Are keepnets really so bad, if so why?

[Guest Rabbit]

No, never in doubt, I related the story after reading that Wilson was criticised for using a keepnet. given the same circumstances I would do it again. We go with what we feel is right, or at least accaptable to our own code of ethics. If faced with clear evidence that a pike so handled would die, then I wouldn't have done it. In the absence of it, it becomea a chance which I am prepared to take. Life is packed with such decisions. Why does it make a difference (to you) that it was a 'speciemen' pike? are lesser fish less worthy of concern?

 

Fishing must be highly stressful for you, as Corydoras has pointed out we 'gamble with the quarry's life' each time we go out to fish. You take a very high moral stance, don't you worry that a fish might die as a result of your actions? Or perhaps you just tie bait (your concern for other species prohibits you from killing fish, worms, maggots etc of course?) directly to your line and count a bite as a catch?

 

'Selfish actions'?, of course I'm selfish, if you consider risking a fish's life for our own amusement is selfish then we all are, we don't HAVE to go fishing, the difference is that some of us have an honest approach to that while others throw up a smokescreen of of being super-ethical.

 

Completely OTT as usual, you posed the question and you had a response.

 

Yes a large pike is a very special fish, any fish that attains a weight of 22lb is special,

 

Apparently to you too to provoke such actions.

 

You acclaim yourself as honest whilst I am merely a hypocrite, fine and you even roll out that favourite of killing worms and maggots ...pathetic. Keep it simple, there is good angling practise, there is bad, yes I hook fish but I try not to jepordise the fish further and ensure at all times a quick and safe release which takes priority over weighing and photographing.

Like I said you posed the question, you are playing Devils Advocate again great, as I said it makes good copy, please keep it in perspective and listen to principled replies as opposed to just what you want to hear

[Neil G]

Agree with Andy

 

Surely the fishtank with holes in is less harmfull than handling the fish potentially droping them etc.

Edited September 26, 2008 by Neil G

[lutra]

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!

Although i think your right in what you say here, I wouldn't promote the using keep nets for these species as i have no Faith in other anglers to do it right. To many inexperienced or plain old lazy anglers out there for me and i was more than happy when my local club baned barbel in keep nets.

 

Ive noticed a big improvement in the recovery rate of barbel just by keeping them in the water (in the landing net) for about a minute before lifting them out to unhook them. Gives them chance to get their breath.

[Steve Walker]

One gambles with ones quarry's life every time one puts ones tackle in the water.

 

Crikey, is that a variation on noodling for catfish? Sounds like gambling rather more to me, even without the risk of being arrested for indecent exposure!

 

[Steve Walker]

Also, as an experiment, rather than use a keepnet try using a large bucket, after half an hour take the fish out, and surprise yourself at how much slime is in the bucket, slime that should be protecting the fish. Is your need to retain the fish greater than the need of the fish for its coating of protective slime? Just a thought.

 

But does that experiment show that keeping fish in a bucket makes them lose their slime, or that handling them makes them lose their slime? You need a control.

[gozzer]

But does that experiment show that keeping fish in a bucket makes them lose their slime, or that handling them makes them lose their slime? You need a control.

 

Exactly, what about the slime lost on the landing net, the unhooking mat, the clothes while holding for the picture, the hands etc ?

 

I asked a question in an earlier post, I never got an answer.

 

For those who suggest a ban on keepnets because of alleged stress they cause. Would they also advocate a ban on fisheries that stock well above a naturally self sustaining level?

 

John.

Edited September 26, 2008 by gozzer

[lutra]

I asked a question in an earlier post, I never got an answer.

 

For those who suggest a ban on keep nets because of alleged stress they cause. Would they also advocate a ban on fisheries that stock well above a naturally self sustaining level?

 

John.

Not only in my view are some waters over stock but over fished as well and allow keep nets 24/7. Sadly some anglers think its the only fishing thats any good (matchmen). Not to mention televising it.

[gozzer]

Not only in my view are some waters over stock but over fished as well and allow keep nets 24/7. Sadly some anglers think its the only fishing thats any good (matchmen). Not to mention televising it.

 

I agree, but would you advocate a ban on the creation of such waters?

 

John.

[lutra]

I agree, but would you advocate a ban on the creation of such waters?

 

John.

No.

 

But a bit of common sense wouldn't go a miss.

[gozzer]

No.

 

But a bit of common sense wouldn't go a miss.

 

I've usually found that common sense goes out of the window when commercialism is involved.

 

I fail to see why the sensible use of a keepnet for a few hours, could be classed as more 'stressful' to the fish, than the overstocking of a a pond/lake for the duration of the fish's life.

The competition for food and space, only benefits one thing, and that's the angler. There's scant regard for the overall welfare of the fish, despite all the rules and regulations that are implemented.

The risk and consequences of disease in such a crowded environment are greatly increased by such conditions.

The major (if not only) aim is to get bums on the bank, and money in the bank.

 

John.