EATING PIKE

[Emma two]

many anglers despise wild creatures

 

Perhaps they do, however I havn't seen any comments to support that in here. I have heard a couple of locals complain about the increasing numbers of cormarants on the lake, it was pointed out to these two (by scientists) that predation and the numbers of pradators on the water are unlikley to have any serious impact on fish numbers. The anglers, Cormarants, Otters and Ospreys are not a problem, however the state of the environment is.

Edited August 6, 2008 by Emma two

[Steve Walker]

In any case, I have a feeling that those who were most out for blood last time someone's pet barbel got eaten by an otter were on the other side of the debate on eating fish.

[Emma two]

Don't we eat most things "for pleasure"? No doubt we could exist on a diet of vitamin-enriched porridge, but I don't think many would be happy with that.

 

Well put Davy. We have to eat to exist, so we make it pleasurable, the cooking process is pleasurable too, it's a way of expressing onself. What we don't 'HAVE' to do to survive is go fishing, but we do 'cos its jolly good fun (pleasurable). We have sex when we don't expect to breed, but do it for pleasure (unles adhering to some religious dogma which prohibits 'fun')

[Guest tigger]

Don't we eat most things "for pleasure"? No doubt we could exist on a diet of vitamin-enriched porridge, but I don't think many would be happy with that.

 

I don't think you understand the point I was trying to make it the above post...

I could type it all out again but it may be easier if you go back and re-read it.

 

 

Perhaps they do, however I havn't seen any comments to support that in here.

 

Haven't you?. I have.

 

I have heard a couple of locals complain about the increasing numbers of cormarants on the lake, it was pointed out to these two (by scientists) that predation and the numbers of pradators on the water are unlikley to have any serious impact on fish numbers.

Yes my point in the above post. Natural predators will never deplete a fish source to extinction as this threatens their very exixtence and survival. A natural species over breeds, food stocks deplete and natural predator declines in ratio.

 

Netting and eating coarse fish by 'pleasure' eating Humans will deplete stocks.

 

The anglers, Cormarants, Otters and Ospreys are not a problem, however the state of the environment is.

 

So we can agree the enrvironment is not in a great shape.....

It is the very state the environment is in that is the basis behind the reason why I don't agree with promoting the eating of coarse fish by PEOPLE.

We are not looking at an infinite source of food here - the environment is not in great shape and can NOT support the amount of depletion caused by people. In this country alone there are millions of pounds worth of food thrown away every year, why add coarse fish to this list?

Leave them for the anglers to catch and release and look after the wildlife that NEEDS them to survive.

[DavyR]

I don't think you understand the point I was trying to make it the above post...

I could type it all out again but it may be easier if you go back and re-read it.

 

No, I did understand your point - I was just disagreeing with the implication that eating anything for pleasure rather than survival is somehow "wrong".

[Guest tigger]

We have sex when we don't expect to breed, but do it for pleasure (unles adhering to some religious dogma which prohibits 'fun')

 

Thought this was a fishing forum not a porn forum? Have you hit the wrong site in your favourites coloum?

Try not to lower the tone..... Don't forget there are youngsters on here.

Edited August 6, 2008 by tigger

[Neil G]

I'm with the above unless bred for catching and eating (trout ressies)

[Emma two]

Thought this was a fishing forum not a porn forum? Have you hit the wrong site in your favourites coloum?

Try not to lower the tone..... Don't forget there are youngsters on here.

 

Oh dear you do have problems! are you you serious?? To equate the very mention of 'sex' to porn?? an interesting yet uncomfortable notion of the morally miswired. If any young people who are clued up about life enough to be following this thread, havn't figured out about recreational sex, (a staggering thought) then I have probably done them a favour by pointing it out.

Edited August 6, 2008 by Emma two

[Dick Dastardly]

Tiddler Tamer thanks for your reply sorry if it brought the guns to bear on you for a bit! Others have by now answered your post along the same lines I would have.

 

This thread has been a lot more interesting to me than the normal "mustn't kill" type ones for several reasons.

 

Firstly Im really glad to see so many fellow pikers have "grown up" from the "sacrildge" to kill ant pike syndrome.Also there seems to be a lot of like minded people across the different angling spectrum so maybe we will one day be able to see "angling unity"

 

I also feel sad that some on here can not understand the points we are making.Sad because Im fairly sure the only reason they cant is either the way we are putting it across or that they really believe that we are advocating all that they dont want and are now just trying to hide it/justify it.

 

May I be so bold as to speak for others? please if any of you who seem to be in agreement with me dont agree with the points Im attributing to them say so!

