured a year later, scarred but healed, heavier, and thriving). No mammal would have survived such injuries.

 

I am not a trained scientist, but I cannot believe that these observations do not constitute very strong evidence that fish have very different nervous systems to mammals. I cannot see how these observations, which surely every experienced angler has shared, could lead an intelligent person to any other conclusion.

 

I do not wish to decry science, I have some scientific training and believe in the use of scientific method to establish truth. These observations - repeated countless times - should be taken by scientists as important evidence that we are not inflicting pain or cruelty upon fish by either catching them or using them alive as bait.

 

I have a sneaking suspicion that most of us anglers handle more live fish in a month than a fish scientist does in his/her entire career!

 

Have you noticed that the two sides of this debate have a differing way of expressing their opinions. The antis are candid in their expression of a personal view, despite presenting no evidence - following their heart. The pros can't see any evidence so follow their heads. I would stop fishing - let alone livebaiting - tomorrow if I found evidence that I was being cruel to fish.

[Guest tony jolley]

A couple of excellent posts there from you Lee and you "steady on"

I thank you Lee for your honest opinion and stance on the question of "barbel as live bait" I can see no reason for you to be ridiculed or questioned on your response, I to have the feelings (strongly I may add) in regards Eels as bait I can not condem any angler that uses them as bait either live or dead, my fellings regards eels as bait is influenced by the decline in numbers and on that fact alone I would ask anglers not to use them as bait in any form, Nothing to do with me "loving the fish as a species" after all a fish is a fish at the end of the day, My work within the EEL CONSERVATION SOCIETY is about the over exploitation of eels at all stages of their life cycle and the decline in the European wide stock, so no one can say I`m biased in my opinions regards fish and the use of them as bait after all there is no threat to the roach or perch stocks, only eels are under a long term threat of decline. My work within the N A C is based on the type of subject that is "the ban of live baiting" and how that affects the rights of the members of the N A C I back ALL the decisions made at commitee level within the N A C even when I`m not in favour of the out come, This is based purely on the fact that I`m an elected officer of a club representing its members wishes, I owe it to the N A C and its members to be actively pressing for their wishes to be heard,

I know this has drifted of the subject a little, But I wanted to explain why it IS in the BEST intrest of angling to support each others views and opinions on ANY subject,

Steady on!!

Thanks for your post I am in total agreement with you on your opinions regards fish "feelings" in fact, I DONT THINK THEY HAVE ANY!!!!!!

 

------------------

Tony B.T Jolley