Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Guest Rabbit
I usually keep out of these somewhat futile discussions, but a number of hard words seem necessary here.

 

The main threat to angling is from within.

 

Catch and release is a policy that an individual, a club, or a fishery owner may quite legitimately pursue. What is unacceptable is attempting to impose it on others - particularly by way of "blanket bans"

 

Blanket bans are a tool of politicians who are bankrupt of positive ideas - the ultimate blanket ban is a ban on angling.

 

So you practice catch and release - OK, fine, if that is what you want to do. It does NOT mean you can indulge in self-righteous posturing against those who take fish to eat. In fact, as Sportsman and others have pointed out, compared with taking a fish to eat, catch and release is morally indefensible.

 

By taking a sanctimonious "holier than thou"" stance over catch and release, such people are doing angling as a whole a great disservice, and may in the end be the root cause of the control of angling becoming outside the influence of anglers - you have only to look at the case in Germany, where the Green Party have legislated against "catch and release" - ie. if you catch a fish, it MUST be killed - returning it alive is illegal.

 

Colin W gave us a breakdown of a few million anglers, fiftythree million non-anglers, and a few thousand anti-angling nutters.

 

It is the INFLUENTIAL members of the 53 million you have to worry about - politicians, their hangers on, the media and the chattering classes.

 

THEY, not anglers, perceive catching one for the pot as defensible, and fishing for pleasure as not, and it is THEY, not anglers who will decide future policy and law. Ban "taking of fish" and the reason for angling has, in their eyes disappeared.

 

Mike Heylin, of NASA, writing in their newsletter/journal speaks of the need to preserve the right of anglers to take a fish to eat (where the owner of the fishing rights agrees).

 

You might think it odd for the representative of specialist anglers to hold that view, but this is a thinking man who realises that once the right to eat your catch is removed, angling is on very shaky ground politically.

 

..and eating your catch is not a "throwback" - it is part and parcel of the tradition of the sport. I can see how someone of our present homogenised, sanitised, deodorised, plasticised society, brought up to believe milk comes in cartons, meat on polystyrene trays and fish already battered, might not understand that, but several hundred thousand years of hunter-gathering is my heritage. To cease that life-style is retrogressive, not "moving on".

 

So, we must retain the right to eat our catch, subject of course to size and bag limits. Never mind the xenophobic rants in the mail (and alas, on this forum) If illegal methods of removing fish in quantity are being practiced, there is ample legislation in place already to combat it. Nor are our fish stocks as a whole "under threat" - except from pollution and mis-management.

 

I repeat, the main threat to angling is from within.

 

Blame anglers of foreign origin, and their foreign cuisine

 

Blame pike anglers, and livebaiters in particular.

 

Blame match anglers, and their keepnets.

 

Blame novice anglers, and their poor fish handling.

 

Blame specialist anglers and their multiple rod set-ups.

 

Blame any other type of angling but your own.

 

Blame Vagabond, who is impervious anyway.

 

....and the source of this blame? Other anglers of course.

 

Ban catching for the pot, and an outright ban is not too far behind.

 

As I have said before, I have contingency plans should an angling ban in the UK come in my lifetime (Rellies in USA and in Australia, and the wherewithal to move there) If I have to say one day -"I told you so, but I am alright Jack" then rest assured, I will.

One thing you talk of catch and release. That term is applied to game fish and not coarse fish. It is accepted that all of us(well almost all) practise catch and release with coarse fish.

I agree that most don't give a damn about our coarse fish stocks, well I do, and so do others.

 

Perhaps you could answer just one question for me

 

Who eats coarse fish anyway... and why ?

 

Aside from the migrant who think that our fish are a tasty dish. We don't. A ban on taking fish does not mean angling will be banned of coarse it will not , it would not get any media coverage at all 'cos nobody outside angling cares.

 

I think you are scare mongering, banning the taking of fish would not result in a angling ban,that argument is not logical, it would enhance our sport.

 

It would clear up any confusion with so many ill conceived bye laws,that permit taking fish, because it was passed in a age that is not relevant to present day circumstances, in that we do not need to eat our coarse fish.

 

So rest assured your one way ticket to the colonies will not be needed

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Rabbit
I'll add my sentiments to the above posts, and thank Vagabond for eloquently putting what I have been trying to say on here for some time now.

Maybe those who couldn't understand my stance on the subject, will find your post easier to comprehend, Vagabond.

 

Thanks

John.

 

Oh come on John I am sure you could find something you might be at odds with.

 

It was after all a very long list . :unsure:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Who eats coarse fish anyway... and why ?

Aside from the migrant who think that our fish are a tasty dish. We don't.

