Keepnets - ethics

[gozzer]

I do use a keepnet sometimes, it all depends on where and what fishing I'm doing. If I'm roving then no, I'll be fishing a swim for maybe one or two fish, if I'm going to be in a swim for a while I'll use a keepnet, as long as the fishery permits. I don't fish much on still water, and now never on 'commercials', so I should think that in flowing water the disolved oxygen levels etc would be even less of a worry.

 

I like chesters view, don't bother me and I wont bother you.........unless your doing something illegal!

Edited February 21, 2006 by gozzer

[slodger]

"Slodger, I can see why you may think this. I did too at one time! However, years of experience has taught me otherwise. And when theory and practice don't co-incide I believe we have to re-think the theory."

 

I've got one or two years experience under my belt as well Steve, and I use a sack (And more often a 'tube') for the larger species almost exclusively, and have done so for decades. However, as you suggested, a sacked or tubed fish is usually only kept so, for as long as it takes me to set up a tripod and camera.

 

For the purposes of keeping numbers of smaller fish, i.e putting together a 'bag', a sack is no where near as fish friendly as a good quality, correctly set-up keepnet. I would refrain from retaining larger, more boisterous species, in particular carp, within a keepnet, though I often wonder whether individual fish would still fare better in a net as opposed to a sack. My rationale in using a sack or tube is usually based around the encumberence factor of a full net.

 

At the end of the day, I give another vote to Chesters 'live and let live' philosophy. There are way too many misadviced bans within angling already for my liking.

Edited February 21, 2006 by slodger

[poledark]

I was brought up in an era when keepnets were the norm, everyone used them. I gradually stopped the use as I concentrated more on bigger fish as against quantities of fish.

 

Last time I used one was when Roach fishing and started to put together a good catch of Tench. I returned 5 or 6 fish (all between 6 and 7lbs and decided to use a keepnet to record that "once in a lifetime" catch. I got my pics,almost 100lbs of Tench.

 

No regrets, and I would certainly do it again...that reminds me, I must put that keepnet in the van

 

Den

[Dick Dastardly]

I must admit that I have never been to keen on sacking up bream.I have found that big bream dont sit to well in them often the weight of the sack pulls them over on to their side.I also doubt that the oxygen exchange is as good as a net . I have been lucky enough to have had acsess to some very prolific big bream waters.I stopped recording the number of doubles i caught when it reached 50 and this was 8 or so years ago now.i mention this as it gives you an indication as to why im not that fussed about retaining a big bream. However if I am in the future lucky enough to land one that I feel a need to get witnessed etc or wish to keep till daylight for a photo (Im normally happy to have a night shot) I would out of preference use the method ive used a couple of times in the past.This involves putting the fish (did it once with two) into a standard soft mesh keep net,closing the top by twisting then tying a piece of cord around the top. In effect making a giant tunnel.The whole affair can then be well sunk and staked out both ends.

 

Never had any "sore patchs" like you see when several bream are kept in a keep net used conventially and not had the worry of the fish staying upright like in a sack.

 

It goes with out saying that I only want to retain any specimen fish in exceptional circumstances and for the shortest possible time.

 

Even though I can agree with keeping one in a sack or just in the landing net for that matter for a few minutes to get gear ready I wouldnt like to leave one unattended where with the sunken keepnet tunnel Im quite happy to.

 

Hope that hasnt blown my chances of a ticket for Wingham Steve!