Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Freshwater fish have been extensively hunted for food in the UK for all but 50 or so of the last 6000 years.

 

They're still here.

 

 

Sometimes, I think the people most likely to get angling restricted or banned are other anglers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The one what you seem to be talking about , the hunter gatherer era :rolleyes:

 

Oh, you mean the 20th century, that's when most of my fishing happened, and a bit in the 21st of course. :)

 

John.

Angling is more than just catching fish, if it wasn't it would just be called 'catching'......... John

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Brumagem Phil

Whilst fishing the Avon, i've met a fellah who owns a restaurant........he fishes for eels (with rod and line) and takes his catch home.

 

Is he allowed to do this? (just curious).

 

Also, I know they state that the eel population has plummeted, but he never blanks.

 

He also said they could be sold for around £5 for each pound in weight of eel. This wouldnt be legal would it?

Edited by Brumagem Phil
Link to post
Share on other sites
Whilst fishing the Avon, i've met a fellah who owns a restaurant........he fishes for eels (with rod and line) and takes his catch home.

 

Is he allowed to do this? (just curious).

 

Also, I know they state that the eel population has plummeted, but he never blanks.

 

He also said they could be sold for around £5 for each pound in weight of eel. This wouldnt be legal would it?

 

Look in the link in Colins post, Phil. It will give you info' on what's allowed in your area.

 

John.

Angling is more than just catching fish, if it wasn't it would just be called 'catching'......... John

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's curious that people often talk about "non-anglers" opinions. In my experience there are three types of people in this country.

 

1. Anglers, probably about two million, some prepared to kill fish and some not.

2. Non-anglers, about fifty three million, who couldn't care less whether we kill fish and think we are a bit odd for putting them back.

3. Nutters, a couple of thousand, who saw too many Disney cartoons as kids and think that we are evil.

 

I am not interested in the opinions of groups two and three regarding fish welfare since group two have no opinion and group three don't have the equipment necessary to form a sensible one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Rabbit
No definitely not "Agreed".

 

You are speaking of your own personal feelings Rabbit, which is fair enough.

 

But what you propose will effect those that choose to fish in a way that you don't agree with. So that's OK then is it?

 

You try and justify how catching a fish, handling it, perhaps taking a photo, or keeping it in a keepnet for a few hours , and putting it back, just for 'fun', compares to landing it, hitting it over the head straight away, and taking it home to eat.

Your thinking is heading down a very rocky road, and will eventually lead to a ban on angling it's self.

 

John.

 

The comparison is obvious, never before has handling fish been better, i am talking specimen angling here, but the match scene is also far better in this regard than in the past.

 

So to suggest that to kill the fish as oppose to weighing and photographing and returning the fish unharmed, is somewhat better is frankly silly. Another point to ponder for you, just what is the attraction in eating any coarse fish from our rivers? OK Sportsman enjoys clean lakes up there and the occasional perch for the table But I cannot imagine any waters that I would be happy to eat the fish.

 

But thats not the real point ,the message is conservation of our dwindling stocks, it would be madness to eat the very source of what supplies us anglers so much pleasure. If you really still think that taking the odd fish for the pot is a good idea, pop over to Poland and see the results of many years of fishing for food has done to their stocks..

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's curious that people often talk about "non-anglers" opinions. In my experience there are three types of people in this country.

 

1. Anglers, probably about two million, some prepared to kill fish and some not.

2. Non-anglers, about fifty three million, who couldn't care less whether we kill fish and think we are a bit odd for putting them back.

3. Nutters, a couple of thousand, who saw too many Disney cartoons as kids and think that we are evil.

 

I am not interested in the opinions of groups two and three regarding fish welfare since group two have no opinion and group three don't have the equipment necessary to form a sensible one.

 

You're absolutely right. The only ones that matter are (excuse the expression) the number 2s. They don't care because it has no impact on them and no-one is telling them what to think. However, if there was a serious campaign to influence them (i.e. if there was political capital at stake) political parties and the media could turn them into number 3s before we even had time to blink.

 

Your average vote-wielding Briton loves a bit of moral outrage, as long as it doesn't inconvience them. They are also extremely easy to influence.

 

Fun game - what would be the three key things a proper politically motivated anti-angling campaign would focus on?

Edited by Anderoo

And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music

Link to post
Share on other sites
The comparison is obvious, never before has handling fish been better, i am talking specimen angling here, but the match scene is also far better in this regard than in the past.

 

So to suggest that to kill the fish as oppose to weighing and photographing and returning the fish unharmed, is somewhat better is frankly silly. Another point to ponder for you, just what is the attraction in eating any coarse fish from our rivers? OK Sportsman enjoys clean lakes up there and the occasional perch for the table But I cannot imagine any waters that I would be happy to eat the fish.

 

But thats not the real point ,the message is conservation of our dwindling stocks, it would be madness to eat the very source of what supplies us anglers so much pleasure. If you really still think that taking the odd fish for the pot is a good idea, pop over to Poland and see the results of many years of fishing for food has done to their stocks..

 

Sorry Rabbit, a few thing I would have to question here. You say that handling fish is better than at any other time. Well, it may be better than it was but is it particularly good yet ? Later in your post you refer to weighing and photographing the fish before returning it. Why?

You have to agree that returning it untouched is better than all of the rigmarole involved in weighing and photographing it so what you are saying is that it is OK to risk the welfare of the fish so that you can boast to other people about what it weighed or what it looked like. You know what fish you caught, why is it necessary to risk it to impress other people.

If I treated the fish I caught at my local trout fishery like that I would be asked to leave.

Just this afternoon, on the revered "Passion for Angling" one of the presenters (the bearded one with the irritating squeaky voice - oh sorry, thats both of them) caught a fantastic haul of quality roach including several 3lbers. He kept them in a keep net and then laid them on the ground while photographs were taken. Eventually they were returned, but I feel very strongly that the welfare of these quality fish was compromised purely for the benefit of the angler and his desire to impress.

Until catch and release gets its act together and really starts to work toward fish welfare rather than just paying lip service to it, you have no right to preach to others with a different point of view.

As for fish stock being threatened, it seems to me that most anglers are happy fishing heavily stocked artificial waters anyway, so fish taken can easily be replaced, at a price. The real wild waters are so lightly fished that the stocks would be under very little pressure.

Let's agree to respect each others views, no matter how wrong yours may be.

 

 

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity

 

 

 

http://www.safetypublishing.co.uk/
http://www.safetypublishing.ie/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cant remember which one of our members posted this but it stuck in my mind (please excuse me if the wording isnt exactly right!)-

 

"My Scottish Grandfather always said that course fishing with its practice of catch and release wasnt "fishing" at all but more "interfering" with fish!"

 

Obviously not our sentiments as anglers but one non anglers could easily see the reasoning behind.

 

Oh BTW been out fishing quite a few times now in the SW London area (massive population of "immigrants" of all nationalities and colours) and still to see any of them killing fish for the pot.

 

Still got my concerns over the type of tackle they want to buy off me at the boot sales though.

And thats my "non indicative opinion"!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...