Are keepnets really so bad, if so why?

[Guest Rabbit]

More condescending claptrap.

If I want to use a keepnet I will use one.

If I want to livebait I will livebait.

I won't need to "keep thinking up some more reasons and excuses for doing so" because, frankly, I don't care what a small minority of patronising, narrow minded, holier than thou pricks think about what I do.

There are people who are, in their own minds, better than me in every walk of life. I can live with it.

 

You have illustrated my point brilliantly,

[Dick Dastardly]

More condescending claptrap.

If I want to use a keepnet I will use one.

If I want to livebait I will livebait.

I won't need to "keep thinking up some more reasons and excuses for doing so" because, frankly, I don't care what a small minority of patronising, narrow minded, holier than thou pricks think about what I do.

There are people who are, in their own minds, better than me in every walk of life. I can live with it.

 

 

 

Do you know what Colin,I think Im just about getting to the same position as you mate!

 

There are so many things that I dont know about due to not having experienced them.I love it when people can pass on their experience to me.I love it even better when their veiws disagree with mine but they can then change my veiws with sound reasoning and documentary evidence of their own experiences.I love learning new stuff or being corrected on old stuff.

 

Trouble is that Im starting to realise that many other people dont think the same.They base their beliefs and opinions on no experience and as such seem to assume so do others.Pointless even trying to explain as these types of people dont want to listen to your veiw/experiences and certainly arnt prepared to question their own stand point.

 

Like a lot of other people on here have said the "No one loves fish more than I do" crowd will most probably do more to bring about the end of angling as we know it than any group of antis.

 

So now I to have started to adopt the same attitude as you.I will still gladly offer advice if asked.I will still explain my veiws and back them up with reasoning and experience.I will still be interested in alternative opinions and be prepared to change mine if Im convinced.

 

BUT same as you I will carry on with a clear consience doing what I do.I dont care what bans/laws/rules are brought in they wont affect me.I will be answerable to my own consience only. And despite sounding terribly conceited I think that may be the best judge.

[gozzer]

Thank you Budgie, Colin and others, for restoring (at least some) of my faith in angling today.

 

For those of you who refuse to answer my question comparing fish in keepnets to fish in over stocked puddles. (Probably because one benefits more anglers than the other).

Comparing fish in a keepnet for a couple of hours, to fish in a tank for the duration, is that a better comparison?

Or should we think in terms of a bird in a cage, or a hamster?

For those who wish to show the same concern and respect to fish as humans, then think of other pets.

Dogs for example. Would you keep a human as a pet? Play 'fetch the stick' with them?

I would think the answer (in most cases) would be no.

 

Well this is the thinking of many of PETAs followers.

 

Be careful what you ask for, you just might get more than you really wanted.

 

John.

[Emma two]

I believe that it is a fundamental mistake to attribute non-human creatures with human intellect especially the capability for abstract thought a variable considered to define what it is to be human. Walt Disney et al have alot to answer for. That does not excuse us behaving badly towards other species. However we treat them astonishingly differetly and without any apparently logical reason. For example, imagine a farm in the UK where dogs are intensivley bred, the period from birth to slaughtering size being dramitically reduced by force feeding them growth inducing hormones, the bitches held in restrictive bondage so that they cannot roll on thier puppies and crush them, at 'optimum size the pups are herded into vehicles and taken away to be killed. they watch awaiting their turn to be electic shocked before having their throats cut so that the colour and taste of their flesh is pleasing to humans. The ones at the back of the que will have recovered from the elecrtic shock before their time to have their throats opened, but the slaughtermen have a deadline to meet just like many of us in our workplaces. We don't do this to dogs (yes I know some cultures breed 'table dogs'). So why do we do it to pigs? the levels of intelligence, and so the potential for suffering is equal between the two species.

 

Shoot a swan for dinner and not only will you be prosicuted, but will be considered a cruel barbarian who could kill such a beautiful bird. Yet its considered not at all unusual to urge you kids to 'eat it all up' at KFC, where the victims of what can only be described as an avian concentration camp are served up. Try this simple and fun experiment, ask a bunch of primary school age kids, 'who wants bits of dead birds rolled in crushed grass seeds and then boiled in oil?' (you might like to affect your best Hammer horror voice), when the 'oohhhhhhhhh no, yuk, and 'grosse' etc has subsided say. Ok who wants 'Mac Nuggets' in breadcrumbs, you are likley to get a totally different response to exactly the same 'product'. Swans get away with it because they look pretty to humans, both species are similar enough to experience the same levels of pain and misery.

