Richard Seager/ Sea Angler Magazine

[Elton]

I understood from the outset that Richard Seager is not breaking any laws, my persnol veiws are 1 that commercially caught fish, even fish caught on rod and line morally should not be printed in the angling press,

 

The minute we look to set multi billion pound publishers up to be our moral guardians, we are on very dodgy ground indeed.

 

Magazines should print facts and stick to that, which is exactly what they did.

 

All in my humble opinion, of course.

[sam-cox]

Elton, with respect mate no they didnt stick to the facts, we still do not know if these fish were sold or not. And they neglected to state that these fish had grouped to breed in which is definitely a fact!

 

I supose ignoraece is bliss!

Edited April 16, 2006 by sam-cox

[sam-cox]

The minute we look to set multi billion pound publishers up to be our moral guardians, we are on very dodgy ground indeed.

 

Magazines should print facts and stick to that, which is exactly what they did.

 

All in my humble opinion, of course.

 

 

Sorry Elton the more I think about your statement the more I think what complete rubish it is!

You will soon see a magerzine that has been pluging moral conservation issues geting even more conservation minded.

Of course we look to million pound publishers for moral guidance, especially young and new anglers.

 

Is your statement why you would not respond to the eating course fish post>

again with respect I do not wish to raw of up set you, I just think you are way off the m,ark!

Edited April 16, 2006 by sam-cox

[Elton]

Sorry Elton the more I think about your statement the more I think what complete rubish it is!

You will soon see a magerzine that has been pluging moral conservation issues geting even more conservation minded.

Of course we look to million pound publishers for moral guidance, especially young and new anglers.

 

Is your statement why you would not respond to the eating course fish post>

again with respect I do not wish to raw of up set you, I just think you are way off the m,ark!

 

And I think you're way off the mark. It's the way the world works. We're allowed to disagree.

 

Personally, I would rather not have a multi-billion pound publisher deciding what is right and what is wrong, especially when that decision means that is is them who would decide whether I even saw it, or not.

 

Print, and I'll make my own mind up. That's the way I prefer to develop my own opinions and decisions.

 

What you're advocating is censorship. Had they not printed the photos you refer to, this thread would not have existed and I, like many, would have been totally unaware of your concerns.

 

PS No idea what you're referring to coarse fish for. I've been ill in bed for the best part of a week and must have missed something. Chances are, if it was a usual debate on here, I wouldn't have read it anyway.

[sam-cox]

not censorship as its an angling magerzine not an the fishing news, but fair coment.

[Steve Coppolo]

The only reason this came to light was because there are a few local anglers who told us what goes on. The sea angling press would have us believe that those fish were caught by anglers. Just goes to show that you can't believe everything you read. in the press.

[sam-cox]

Which is a pitty Steve as new comers to our sport and young angler mostly rely on the angling press for moral guides and the facts!

[Elton]

The only reason this came to light was because there are a few local anglers who told us what goes on. The sea angling press would have us believe that those fish were caught by anglers.

 

Now I'm really confused - were these fish, or were they not, caught by people using rod, line and hook set-ups?

[Steve Coppolo]

Now I'm really confused - were these fish, or were they not, caught by people using rod, line and hook set-ups?

 

Yes, they were. But the skipper has said that he doesn't take parties of angler out to target these fish. He said that he targets them commercially and takes a few friends out with him sometimes to help him. It is an awkward one with regard to whether they were caught by anglers or commercial fishermen. As the fish were targetted commercially, ie, sold, I'd have to say that technically they weren't caught by anglers. There is a difference between someone who catches fish with rod and line to either release or take home for personal consumption, and those that catch them to sell. Commercial rod and line fishermen aren't anglers at the end of the day, they are commercial fishermen. Of course some commercial fishermen still go angling, but the confusion in this case is whether these fish were sold or not.

 

If they were, I'd say that the angling mags almost certainly didn't know that these fish were caught commercially. Whether they would still have published the pictures if they did know is debatable.

[Elton]

Thanks, Steve. I can see where you're coming from.

 

Personally, I'd say they were caught by anglers as my personal definition would probably be decided by the method, rather than what they did next. However, I can see why some would rather label them commercials than anglers.

 

Whatever the magazine did or didn't know about them, the fact that they were published has benefitted those wishing to protect these fish, as many of us would have been ignorant about them without this very thread.

 

I'm still unsure - one minute we're told not to target juvenile fish, as they haven't had a chance to spawn (something I agree with wholeheartedly). However, we're then told it's wrong to target old fish that have spawned umpteen times.

 

Just where does the line get drawn? If bass really are that fragile as a species, should we campaign to abolish all fishing for them? I think those speaking for angling need to think very long and hard about it and come up with a clear statement, as over-zealous 'conservationists' could shoot angling in both feet if they were not careful.