Are keepnets really so bad, if so why?

[gozzer]

I think I've posted this before, but hey ho it's here again.

 

I used to fish a lake in Leeds, (Roundhay Park for those who know the area). The controlling club used to have a keepnet ban from the start of the season until the 30th September. This was to help prevent fish being kept in the shallows during the warmer months.

The water had a good head of perch and roach of all sizes at the time. A group of us used to fish the water regularly, and found that after 1st October, the catches improved. We found that when we caught and released a couple of fish back into the swim, it went 'dead' for a while. When we retained the fish in a keepnet it didn't.

From this we, (rightly or wrongly), deduced that the released fish were panicking the shoal and temporarily putting them off the feed.

Some have disputed that was the reason, but I haven't heard a better one yet.

 

John.

[Emma two]

to keep fish in a keepnet it is a pointless exercise....

 

Well that does suggest that the whole business of fishing, except for the table is 'pointless'. Of course we as anglers know that there are a whole range of 'points' to the business.

 

I am increasingly of the opinion that we are in danger of getting the role and status of fish out of perspective. They are relativley simple creatures, albeit cunning enough to very often be difficult to catch. We on the other hand occupy a position at the top of the evolutionary tree, insofar as brain development goes. So we 'use' other creatures for a range of purposes, for food, to work as pets etc. Fish we use to hunt, to test our wits and skill againsty them, they are competitors in an age old battle twixt hunter and hunted. In the course of this process some fish are going to get hurt and/or killed, thats the way things are. The refusal to accept that is potentially damaging to the future angling, and as pointed out a few times in here it is anglers themselves who seem to be leading the move towards placing fish onto an almost sacred status and that to molest (catch) them at all will be considered wrong!

Someone said in here recently that on their fishery 'the welfare of the fish is paramout', if that were really the case then angling would be prohibited on the water. Fish 'watching' rather than catching may be the future if we continue this way, and while spotting sea trout on a summer walk along the river is fun, and drifting through a shallow lake bay with polariods can be like a visit to the aquarium, but its hardly the same is it? I don't suggest willfull, deliberate cruelty to fish, but invite a sense of perspective, what they are and what we are.

Edited September 25, 2008 by Emma two

[Guest tigger]

I think I've posted this before, but hey ho it's here again.

 

From this we, (rightly or wrongly), deduced that the released fish were panicking the shoal and temporarily putting them off the feed.

Some have disputed that was the reason, but I haven't heard a better one yet.

 

John.

 

 

 

I've heard the theory of returning your fish putting the other fish off the feed since I was a kid. People say it's feromones/chemicals released by the fish upon release that scares off the others but if that really was the case then surely they would release these chemicals when put into the keepnet and they would simply float out and put the other fish off feeding just the same. Obviously I haven't got a clue if there's any truth in it but in my experience putting fish straight back hasn't stopped me catching. I know for a fact I've re caught Perch 20 mins after releasing them.

 

That brings another thing to mind, the theory of Bream and if you strike at a line bit you'll spook the fish and that's your lot for today. If that really was the case then why would a shoal of bream not be put off the feed when they see their m8s constantly dragged off when hooked, makes no sense to me. Surely other fish being hooked and fighting against being landed will put them off more than a bit of line twanging against them ? I know this is off topic but it just came to mind.

[Anderoo]

I think I've posted this before, but hey ho it's here again.

 

I used to fish a lake in Leeds, (Roundhay Park for those who know the area). The controlling club used to have a keepnet ban from the start of the season until the 30th September. This was to help prevent fish being kept in the shallows during the warmer months.

The water had a good head of perch and roach of all sizes at the time. A group of us used to fish the water regularly, and found that after 1st October, the catches improved. We found that when we caught and released a couple of fish back into the swim, it went 'dead' for a while. When we retained the fish in a keepnet it didn't.

From this we, (rightly or wrongly), deduced that the released fish were panicking the shoal and temporarily putting them off the feed.

Some have disputed that was the reason, but I haven't heard a better one yet.

 

John.

 

John, that's what I was getting at in my first post. If I'm chub or perch fishing, there's no way I'd release a big fish into the swim I just caught it from. If people want to retain such a fish in a properly staked out keepnet to prevent it spooking any others present, that's OK with me. (I prefer to immediately release such fish a couple of swims away.)

 

I also agree about keeping things in perspective. I've made no secret about the hypocrisy I see in modern angling. Saying 'the welfare of the fish is paramount' is, as Emma says, nonsense.

 

The reason these disputes never go anywhere is that we all have our (often strongly-held) opinions and personal limits. And these change over time. I would never cram loads of decent fish in a keepnet just so I can see tham all together at the end of the day - but the 12-year-old me would have, if he'd been lucky enough to catch that many!

 

It's like livebaiting, bite alarms, bolt rigs, commercials, unhooking mats, and all the rest. I try not to essentially say, I don't think this is 'right', therefore anyone who disagrees with me is wrong, because they don't understand it properly like I do - but that's all it comes down to, if we're honest!

