Return that Fish?

[Leon Roskilly]

Some thoughts I've had on a question posed on another thread.

 

 

Not just on this forum, but elsewhere too, often the subject comes up as to whether sea anglers should keep the fish they catch or return them alive.

 

Legally, once anyone catches a fish, by whatever method, that has been legally taken (ie is above the minimum size limit etc), it’s their’s to do with as they please.

 

And each angler must draw their own line upon where they stand.

 

If I want to feed my runner bean trench with bass of all sizes to ensure a good bean crop, who has the right to intervene?

 

If I want the pleasure of catching mackerel, literally in their hundreds and feed them to the gulls or leave them to rot, that’s down to me.

 

Right?

 

I doubt that many would agree that I’d drawn my line in the right place, but ultimately that’s my choice. Isn’t it?

 

Things get more complicated the further up that line as to what more people would find reasonable.

 

A young kid catches a 6lb mullet, knocks it on the head, takes it home to show mum, then it goes in the bin.

 

Is that right, given the excitement that the kid has had from such a remarkable capture, and the need to share that with the person he loves and respects?

 

After all, it's just another dead fish.

 

Right?

 

OK, what about an older teenager with a potential record breaker?

 

Is it right to kill a fish, just because there might be a potential club record claim, a gleaming cup at the AGM, or a new reel in it?

 

Now what about someone who takes a large sting-ray, so that he can get his mate to photograph it in his backyard, and send the picture to an angling magazine or paper?

 

Should the paper even publish such pictures, encouraging others to do the same?

 

What about the competition angler, where that dead doggie might just swing a £300 prize?

 

 

But it’s when we talk about taking fish for the pot that things get really interesting.

 

A nice plaice, a couple of mackerel, a 3lb codling.

 

I doubt that many would complain.

 

Yet when a 13lb bass, or a 7lb mullet is knocked on the head, it brings on the bristles.

 

Why?

 

What makes it OK for an angler to kill and eat one fish for the pot with no one batting an eyelid, yet doing the same with another invites a torrent of condemnation?

 

The answer is complex, and there is nowhere to draw a hard and fast line.

 

First why do we go angling?

 

For the bloke that lives by the sea, with a rod made up in the garage ready to go and whenever the fancy of a fish supper takes him, he can readily claim that it’s just a cheap and easy way of providing fish for the table, with perhaps a little bit of sport thrown in.

 

Then there’s the guy who has to arrange to collect expensive bait, get up early, make a long journey. Clearly he's after something else than just some cheap fish for the table. It would be far cheaper and convenient for him to call at the local Tesco’s wet fish counter if all they were after was a piece of fish for the plate.

 

Yet his motivation might just be a day out with a mate, a few hours escape from a boring or stressful job, with the chance of a tasty bit of fresh fish thrown in.

 

And then there’s the bloke who takes his fishing seriously, might not even like eating fish, but knows almost all there is to know about his quarry, where to find it and how to catch it, and the more difficult the challenge the better.

 

His satisfaction comes totally from landing a specimen of shining silver and releasing it back to the sea to be found and fought again.

 

Each person will have their own view about where they should draw their own line, and perhaps why others should be persuaded to bring their line closer to their own.

 

So, given that many anglers are primarily concerned with the sport of catching, rather than simply obtaining fish for the table, why are their different attitudes for different species, and often for different sized fish within those species?

 

(Many people don’t mind the odd one or two smaller bass being taken, but would baulk at the killing of a specimen fish).

 

Part of the answer lies in a number of factors; the availability of a species, its sporting value, its ecological status.

 

Where fish are reasonably plentiful and good eating (ie mackerel), no one much objects to taking a reasonable number for the pot.

 

Where fish are slow growing, and/or specimen fish are rare, then those with a sporting interest will object strongly to others damaging their sporting potential, simply for a couple of extra fish fillets, given the amount of time, effort and cash that they themselves are investing in targeting those specimens, particularly if they are not particularly good eating.

 

 

Let’s take mullet.

 

A mullet in UK waters will take some ten years to reach spawning age at 3lbs, a 7lb mullet may be around 20 years old. There is evidence that the same fish come to the same locations throughout their life.

 

A mullet angler, carefully returning their catch, hoping to meet the 7lber that they photographed and returned last year, some time in the future at 8 – 9 – 10lb is maybe going to feel anger, rising from bitter disappointment when he learns that 7lber has been eaten by another angler and his cat (it didn’t taste of much!) who has no idea of the value of such a specimen to a dedicated mullet angler.

 

 

Similarly with bass, it’s another slow growing, late maturing, localised species.

(Living around 25 years, potential to grow to over 20lbs, spawning about 15 times)

 

Kill a good specimen, that may have been caught and returned several times by more ‘sporting’ anglers, and no one is going to ever have the chance of catching that good-sized fish again, or catching it when it’s even bigger.

 

 

So, what makes a fish more valuable to some anglers than other species isn’t simply arbitrary, it is rooted in the approach that each of us has to our sport, and the knowledge that we have of the species we like to catch and their vulnerability, not just the species, but the locations that we fish too.