 

1. No one on here is promoting/advocating/encouraging or wanting to ever see either the eating of course fish to become a normal daily occurance amongst anglers.Neither the taking of specimen fish for the pot.

 

Simply that if some one wants to take a fish,providing it is done legally and responsibly then that is fine.

 

2. All believe that the amount of people who would want to do the above is minute and the percentage of those that would continue to do so on a regular basis is even smaller! Even the older anglers amongst us that were brought up in a time that this wasnt even a question so still take the odd fish for the pot have admited that they either havnt taken a fish for the pot for several years or only still do it very rarely.

 

3. A lot of us believe that if we give up the right to take fish (not necessarily excersise it though) we would be adding another nail to anglings coffin.As has been discussed many a time before non anglers seem to be able to understand/accept the catching of fish for food more than catching them just for fun.Also if we give up the right to catch them to eat we certainly must have given up the right to take them for bait (be that dead or alive).

 

4. Most of us are realistic enough to realise/accept that we "accidently" killl far more fish by simply fishing for them than are taken intentionally for eating.

 

Its quite plain that done correctly there is no harm in some one taking a fish to eat so maybe instead of going off on one the next time someone like Houghten (if he is still with us after this) asks for some advice on taking a fish to eat we could simply reply with the facts regarding both the legal side,the best species to try,recipies,humane ways of despatching the fish and above all sensible selection of size and water its from.

 

By all means add that it aint what H F-W and friends crack it up to be but at least let them find that out for them selves legally and without killing an ireplaceable fish.

[chesters1]

Sustainability of stocks would be my first reason. Can we afford to regularly lose our biggest fish? Why not put them back for someone else to catch? I'd be miffed seeing someone taking something for the pot... the 2lb stripey that in a few years time might just be the fish of a lifetime...

 

Recent years has rightly seen a move towards looking after fish - fish mats (I confess I don't use one but might just by one after a 12lb 1oz barbel last week which deserved more than my paltry landing net), barbless hooks, the diminishing use of keep nets... need I go on.

 

:rolleyes:And yet our media and internet forums are full of racist bile against Eastern European migrants because they eat coarse fish whilst at the same time angling aficionados on this forum promote recipes for them. Double standards methinks...

 

If it's bad for eastern europeans, then its bad for people elsewhere too...

do you actually read posts?

we "look" after fish because their expensive to replace not a shortage of them via eating them ,as most waters are owned and run by clubs or owners who rent the rights to fish fish farmers /suppliers cant just pop up the road and net fish willy nilly they pay for them too.

clubs have discovered looking after fish is cheaper than replacing them and an extra line saying mats are mandatory in the permit book cheaper than continual replacement of stock not all anglers veiw fish worthy of looking after i remember the complaints after mandatory mats for every angler in the club ,the old "i'v done without them for forty years" was a common reply on asking to see it!!!!

yes some anglers (usually carp ) had mats pre the rules but most didnt.

the res two distinct sides to barbless hooks for and against ,i'v always flattened them anyway ,keepnets are very common and will always be in matches so cannot at the moment be totally banned (i'v not used one for years).

mainly though as said more than once a huge % of people ate fish in the past yet they are still here ,perfectly sustainable even more so far few people eat them .

once anyone not used to eating them try them after seeing the odd recipe i can bet they will never have another ,its the reason we eat sea fish

 

in the mainstream out side being an angler the population couldnt care if anyone from here or mars ate them in most minds fish are not cuddly ,had it been kittens or puppies the papers would be full of "irate of tonbridge" type replies.

i'v eaten most fish ,i dont need to now but if times were hard i wouldnt hesitate to eat more ,as for commercially bred salmon and trout they are rubbish and nothing like real ones ,those knowing the difference will still prefer real ones.

you cant blame recipies ,we are anglers we like fish but amongst us are clichés who regard bream as rubbish fish just as others regard carp the same ,chucking "rubbish" fish in the reeds wont go away overnight so those eating them in my veiw are better than those just killing them for spite.

 

as for the legal side of taking fish (rather than the emotional ) if a club decrees taking fish is against the rules then so be it and applies to all ,if anyone gets caught then its their lookout ,river fish on the other hand are not owned so thats where the law gets cloudy and its up to the law to enforce whatever conclusion they come to ,as for the broads i havn't a clue what the law is.

as for the furriners its not really taking one or two for the pot is it ,its the method or lack of rod licence doing it in most cases ,we have two "eastern Europeans" in the club (well there maybe more but i havnt seen them) both raised eyelids when i tried to explain what the rules were (especially fish "beds" ) but both complied to the letter and to date i have never seen anything more than fat sausages on ones obligatory barbi

Edited August 6, 2008 by chesters1