 

I don't want to cause any creature undue suffering. I think that keepnets can create this. Something else has changed in me this year too, I'm pretty sure that my livebaiting days are over (not that I did much before). I don't know about you, but if someone could prove to me conclusively that catching a fish exposed it to terrible pain, I wouldn't fish again. I fish because I love nature, and that would change everything. It's not like I'll starve otherwise.

[Anderoo]

I've heard the theory of returning your fish putting the other fish off the feed since I was a kid. People say it's feromones/chemicals released by the fish upon release that scares off the others but if that really was the case then surely they would release these chemicals when put into the keepnet and they would simply float out and put the other fish off feeding just the same. Obviously I haven't got a clue if there's any truth in it but in my experience putting fish straight back hasn't stopped me catching. I know for a fact I've re caught Perch 20 mins after releasing them.

 

That brings another thing to mind, the theory of Bream and if you strike at a line bit you'll spook the fish and that's your lot for today. If that really was the case then why would a shoal of bream not be put off the feed when they see their m8s constantly dragged off when hooked, makes no sense to me. Surely other fish being hooked and fighting against being landed will put them off more than a bit of line twanging against them ? I know this is off topic but it just came to mind.

 

Tigger, I think the line bite theory for bream is fairly specific to big fish/low stock situations. Simply because the large bodies are prone to catch the line, and if you do spook them, you may have to wait a whole season before they're over your bait again. If a water holds loads of bream, I doubt it's such a big problem.

 

With the fish spooking, I don't know about pheromones, but if there are, say, two or three big perch in a spot and you catch one, if you release it it can sulk off and take the others with it. There are exceptions, of course, but I don't take the risk!

[Guest Rabbit]

I don't believe that I harmed that fish, but perhaps someone will tell me that I did? and that I am a wicked angler. Now I alwys take a digital camera with me and scales capable accurately measuring fish larger then I am ever likely to catch.

 

No doubt about it if you did not have the right equipment to photograph and weigh the fish you should have released it after capture. However I believe some 'sack' pike as they do carp, the latter is better equipped to survive such treatment.

I don't use a keep net, I used to as a youngster, it was the feeling of 'ownership' I guess and to examine the catch before release. But times have changed and there is more concern over welfare of fish, common sense really, so unless there is a real good reason to use one then don't.

I agree with Sportsman, there is too much emphasis on weighing and photographing ones catch, I guess this procedure is taking the place of the keep net.

[Dick Dastardly]

I was brought up using keepnets as a standard part of your days coarse fishing.Even back then it was accepted that there was a right and wrong way to use them.

 

I still preffer to use one if Im allowed but its not the end of the world if I cant.

 

Re match fishing I feel its the actual weigh in that causes the additional damage and fatalities rather than the retaining in the net.I will say however that I have noticed that fish caught for livebaits are much better put straight in the bucket as any kept in keepnets fungus up more often. However if this is a result of the net or the rest of the process I dont know.

 

Some times I think some species (Barbel and Grayling spring to mind) are BEST kept in a net for a while before releasing.I say this as they do seem to take longer to recover than a lot of species and if in a net and they turn over you can assist them....you cant if they are mid river!

 

Not keep pike in keep nets? well Im happier (and I reckon the pike are too!) to keep one (if absolutely necessary) for a short while in a keepnet that has been twisted shut and sunk pegged out in the margin than in any carp sack or tube.Same for individual big bream.

 

Surely there is no need to go into how to use a keepnet correctly/responsibly as all should know.

 

I feel its very much a "fashion" thing.With general "pleasure angling" having dropped so dramaticly in popularity the old keepnet also has simply dropped out of use and as we all know if a ban on something doesnt directly affect them then a lot of anglers love to jump on the band wagon.

 

I guess this procedure is taking the place of the keep net.

 

 

Not taking the place as this has always been the way with big fish.Its just now that more people fish for "big fish" than they ever did in the hey day of the keepnet.

[corydoras]

Am I reading this wrong, or are there some anglers who really think that a released fish is going to go back to it's mates and tell them all that there is a big bad human up there trying to catch us all.

[Dick Dastardly]

Am I reading this wrong, or are there some anglers who really think that a released fish is going to go back to it's mates and tell them all that there is a big bad human up there trying to catch us all.

 

 

To be honest after all these years I still cant make my mind up if released fish do panic/disturb others in your swim.

[gozzer]

Am I reading this wrong, or are there some anglers who really think that a released fish is going to go back to it's mates and tell them all that there is a big bad human up there trying to catch us all.

 

Yes Cory you are reading it wrong.

What I believe does happen in some situations, is that a released fish can, by it's actions, spook the other members of a shoal.

Shoal fish rely on each member to signal if danger is present.

So a fish swimming back into a shoal in an agitated manner, would effect the rest of the shoal.

 

Until someone proves to me different, then my own experience makes me err on the side of caution.

 

John.