Livebaiting for pike

[Guest FENLAND LEG END]

The most important aspect of this arguement is freedom of choice. Fish, maggots worms are all living creatures at the end of the day once one is banned as a bait then it is a matter of time before all are banned. As anglers we should realise this and support fellow anglers whatever their preference for bait. There are too many rules in angling and too many anglers behaving like politicians. So for all you P/C types get off your high horse and fight our corner.

[Guest Andy Nellist]

The problem with livebaiting as has already been stated is that it has led to the introduction of alien fish into waters and has undoubtably spread disease from water to water.

 

In Scotland it would appear that they are tring to bolt the door after the horse has bolted. The harm has already been done.

 

 

Personally I think the way the EA should deal with this is:

 

1. Allow anglers to catch baits using cast nets to catch baits since this will negate the need to transport fish to some extent

2. Prosecute anglers who do move fish. The refinment of DNA testing means that they can now prove the fish in your bucket did't come from the water you are fishing!

3. Allow fishery owners to net bait fish from their waters and sell them to anglers.

 

As for the antis, if you bump into one of them when livebaiting ask them why they are not at one of the many ports around the country protesting at trawler fishing.

 

Remember if you use a sea fish as a deadbait it drowned on the deck of a boat. Deadbaiting with sea baits is just as "cruel" as livebaiting.

[Guest Gav Walker]

Leon-

you have said everything that I wished to say (and more),and,whats more,did it alot better than I would have.

Well said.

 

Gav

[Guest Steady On]

Leon is right in all respects I think, in all the thouasands of fish I must have caught in the last thirty-odd years I have never detected any sign in a fish that it was suffering, I think I'm a fairly sensitive human being and would not be able to ignore any such sign, so I am happy that fish are not capable of suffering from injury in the mental way that we understand from our own experience. Being cruel to a fish would be as difficult as being cruel to a chair.

 

If livebaiting were banned, a few anglers would give up their sport, that is a few less to fight for the whole. It is a few less to pay for day tickets and licences, or buy tackle. It reduces the market for tackle manufacturers and suppliers making it less profitable for new developments in the sport to be properly supported financially, and a reduction in investment damages us all, less newly-invented tackle will be available. We will see more overgrown banks as clubs lose members and can't pay the rents on the fisheries, and a gradual diminution of our ability to go fishing.

 

Anyone who imagines that the loss or surrender of the right to use livebait will not have an effect on his own sport is deluded.

[Guest Alan Pearce]

Originally posted by TheDacer:

Blimey!  

 

Are people really trying to defend livebaiting by saying it's the same as using a dead fish?

 

Or that casting a fish is the same as reeling one in?

 

Ok for starters, one good reason for using live bait is that it is extremly effective and natural way of catching big predatory fish.

 

Come on.. surely you can defend it with a bit more vigour than this!

 

Let's hear some good reasons for Livebaiting!

 

I can't think of one.

 

And I know neutrals regard it as cruel.

[Guest Peter Waller]

Originally posted by Alan Pearce:

 

The way Alan has highlighted Dacers comments gives me a problem. Put like that Dacers comments do have some apparent, although shallow substance. I'm not sure that outsiders regard livebaiting as 'cruel', rather many just find it rather distasteful, as do many anglers themselves. It is hard for me to defend 'with vigour'. But instead of asking for good reasons to defend livebaiting perhaps we should be asking for good reasons to ban it. A deadbait was previously a livebait, so maintaining fish stocks is not a relevant reason. Fish don't/can't feel pain so that is not a relevant reason. The transfer of disease has never been proved, so thats not a relevant reason. So, WHY ban it?

 

 

[This message has been edited by Peter Waller (edited 14 September 2001).]

[Guest Alan Pearce]

My highlighted comment by Dacer was accompanied by a response from me which has become detached ?

 

I said that live baiting was probably the single most effective method to catch predatory fish and therefore one reason why it should be preserved as an angling method.

 

Alan.

SAA

[Guest TheDacer]

I'm not politically correct. If anyone knew me that would be the last thing they might call me. I'm actually a well-educated, arrogant, opinionated, ecologically minded, self-made, angling-conservationist.

 

OK?

 

So for those that wish to do so, please insult me accurately in future.

 

I've still to see a good reason for livebaiting.

 

I've seen argument's about livebaiting being the thing end of the wedge and that it would lead to the ban of worms and suchlike.

 

This is pure speculation - not even worth debating.

 

I've seen a much more reasonable argument that it is the best method on some waters.

 

I accept this point but I reckon it's logically unsound. It makes method all important - over and above concern for fish and the environment. For example, would you cut down a tree to enable you to access an otherwise hard swim? No. You would accept that the swim was unfishable or find a method or making it fishable.

 

Thirdly, I've seen people argue that it's a question of standing up for other anglers.

 

Well I do.

 

I've given tackle to kids. Stopped my fishing to help others. Helped novices to land and unhook fish. Argued more or less publicly against anti-angling.

 

But I won't condone the use of livebait just as I would not support the use of gaffs or knotted mesh.

 

And for those that say it's impossible to be cruel to fish - would you rather gaff a pike or net it, put it on a padded mat and carefully unhook it?

 

I'd rather do the latter. Because the use of a gaff is cruel.

[Guest 'eelfisher']

Dear Dacer.....

Reason for livebaiting.....because it is a legitimate and legal method of angling. Now tell me why we, as anglers, should suddenly decide to chop and change the way we have angled for fish for hundreds of years?

I am curious to the answer....and do not tell me it is cruel to do so.

Yours With Respect......

Steve.

[Guest TheDacer]

Why change?

 

Change is a fact of life. Not a choice.

Without change things stagnate. Humanity has got to the moon because it changes. We stop killing each other in Europe because we change.

 

Sure, not all change is for the better.

 

If you think that this would be such a case then that's fair enough.

 

I think it would be a change for the better.