live baiting for perch

[Guest Rabbit]

I fished a canal in Shropshire yesterday, got the pole out of its case for the first tine in 3 years. caught a good few gudgeoan and thought about a 'feast/fry up, but as it turned out they all went back execpt the one which went out as a livebait!

 

Gudgeon Emma Gudgeon

 

Don't really understand this post , are you at every opportunity trying to advocate killing our fish...just WHO are you??

[SPSwallow]

2008 or not you are really kidding your self if you think that lures can catch as much as livebaits in all conditions.I wish they did as it would save an awfull lot of effort.

 

Each to his own regards using/liking any method but if some one doesnt like a method or isnt comfortable about using it then simply say so rather than dissmissing it as unecessary or inferior.

 

 

I think it is a little extreme to use live bait for pleasure fishing. I could understand it if it were to catch food, but just for a hobby it seems a bit cruel.

[gozzer]

I think it is a little extreme to use live bait for pleasure fishing. I could understand it if it were to catch food, but just for a hobby it seems a bit cruel.

 

Could you define "cruel" please?

 

 

John.

[Emma two]

Yes, precisley 'Gudgeon'...I always think that when one's 'typos' get picked up on during online debates then the 'opposition' is truly scraping the bottom of the barrel.

 

The comment about eating the 'Gudgeon' was a light hearted and offhand as a follow up to our recent discussion, however it appears that you take yourself too seriously to appreciate a little humour.

 

Manybe your ontology how anglers coduct themelves has been shook up? The glaring difference within the 'eat, or not to eat' debate is that you are arguing that those of us who kill some fish are wrong, (even 'mind blowingly stupid!) whearas we fish eaters dont imply that you are wrong to release all that you catch, and leave it as a matter of individual conscience.

 

Perhaps it is, as someone has pointed out, a regional/cultural thing, in 'my world' it is not considered unusal to eat fish, indeed I know those who consider we, Pike anglers as quite potty given the amount of time money and effort we put into catching fish which we then release.

 

You said, I suggest you walk the banks and straw poll real anglers...do you really? oh would that it could be done, and once I did happily roam both lake and riverside (and got paid for it too) however given that there are 10 plus miles of shore around my local water, and over that distance of riverbank to the sea, and that my walking range is limited to less than 30 yards it would be invalid research. I would expect to see no more than a handful of anglers on either journey even at this time of year when we have an influx of tourists, and of course how could I determine which are 'real anglers' ? How do you define such a person? Perhaps you consider as 'real', only those who share your view of how the world is?

 

You asked so just who you are suppose to represent? (i presume that you meant to say 'supposed'...isn't it annoying when people pick you up on your 'typo's?)...I don't nor did I ever claim to represent anyone other than myself, although it has been heartening to hear the views in here of others who advance from a non-judgemental and common sense position.

Edited July 28, 2008 by Emma two

[SPSwallow]

I smoked heavily for many years but gave up.I dont smoke now but think its disgusting the way smokers in general are treated.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by the way they are treated. They are free to smoke in the streets and in their homes. If it is about choice, what choice did non smokers have about having to breath harmful fumes that were forced on them. The situation now- Smokers can still smoke, without forcing their habit on others, non smokers have the right to go to a pub and and not breath in smoke, they didn't have that choice before...seems a fairly equal situation to me. It certainly wasn't before. We all have bad habits. Mine is drinking...well, it was. The difference was my every time I took a mouthful of beer I wasn't forcing everyone elses body to endure the effects.

 

The smokers attitude seems very selfish, they want to do exactly what they want and ignore the effects their habit has on others. What sort of civilised society would this be when you walk into a pub and breath in harmful air...not only you but you're children. Asbestos was removed and banned for it's harmful properties. The obvious decision was made.

 

I realise there are a lot of smokers out there that realise this is the best decision and see things logically without getting a selfish childish attitude towards the situation because they didn't get their own way. Smokers have had centurys of smoking in public places like the pub. Now it is our turn to enjoy the pub without smoke

[SPSwallow]

Could you define "cruel" please?

 

 

John.

 

To kill the fish. Budgie had the argument of 'what is the difference to hook the fish before you put it in the water'. The difference is that you the fish you catch is never intended to die. That is a big difference. I'm not against others doing it. I wouldn't do it myself because I wouldn't want to take a life of a fish unless it was meant for the table. I enjoy angling because I am fasinated in the fish, the way they look, behave etc and it would go against my beliefs to destroy one fish to catch another because they are both perfect designs of evolution, it's just that one happens to be bigger and gives a fight. I would happily catch 50% less fish by not live baiting but that is me.

[BoozleBear]

I'm not sure what you mean by the way they are treated. They are free to smoke in the streets and in their homes. If it is about choice, what choice did non smokers have about having to breath harmful fumes that were forced on them. The situation now- Smokers can still smoke, without forcing their habit on others, non smokers have the right to go to a pub and and not breath in smoke, they didn't have that choice before...seems a fairly equal situation to me. It certainly wasn't before. We all have bad habits. Mine is drinking...well, it was. The difference was my every time I took a mouthful of beer I wasn't forcing everyone elses body to endure the effects.

