Fish Welfare

[triumphted]

As you would expect since joining the Forum I have been trying to gain as much knowledge as I can about fishing or if you prefer angling.In doing that I have looked at magazines dvd's etc and the big thing that has jumped out at me is just how well everyone treats the fish once it has been caught.

Today I saw a programme in which the angler placed the fish in a sack to enable him to take a photograph of it later with his colleague.

 

He described how he needed to keep the sack in a certain depthof water and not where there was moss as it takes all the oxygen away etc etc you all probably know this so I won't go on but to me it was very impressive indeed.

Particularly when I can remember a few years ago now a campaign against fishing and some argued that they could hear the fish screaming when it was caught.

 

I have no doubt that since I last went fishing when I was a kid back in the 60's today anglers are far far more careful on keeping the fish safe and returned to the water safely than years ago and anglers should pat themselves on the back for the advances that have been made.

[robtherake]

All aspects of fish care have improved, as you rightly state, but I think (and we've discussed this fairly recently) that we've succumbed to the need to be seen to be as humane as is possible (to a large extent, because of external pressures), and in so doing have become a bit OCD about it.

[gozzer]

All aspects of fish care have improved, as you rightly state, but I think (and we've discussed this fairly recently) that we've succumbed to the need to be seen to be as humane as is possible (to a large extent, because of external pressures), and in so doing have become a bit OCD about it.

 

I have to disagree with you for a change Rob.

If stocking waters with anything up to 10 times the natural sustainable number of fish, is classed as being good welfare, then I must have got it all wrong.

If stocking waters that have a good balanced mixed stock, with large numbers of non indigenous fish, is considered good fish welfare, then again, I must be mistaken.

I'll agree that we are being conditioned into trying to make angling appear to be something it isn't, but only when it suits.

 

John.

[The Flying Tench]

I agree with you, triumphted. John has a point about fishery management policies, but your post was specifically about the care by anglers on the bank. Like you I fished as a lad in the sixties and then I came back to it about 20 years ago. I think anglers are more careful today. For example, Mr Crabtree recommended carp fishing with treble hooks, whereas this would be disapproved of today. But I'm not suggesting things are perfect by any means.

[tom lad]

i agree with most pionts above , most fishermen are more aware of fish care then ever before , BUT is there really any excuse / reason good enough to sack a fish ?

 

the shame is that allot of modern fishermen believe that all 'good ' modern comercials should have 100lb of fish in every peg ! not many fisheries will sustain this year round , but they would fish well . this certainly is not natural stocking levels .

 

with the amount of fish care products avaliable in most good tackle shops these days we have no excuse not to show our quaries the respect that it deserves, and most of us do so .

 

only my opinion tom

[Phone]

triu,

 

Don't be confused. Gozzer touches on a different question than you ask and robtherake answered. We assume you meant "care" - serious attention and caution for individual fish specimen on the bank. Gozzer changed the question to "welfare" - the good fortune and prosperity of [anglers] in the UK.

 

I agree, where there is an agenda it is easy to read gozzers answer into rob's reply. Each was a different subject IMO

 

I suppose it's only right for YOU to say which question/comment you were making.

 

As for individual fish on the bank regardless of the species. We are even doing a better job in the US. Something I thought I'd never see.

 

Phone

[robtherake]

I have to disagree with you for a change Rob.

If stocking waters with anything up to 10 times the natural sustainable number of fish, is classed as being good welfare, then I must have got it all wrong.

If stocking waters that have a good balanced mixed stock, with large numbers of non indigenous fish, is considered good fish welfare, then again, I must be mistaken.

I'll agree that we are being conditioned into trying to make angling appear to be something it isn't, but only when it suits.

Edited December 15, 2012 by robtherake

[robtherake]

I have to disagree with you for a change Rob.

If stocking waters with anything up to 10 times the natural sustainable number of fish, is classed as being good welfare, then I must have got it all wrong.

If stocking waters that have a good balanced mixed stock, with large numbers of non indigenous fish, is considered good fish welfare, then again, I must be mistaken.

I'll agree that we are being conditioned into trying to make angling appear to be something it isn't, but only when it suits.

 

John.

 

I should have been more clear John, I'm talking more of a better individual level of fish welfare; although I have to confess, I'm seeing that from a personal point of view.

[Phone]

rob,

 

I'd say "fish care" is largely attributable to the insane carp culture in the UK. Gozzer's argument looses most of it credibility there also. The dink guys had not option but to follow suit.

 

I can't address "species stocking" but it make sense when anglers census increases 10 - 100 fold then the venues can accomodate a number of stocked fish at least equal to those that are killed by anglers (and otters) - even if they are being killed by accident. I'm sure the mortality rates are know if not discussed.

 

Phone

[gozzer]

I should have been more clear John, I'm talking more of a better individual level of fish welfare; although I have to confess, I'm seeing that from a personal point of view.

 

I see what you mean Rob, and seeing it from a personal view is the right way, IMO. I have often quoted an angling writer, (whose name I've forgotten ), when he said, "I don't need more rules, I have ethics". I try to live by that statement, and try not to treat fish any better, or worse than I have over the last 40yrs. I've been told I'm wrong if I use a keepnet, but as long as it's legal, and I think appropriate, then I will continue to do so. A personal choice. The net materials have improved greatly over the years.

I do however baulk at the use of creams and lotions to allegedly soothe and heal hook holds. If a person is that concerned, then perhaps they shouldn't stick a hook in the fish in the first place, and maybe even take up another hobby.

 

Phone, the heading of the thread was "Fish Welfare", and I took it as such. To me the welfare of hundreds of thousands of fish, comes before the welfare of the few that are caught by individuals. Just my take on the thread.

 

John.