 

For my part, I have some mackerel in the freezer (I have plenty of home-made compost for the bean trenches), I will return all mullet that I catch and try to educate others to do the same.

 

When I was younger I killed a number of fish that, now that I’m older, more knowledgeable and wiser, I deeply regret. I can’t turn the clock back for myself but I hope that I can help others to avoid the pangs of conscience that grow deeper with the years.

 

Whilst I've since deeply regretted killing some fish, I’ve never, ever regretted returning a fish, and I've attained immense pleasure and satisfaction in watching them swim away, returning from a trip much happier than I feel that I would have been with some fillets in the freezer bag.

 

In summary, it’s up to each of us to draw (and review) our own line. And perhaps to provide guidance on where (and more importantly why) others should consider drawing theirs.

 

Peer pressure is powerful, and has a part to play. But persuasion and reason are far more effective tools than confrontational condemnation. That only serves to harden attitudes and deepen the divide.

 

(see also http://anglersnet.co.uk/sacn/article23.htm )

 

Tight Lines - leon

 

[ 14. August 2005, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: Leon Roskilly ]

[MJB]

Terrific post Leon!

[Snatcher]

Normally return all my fish apart from 2 exceptions. Will keep a few mackeral for the table or for pike deadbait.Also when fishing over on the Mull of Galloway and my sister-in-law is with us would keep a single bass for her. Everything else goes back.

Oops nearly missed out Mr cod. Would keep one cod for the table as well

 

Good post Leon you raised some interesting points mate!

[bigdunny]

Good post Leon, well written m8

[Guest jay_con]

Nice article.

 

I find this quote to be very true.

 

"

Peer pressure is powerful, and has a part to play. But persuasion and reason are far more effective tools than confrontational condemnation. That only serves to harden attitudes and deepen the divide. "

nothing worse than some clever tw** who knows best.

 

For my part :

 

All undersized fish are returned,

Most makeral are returned (all probably dead now as I touched them)

Anything I wouldn't eat will be returned with the exception of coalfish when im match fising. SORRY!!!!

I will keep all cod for the table. Just finishing off the last of what I caught in march (none wasted). I have softened on that one though and returned a few lately.

I will keep a size Bass should I ever manage to catch a bugger. Dont worry My catch rate is so bad

theere is no threat to stocks whatsoever.

 

I wont condemn anyone for thier practices but hope common sense prevails.

[dutyhero]

What a great article .

[Westie]

I thoroughly enjoyed reading that - very balanced and very true. Cheers Leon.

 

I am no threat to fish stocks - I specialise in catching and returning undersized fish only.

[WalkerStalker]

excellent post leon

i've been that young kid taking my catch home to show my parents but now return more than 95% of my fish the other 5% is for bait(mackerel only) or the table which i don't see a problem with providing they're not undersized

 

[ 14. August 2005, 12:19 PM: Message edited by: WalkerStalker ]

[A Norfolk Boy]

I like the self deprication Westie!

[Norm B]

Leon Roskilly:

Some thoughts I've had on a question posed on another thread.

 

 

Not just on this forum, but elsewhere too, often the subject comes up as to whether sea anglers should keep the fish they catch or return them alive.

 

Legally, once anyone catches a fish, by whatever method, that has been legally taken (ie is above the minimum size limit etc), it’s their’s to do with as they please.

 

And each angler must draw their own line upon where they stand.

 

(edit note:  Norm, I removed the majority of the original post from this quoted section to shorten things a bit.  Otherwise I was afraid folks might not read the part you wrote and it is good stuff so I didn't want it missed.

Newt)

 

Tight Lines - leon

:cool: Superbly thought out and well written as expected Leon.

It all makes sense to anyone prepared to think about it.

As you know I get loads of letters, e-mails and phone calls about pictures of 'dead' fish. I do not print pictures of boxes/bags of fish, or ill-treated fish. I have in my own small way educated some anglers and charter skippers.

I get totally unrealistic criticism from some readers. Fact,if you read a sea angling paper you are going to see pictures of dead fish. I personally would like every picture of a fish to be on a boat or the shore and the words 'the fish was returned alive after weighing or photographing, but this is unrealistic. I keep or eat very few fish because my enjoyment is catching them, I get as much pleasure in seeing them swim away as I do landing them. I would keep a potential record fish, alive if possible but if not I'd knock it on the head. To reach record size it would have done a bit for keeping the species going anyway. Very few fish are an 'endangered species' certainly not bass or mullet, although members of BASS and the NMC would have us believe otherwise. Cod and rays are far more at risk but they don't have societies looking after them. It is not on for various societies to condem anglers for killing 'their' fish. Live and let live is my motto. I know an angler who catches mullet for tope and conger bait, he swears by them, I prefer mackeral and pout but if they're of a legal size then he can do it. I've yet to have anyone from the pout preservation society condem me for this wicked habit but I'm sure I will now. All fish are in the food chain somewhere so they expect to get eaten, whether it's by a conger, tope or human, does it really matter, it's still dead and eaten.

Of course we should look after our fish stocks and show consideration to individual fish but let

us not forget than man is an apex predator and fish is an item on his menu.

 

[ 23. August 2005, 01:02 AM: Message edited by: Newt ]