Sacking Carp

[Waveney One]

I heard a very disturbing story yesterday morning and was shown the sack. Someone had sacked a 32lb carp but had either not secured the cord properly or had failed to check the cord for damage and it had broken. Whatever, the fish had swum off in the bag and subsequently died. It was found dead yesterday. It was a known fish and last weighed at 32lb.

 

Could I just say that if people are sacking carp, even for a short period, make sure the sack is properly secured and that the cord is not damaged. What happened is a dreadful waste of a fine fish and should be a lesson to us all.

[RobStubbs]

Could I just say that if people are sacking carp, even for a short period, make sure the sack is properly secured and that the cord is not damaged. What happened is a dreadful waste of a fine fish and should be a lesson to us all.

 

The real lesson is don't use them. There is no excuse for putting a fishes welfare second, behind your desire to have a daylight photo of said fish. In this day and age eveyone has a camera capable of taking a decent night photo so use it.

 

Many lakes ban sacks for exactly this reason. If you care for the fish you catch then don't sack them.

 

Rob.

[Waveney One]

The real lesson is don't use them. There is no excuse for putting a fishes welfare second, behind your desire to have a daylight photo of said fish. In this day and age eveyone has a camera capable of taking a decent night photo so use it.

 

Many lakes ban sacks for exactly this reason. If you care for the fish you catch then don't sack them.

 

Rob.

 

I think that you are probably correct in what you say Rob. I wouldn't use one personally, I don't own one. Due to the circumstances, I suspect that there will be a ban being brought in fairly quickly on this particular water. Like all things, if used properly for a short period, there probably isn't a problem. Better than leaving the leaving the fish on the bank for instance. However, like most things, people get it wrong and then a ban is imposed, spoiling things for the responsible anglers.

[peter mccue]

Used responsibly sacks can be beneficial to a fishes welfare. After a protracted fight, an old large fish can benefit from a short period in a LARGE WELL VENTILATED sack placed in an appropiate depth.

 

In times past, no less an authority than Rod Hutchinson used to have a rule on his syndicate waters that meant you had to retain Carp in a sack for recovery purposes. Trouble is of course, it's very easy to abuse the use of sacks as Rob suggests, but they are not inherantly bad, it's just bad anglers.

[RobStubbs]

Used responsibly sacks can be beneficial to a fishes welfare. After a protracted fight, an old large fish can benefit from a short period in a LARGE WELL VENTILATED sack placed in an appropiate depth.

 

In times past, no less an authority than Rod Hutchinson used to have a rule on his syndicate waters that meant you had to retain Carp in a sack for recovery purposes. Trouble is of course, it's very easy to abuse the use of sacks as Rob suggests, but they are not inherantly bad, it's just bad anglers.

 

I totally disagree I'm afraid. A sack doesn't allow free movement of water no matter how well ventillated so a fish will still be at best stiffled by it. Sacks also tend to hug the fish especially when they struggle and that will impair their able to 'breathe' because their gills are impeded.

 

No disrespect to Rod or any other names but their opinions carry no more weight than anyone elses. The plain and simple fact is that fish have and do die from being sacked. If you don't use them then they can't.

 

Rob.

[peter mccue]

I totally disagree I'm afraid. A sack doesn't allow free movement of water no matter how well ventillated so a fish will still be at best stiffled by it. Sacks also tend to hug the fish especially when they struggle and that will impair their able to 'breathe' because their gills are impeded.

 

No disrespect to Rod or any other names but their opinions carry no more weight than anyone elses. The plain and simple fact is that fish have and do die from being sacked. If you don't use them then they can't.

 

Rob.

 

I'm not being obtuse or anything here Rob, but in the interests of the discussion I have to point out that the faults you raise with sacks are perfectly in line with those who don't use them correctly. Before I go any further though, I do agree with you that in general they shouldn't be used, they require more thought & consideration than other methods of retaining fish & as such they should be restricted to situations where their use can be monitored & controlled easily.

 

Now to the nitty gritty, Using the largest sack possible there is no danger of any of the material collapsing onto the gills & preventing the fish from 'breathing', if it does you are using too small a sack or you have placed the sack in too shallow an area. Placing the sack in deep water allows the sack to expand & the material to achieve a neutral bouyancy thus making it to all intents & purposes impossible for the material stop the gills from working, having the correct size sack obviously leaves the fish loads of room.

 

Any fish retained in a sack goes very quiet after a couple of minutes & simply lays there recovering, if there is any movement the modern sack material is soft, & because of it's neutral bouyancy, is easily displaced by the movement causing no damage to fins, mucus or nose.

 

Ventillation is perfectly adequate in modern sacks under normal weather conditions, if you have hot conditions with low water & obvious low oxygen levels DO NOT RETAIN ANY FISH in fact you should be asking yourself should you be fishing at all under those conditions. To be honest in normal weather situations, one of the problems with sacks is that fish are so rested, they are fighting fit again when you remove them, so it's good advice to get your photos done after the fight then put your fish in the sack & not the other way round.