 

The smokers attitude seems very selfish, they want to do exactly what they want and ignore the effects their habit has on others. What sort of civilised society would this be when you walk into a pub and breath in harmful air...not only you but you're children. Asbestos was removed and banned for it's harmful properties. The obvious decision was made.

 

I realise there are a lot of smokers out there that realise this is the best decision and see things logically without getting a selfish childish attitude towards the situation because they didn't get their own way. Smokers have had centurys of smoking in public places like the pub. Now it is our turn to enjoy the pub without smoke

 

Erm, having clicked on a thread about livebaiting for perch I thought that's what I'd be reading about!

 

SPSwallow - Budgie's entitled to his own opinion, as you are too.

 

But I must say one thing - I find the way you say you are unsure about the way smokers are treated unfairly, and then write what you write afterwards ironic to say the least. I can honestly say that the way a great deal of non-smokers talk / write about and to smokers is patronising and high & mighty with it, and should be toned down by about the same proportion that smokers are over-taxed by our greedy bloodsucking govornment ie A LOT.

[SPSwallow]

Yes, precisley 'Gudgeon'...I always think that when one's 'typos' get picked up on during online debates then the 'opposition' is truly scraping the bottom of the barrel.

 

The comment about eating the 'Gudgeon' was a light hearted and offhand as a follow up to our recent discussion, however it appears that you take yourself too seriously to appreciate a little humour.

 

Manybe your ontology how anglers coduct themelves has been shook up? The glaring difference within the 'eat, or not to eat' debate is that you are arguing that those of us who kill some fish are wrong, (even 'mind blowingly stupid!) whearas we fish eaters dont imply that you are wrong to release all that you catch, and leave it as a matter of individual conscience.

 

Perhaps it is, as someone has pointed out, a regional/cultural thing, in 'my world' it is not considered unusal to eat fish, indeed I know those who consider we, Pike anglers as quite potty given the amount of time money and effort we put into catching fish which we then release.

 

You said, I suggest you walk the banks and straw poll real anglers...do you really? oh would that it could be done, and once I did happily roam both lake and riverside (and got paid for it too) however given that there are 10 plus miles of shore around my local water, and over that distance of riverbank to the sea, and that my walking range is limited to less than 30 yards it would be invalid research. I would expect to see no more than a handful of anglers on either journey even at this time of year when we have an influx of tourists, and of course how could I determine which are 'real anglers' ? How do you define such a person? Perhaps you consider as 'real', only those who share your view of how the world is?

 

You asked so just who you are suppose to represent? (i presume that you meant to say 'supposed'...isn't it annoying when people pick you up on your 'typo's?)...I don't nor did I ever claim to represent anyone other than myself, although it has been heartening to hear the views in here of others who advance from a non-judgemental and common sense position.

 

 

Is it legal to eat the fish you catch? Not a jibe, just wondering...if it was i'd have no problem with eat. I think it would justify the hobby more if anything.

[SPSwallow]

Erm, having clicked on a thread about livebaiting for perch I thought that's what I'd be reading about!

 

SPSwallow - Budgie's entitled to his own opinion, as you are too.

 

But I must say one thing - I find the way you say you are unsure about the way smokers are treated unfairly, and then write what you write afterwards ironic to say the least. I can honestly say that the way a great deal of non-smokers talk / write about and to smokers is patronising and high & mighty with it, and should be toned down by about the same proportion that smokers are over-taxed by our greedy bloodsucking govornment ie A LOT.

 

Fuel is overtaxed, same with food, Alcohol and many things. Smokers aren't victimised by tax. I think non- smokers were treated unfairly by smokers for a lot longer. Not that I see my opinion as unfair. It was a just my view, it was also an honest question. What is unfair about their current situation? If you think the non-smokers attitude is patronising and high and mighty, why do you think that could be? We didn't exactly enjoy the times we came out of pubs with tickly throats and smelly clothes. A lot of non-smokers see the smokers view in the same light, because they seem to think they and their habits are more important than the general publics health. I honestly can't see how it is acceptable to poison a public place where people should have the right to enjoy without the risk on their health. Please enlighten me.

[gozzer]

To kill the fish. Budgie had the argument of 'what is the difference to hook the fish before you put it in the water'. The difference is that you the fish you catch is never intended to die. That is a big difference. I'm not against others doing it. I wouldn't do it myself because I wouldn't want to take a life of a fish unless it was meant for the table. I enjoy angling because I am fasinated in the fish, the way they look, behave etc and it would go against my beliefs to destroy one fish to catch another because they are both perfect designs of evolution, it's just that one happens to be bigger and gives a fight. I would happily catch 50% less fish by not live baiting but that is me.

 

Ah I see. I'm not trying to be pedantic, but when the word "cruel" is used, it usually implies that pain or suffering is involved. I've explained my beliefs on that subject in an earlier post.

To chose to kill or not is a personal thing, subject to the water concerned. I don't think anyone on here has suggested that they kill fish just for the fun of it.

As you say in your other post, killing for the pot does (in some minds) justify the catching of fish in the first place.

 

The taking of fish to eat is not illegal, but different areas of the country have different rules in regard to size, species etc. Controlled waters have their own rules in this regard.

 

 

John.