Eating Perch...or any other prized species.

[Sportsman]

On that basis the Irish Pikers who campaign endlessly about the vast slaughtering of their quarry for food haven't thought their position through thoroughly because they may use a livebait or two.

 

Imagine, I'm on the riverbank and land a reasonable pike infront of some bypassers. I have two options beat it over the head with the bankstick and tell them it's for my dinner or carefully unhook it and send it on it's way none the worse for wear, explaining how I release all my catch. You seriously reckon that the latter is more damaging in the long term to angling. One of these options can be carried out on full view with nothing to fear, the other has to be done secretly when nobody is looking.

 

Out of the countless fish I have hooked, landed and returned infront of dog walkers, ramblers or couples on their Sunday strole, I have yet to have one of them tell me how cruel I am. By demonstrating careful handling, unhooking and respect for my quarry it has however brought me many a compliment. Anglers have nothing to fear from the general public. A few cranks will not bring this sport down.

 

You don't actually release all you catch, do you, assuming that you catch your own baits.

Would these same dog walkers and ramblers applaud quite as much as they watch you stick a hook into a live wriggling fish so that you can catch the pike you are so careful with. Would you be proud to do that in front of them and explain why you were doing it.? Maybe at the same time you can explain why you don't use lures, or even sea deadbaits, I'm sure that Joe Public would be impressed by your explanations, in fact I would like to watch that one.

[Guest rabbit]

I have never in my life heard of that "law"..and I've fished for a good part of it.

Indeed....among the earliest "laws" I learned, was that when preparing a fresh shore lunch, the best tasting fish are those just killed moments before. Usually for me, it's a couple of trout, perch or walleye, wrapped in a few strips of bacon, stuffed with (hopefully), a couple of wild moral mushrooms and chopped wild leeks.

I'm glad I live in a univers where such delicacys are still allowed...instead of the bleak, joyless and ever retreating world you seem to live in.

I rejoice in the taste of fresh, wild caught fish, or for that matter, vennison I've harvested myself, Rabbit I've shot, or yes, even squirrel, roasted with apple slices and onion.

If it ever got to the sad point where eating some of what you caught was consider immoral...I'd quit fishing, as at that moment...we will have lost, utterly, and totally, to the forces of the anti's.

 

The ''unwritten law'' I was refeering to is coarse angling I omitted the word coarse, apolgies.

If you want to shoot squirrel for the pot, eat vennison, wild pig, any damn thing you want then I really dont have a problem with that. To make my point clear I do not eat COARSE fish that I catch. That is what coarse anglers do in this country. That is undisputable, because it is common sense, it is to protect our fisheries. to ensure others can also enjoy the sport. It is not inflated sentiment, it is not an anti comment in any shape or form, just good old fashioned common sense.

[Bob Bradford]

Rabbit.. common sense seems to be a rare commodity for some!!

 

The argument that taking fish and eating them is good for the venue is flawed, natural predation takes care of that.

 

The argument that catch and kill will somehow meet with Joe publics approval is flawed, in reality Joe public could not care less.

 

The argument that the anti's will somehow feel satisfied by catch and kill as opposed to catch and release is redundant, the anti's want to ban angling ...period!

 

All anglers exploit the fish stocks in one way or another, it is just a question of degrees, what sits well for one angler ,does not for another , it reminds me of the old " To allow smoking or ban it "debate , we are not really discussing fish welfare and rights....but human rights! stop talking about moral high ground and other such crap,

 

WE ALL FISH FOR OUR OWN PLEASURE, simple as that.

[gozzer]

WE ALL FISH FOR OUR OWN PLEASURE, simple as that.

 

Exactly Bob, and if part of that pleasure is eating legally caught coarse fish, within the legal size limits, then why the hell is this thread running so long?

[Guest rabbit]

Rabbit.. common sense seems to be a rare commodity for some!!

 

The argument that taking fish and eating them is good for the venue is flawed, natural predation takes care of that.

 

The argument that catch and kill will somehow meet with Joe publics approval is flawed, in reality Joe public could not care less.

 

The argument that the anti's will somehow feel satisfied by catch and kill as opposed to catch and release is redundant, the anti's want to ban angling ...period!