 

As far as our treatment of fish goes I find few things as grotesque as farmed salmon. These wonderful creatures which mirror the cycle of life for us all, and who by evolution are driven to migrate in order to fulfil their destiny are kept trapped in cages. The area around the cages becomes polluted. If these poor victims were to escape or be released then they would seriously threaten wild populations. All this so that the supermarkets can offer cheap 'day-glo' dyed meat on the fish slab.

 

I long ago gave up eating the bodies of creatures who have been treated badly this way. I don't presume to judge those who do, and regularly cook such meat for family and friends, nor do I spoil their meal by preaching, it is a matter for that 'individual conscience' theing again.

 

What little meat I do eat comes from the wild and from one farm (deer) where I can see first hand how the animals live and die. When I do take something from the land (and water) I leave an offering to the spirit of that place, it might be as simple as a piece of bred or an unused fish bait. That might sound a bit 'whacky' but it serves a useful purpose a reminder that we cannot or should not taking a life lightly'. I accept a level of hypocracy as I do take milk in my tea and wear some leather, but 'lines in the sand' and all that. I have gone on a bit, but perhaps better explains why I won't tolerate (other than faithful vegans) self satisfied poeple who presume to lecture me about eating some of my catch.

Edited September 29, 2008 by Emma two

[Dick Dastardly]

Once again I find myself agreeing with you Emma.

[Andy Macfarlane]

OK Alan, what would you say to my 13 year old son, who has no problem at all going down to the shore, sitting on the end of the pier, catching a few mackerel, bringing them home and cooking them on the barbie. Hunting instinct and appetite sated, he will be happy as Larry, especially if he is allowed to wash the whole lot down with a glass of cider. His big sister likes all night fishing for carp, and I like having a go at the mullet. My son does not want to know about this. He says that there is NO justification in disturbing wild life just to have fun, just to have a look. He would point out that I would not go out and catch wild birds, take pictures, weigh them and then let let them go so why is it OK to do the same with a fish? I don't have a rational answer to that, can you help me out?

 

Tell him that humans have been around in their present form for somewhere in the region of 40,000 years. In that time, we evolved our speech, dexterity and mind to better hunt, forage and survive as a species. We would not be the humans we are without this process. Now that we, in the Western world, have more or less solved the problem of how to feed ourselves daily, with the minimum of fuss, these skills have to some degree, become defunct, however, we cannot become lesser beings. We cannot take an evolutionary step backwards and so, these skills must be 'satisfied' or we become stale, bored, useless and possibly even ill. One way or another, most of us fulfil ourselves with pastimes and hobbies, each of which reliant on these honed skills. We have chosen fishing. For others, it may be photography and others, flower collecting. It's easy to dismiss each of these pursuits as irrelevant to each other but they basically serve to satisfy the hunter/gatherer in us all. It's who we are.

We go fishing because we need to. It's as simple as that!

[corydoras]

He would say that's fine, then why not go and hunt, chase, fish for something that can fully satisfy your hunter gather instincts and kill and eat it too. He does like to go fishing, but for him it is incomplete unless you have something on your plate. You don't need to fish for fish you can't eat, there are plenty species that are good to eat.

 

My grandfather (whom my son never met) had a similar outlook. He was a keen salmonid angler, and would regularly stalk deer , but thought that fishing for baggie minnows to be a total waste of time.

[Andy Macfarlane]

In that case, I'd tell him to shut-up and go to his room before he feels a slipper across his arse.....

[corydoras]

Nah. He's quite a clever little chap really, astute for his age. He does go out fishing for fun with me or his sister, but he's just a bit dubious about it. You know what some kids or like, obsessed by fairness and justice. No bad thing, I was like that myself. I never had any problems with any aspect of fishing though. When I used to fish in the Leven I would readily switch from brownies to perch, if the troot were playing hard to get, and vice versa of course.

[SPSwallow]

Cory, have a look at this:

 

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q...earch&meta=

 

I don't think the fish will deliberately tell his mates, but it may well alert them to danger chemically. Mind you, you might not want to have a keepnet pegged out immediately upstream of where you are trotting!

 

Thing with some other species, chub in particular, is just that they barge about the swim like a bull in a china shop, and tend to spook other fish with their behaviour. They'll come unfrightened again (at 10 minutes to the pound, according to RW), but it's a consideration. Personally, I tend to stalk chub, release the fish and move on, but if I'm building up a swim match-style I might be tempted to keep them netted.

 

 

I have thought about this. If you are catching fish, they must be feeding. During this time the water must be full of stressed fish caused by other fish trying to feed on them. The angler probably has the least effect on a water at any given time the fish are active. If you put a stressed fish back I think it will have little or no effect on your swims success.