 

Might I suggest that certain top names of our sport have a wealth of experience & knowledge far beyond that of the average angler, so as much as it might niggle, they're opinion does carry more weight. There is a lot of Johnny come lately's out there no doubt about that but there is a lot of masters of the game as well.

 

I wholeheartedly agree fish have died due to the misuse of sacks no argument there, but fish have died through bad angling full stop, so the logical conclusion to that is we stop angling completely then as anglers we cannot harm fish at all.

 

Just to finish, an hour or so in a sack is perfectly ok, all night is most definately not!

[RobStubbs]

Peter,

About the only thing I will concur with there is your last sentence. But I know no one that only sacks a fish for an hour and that's the crux of the problem.

 

You also seem to think only certain names can have any useful experience in carp fishing. They may have experience, just like any other angler who's been fishing for a similar length of time. Don't however be fooled into believing they are somehow experts on carp welfare as they aren't. If you care to look at some of the old carp fishing videos you will see some hideous displays of how not to care for carp. I'm not saying your aforementioned Rod H was one of guilty but more than a few 'stars' are.

 

Anyway we're going slightly off topic here. I will just finish by adding that IMO the only good thing to do with sacks is ban them as they serve no useful purpose, which is precisely what most fisheries appear to have done.

 

Rob.

[Polly]

The real lesson is don't use them. There is no excuse for putting a fishes welfare second, behind your desire to have a daylight photo of said fish. In this day and age eveyone has a camera capable of taking a decent night photo so use it.

 

Many lakes ban sacks for exactly this reason. If you care for the fish you catch then don't sack them.

 

Rob.

 

 

"Ditto" you beat me to it Rob. I have a sack but would NEVER use it just to get a day-light photo. The only reason I carry one (as yet never used) would be to have a BIG fish witnessed or to retain a fish that was damaged or carrying disease whilst I called and waited for bailifs or EA to arrive. Sacks do have their uses but must be regulary checked both before and during use and if it's only a photo that's required then most captures can be left in the water and retained in the landing net for a couple of minutes if absolutely necessary. If you organise y'self properly EVERYTHING will be ready and waiting, camera set up and focussed, mat & weigh sling wet and soaked in water, scales zero'd. Having everything t'hand quickens the whole "Egotistic" process we all suffer from and lessens and undue suffering being bestowed on our quarry. Be sorted !!!!!!

 

 

The real lesson is don't use them. There is no excuse for putting a fishes welfare second, behind your desire to have a daylight photo of said fish. In this day and age eveyone has a camera capable of taking a decent night photo so use it.

 

Many lakes ban sacks for exactly this reason. If you care for the fish you catch then don't sack them.

 

Rob.

 

 

"Ditto" you beat me to it Rob. I have a sack but would NEVER use it just to get a day-light photo. The only reason I carry one (as yet never used) would be to have a BIG fish witnessed or to retain a fish that was damaged or carrying disease whilst I called and waited for bailifs or EA to arrive. Sacks do have their uses but must be regulary checked both before and during use and if it's only a photo that's required then most captures can be left in the water and retained in the landing net for a couple of minutes if absolutely necessary. If you organise y'self properly EVERYTHING will be ready and waiting, camera set up and focussed, mat & weigh sling wet and soaked in water, scales zero'd. Having everything t'hand quickens the whole "Egotistic" process we all suffer from and lessens and undue suffering being bestowed on our quarry. Be sorted !!!!!!

[Gaffer]

There's been some good arguments on this thread regarding the pro's and con's of sacks, and done so in a dignified way. I think all new-comers to the sport should read this thread.

 

Personally I always carry a sack and I'm not afraid to use it if I feel it is necessary. By 'necessary' I mean for the welfare of the carp. In addition to the GOOD reasons for the use of sacks; if I feel a carp is tired and lethargic after a good scrap, then I'll securely sack it in a deep margin where the oxygen levels are higher and where I can monitor it. And after a few minutes or so I will enter the water (depth permitting) to release the carp without lifting it from the water and without causing further distress. I'll hold the wrist of the carp's tail and allow it to 'kick' out of my grip, as I always do. At least that way I know it's strong enough to go back out into open water, which is a MUST, especially when river carping.

 

Sacks do have their place, in my opinion, but like all things, they can be abused by those who don't know better or by those who simply don't give a ****!

 

In my opinion it's better to educate than ban.

 

Take care,

 

Garth.

[Guest Brumagem Phil]

Generally I think the carp know how to look after themselves. (within reason of course)

 

Case in point, I had a 13lb mirror a few nights ago which fought very hard and I had to give it a hard time due to nearby snags and weedbeds. I released it and it sat no more than 6 feet from me for the entire length of my stay. I wasnt happy about leaving it so visible when I left so gave it a tiny touch and it flew off like a pike!

 

I'm not sure how I could have improved on what this carp did by sacking it or anything else?

 

If I catch a must photo fish then it'll take someone no more than half an hour to get there with a quality camera and in that case I'll use a pair of banksticks to rest the front of the landing net on and the handle on the bank giving a temporary keepnet in which the fish can recover.