 

All anglers exploit the fish stocks in one way or another, it is just a question of degrees, what sits well for one angler ,does not for another , it reminds me of the old " To allow smoking or ban it "debate , we are not really discussing fish welfare and rights....but human rights! stop talking about moral high ground and other such crap,

 

WE ALL FISH FOR OUR OWN PLEASURE, simple as that.

 

We do...I thought the 'rules' that we all abide by were clear and understood, this thread has surprised me that a few have made such an issue that defies all that I have understood to be the way we anglers think and behave. I only hope that any outsiders that read this will understand that the weight of angling opinion is very much in favour of what yourself Steve, Sharkbyte, and others state.

[gozzer]

We do...I thought the 'rules' that we all abide by were clear and understood, this thread has surprised me that a few have made such an issue that defies all that I have understood to be the way we anglers think and behave. I only hope that any outsiders that read this will understand that the weight of angling opinion is very much in favour of what yourself Steve, Sharkbyte, and others state.

 

Hang on Rabbit, is that you agreeing with someone who, (in your words) fishes a branch of angling that, has conservation way down it's list of priorities, because money and kudos come first?

Edited April 12, 2006 by gozzer

[Guest rabbit]

Hang on Rabbit, is that you agreeing with someone who, (in your words) fishes a branch of angling that, has conservation way down it's list of priorities, because money and kudos come first?

Whether Bob match fishes or not, whether I agree or not is not important, , what is however is that he does not feel it necessary to eat what he catches.

[Steve Walker]

On that basis the Irish Pikers who campaign endlessly about the vast slaughtering of their quarry for food haven't thought their position through thoroughly because they may use a livebait or two.

 

I think you'll find the relevant words there are "vast" and "slaughtering". It's a question of numbers.

 

Imagine, I'm on the riverbank and land a reasonable pike infront of some bypassers. I have two options beat it over the head with the bankstick and tell them it's for my dinner or carefully unhook it and send it on it's way none the worse for wear, explaining how I release all my catch. You seriously reckon that the latter is more damaging in the long term to angling.

 

I didn't say anything about that. As it happens, I think the German example and the paper Leon linked to show the real angle on this. It's hard to sell a ban on catching fish for the table to a population who mostly only ever see fish on their plate. I don't think the foxhunters would have been let off if their habit was to rescue the fox from the hounds, dab some klinic on its wounds and set it free. I think any kind of restriction on angling is unlikely, but that the German model of banning catch-and-release is the least unlikely.

[Sportsman]

Whether Bob match fishes or not, whether I agree or not is not important, , what is however is that he does not feel it necessary to eat what he catches.

 

So you can do what you like as long as you don't eat your catch?

Lets put this into context.

I probably take and eat about 3 coarse fish a year, if I never had another it wouldn't bother me too much but I reserve the right to take one if I want.

This is a drop in the proverbial ocean compared to the kill from livebaiting, use of keepnets, match angling (for money) and bad catch and release practices, let alone natural predation from cormorants and the like.

Up here on "Royal Deeside" (as Paul was at such great pains to point out) we mostly fish for Salmon and Trout. Many people pay a great deal of money (more than you could imagine sometimes) to catch a Salmon and last year over 90% of them voluntarily returned them on the Dee. I can't remember the last Salmon I killed. On the rare occasions I fish for Perch, maybe 3 times a year I fish a Loch that is overcrowded with them and to be honest taking a couple probably doesn't matter much, there are a lot more of them than spring run Salmon for instance.

I still do not see the difference between killing a fish to eat and using one as bait, I can see no justification for the use of keepnets or match angling and I don't see why fish that are to be released should be taken from the water to be weighed and photographed just so you can brag to your mates down the pub. I have probably been practicing proper catch and release longer than most on here (I'm older than most on here ) and will continue to do so, with the proviso that I can humanely kill and eat one when I so desire

[gozzer]

Whether Bob match fishes or not, whether I agree or not is not important, , what is however is that he does not feel it necessary to eat what he catches.

 

But he also states that we ALL fish for our own pleasure, which implies, that if you find eating a few of the fish you catch pleasurable then that's ok, and we should all agree, that so long as it's legal, and not to the detriment of the water concerned, we should accept each others view point.