 

Interesting that you feel qualified to speak for all non-migrant UK anglers. Have you done a proper survey or is this your opinion expressed as fact?

" My choices in life were either to be a piano player in a whore house or a politician. And to tell the truth, there's hardly any difference!" - Harry Truman, 33rd US President

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's one non-migrant UK angler who enjoys the odd pike. A fish of about four pounds from the river, filleted, the line of bones up the middle of the fillet removed, pan fried, delicious.

 

Why? Because there are lots of them that size in the river, they taste good and I sometimes like to have a purpose to my fishing which is why I often go fly fishing for trout.

Edited by Ian FG
Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps you could answer just one question for me

 

Who eats coarse fish anyway... and why ?

 

Aside from the migrant who think that our fish are a tasty dish. We don't.

 

 

I do :thumbs:

I eat them because I can and because they taste good.

I would rather eat Perch than Trout, and I would rather eat either than Salmon.

I also shoot

Rabbits (sorry about that but they are a pest :unsure: ) birds including pigeon duck goose pheasant and partridge and two types of deer.

I, or my family, eat everything I shoot.

I f you have never sat down with your family to a meal made from meat that you have killed or fish you have caught and vegetables you have grown then you have something missing in your life.

I am very comfortable with what I do, but I don't "need" to do it. I could go to a supermarket and buy a chicken that has been fed garbage, spent its short miserable life locked away from sunlight and been slaughtered in a factory.

Come to think of it I do need to do it. :thumbs:

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

I think last time we asked, the majority of posters HAD tried coarse fish. I know I have. The reason I don't eat coarse fish regularly is nothing to do with moral considerations or worries about stocks. It's simple, they are not that good to eat! That is after all why they are called COARSE fish. I would prefer almost any seafish (with the possible exception of wrasse!) to what I consider the best coarse fish, which would be a pike about three pounds. I think farmed trout are pretty uninspiring as well!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh come on John I am sure you could find something you might be at odds with.

 

It was after all a very long list . :unsure:

 

No Neil, I can't find anything in Vagabonds post to be at odds with, in fact he put my thoughts on the subject in a very succinct way.

 

From what you say, I assume you have tasted coarse fish, and didn't like it.

 

I have found that perch of around 12oz-1lb, grayling, pike of 4-6lb and eels are all very tasty.

I haven't got round to trying carp yet, but there are plenty out there now, so who knows! :rolleyes:

 

When we had the poll on AN, you found it hard to believe the results, I know, but the majority voted to keep the right to eat fish.

 

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
One thing you talk of catch and release. That term is applied to game fish and not coarse fish.

 

Only by you, many coarse, game, sea and big game anglers all use the term.

 

Who eats coarse fish anyway... and why ?

 

I (and anglers of the calibre of the late Dick Walker, Fred Taylor and many others) have eaten perch, pike, zander, eels, and gudgeon and I will certainly do so again. I have tried various other cyprinids but didn't care for them, but that is my personal taste. I will not make a virtue out of not eating (say) carp - it is my choice and mine alone.

 

I have already explained, in terms that at least some other posters seem to have understood, why it is necessary to defend an angler's right to eat part of his catch if he chooses. I will not repeat myself

 

Why eat fish ? I eat fish for the same reason that I eat rabbits, Wordbender eats squirrels, and Peter Quilp ate prawns with their shells on, ie because we like doing so, and it is legal to do so.

 

Aside from the migrant who think that our fish are a tasty dish. We don't.

 

Is that the "Royal We" ?

 

A ban on taking fish does not mean angling will be banned of coarse it will not , it would not get any media coverage at all 'cos nobody outside angling cares.

 

Just tell that to the German anglers, they are banned from catch and release - and have to kill and eat their catch. If you can, try to see the reverse logic if we are banned from eating fish - there would be no place to go if similar rules came here.

 

banning the taking of fish would not result in a angling ban,that argument is not logical, it would enhance our sport.

 

If you think that - it demonstrates the self-congratulatory cloud-cuckoo land you live in - but what you think doesn't matter a toss. It is what our law-makers think that counts.

 

....bye laws,that permit taking fish, ....... was passed in a age not relevant to present day circumstances, in that we do not need to eat our coarse fish.

The "Royal We" again. Nobody "needs" to eat anything specific - as explained above, what an individual chooses to eat is really his/her own affair. Come to that, if no-one "needs" to eat fish, then the same argument applies (with even more force) that no-one "needs" to go fishing just to put the fish back.

 

...and if "migrant workers find our coarse fish tasty" then I am sure market forces will provide them with those fish, either through the fishmonger or by put-and-take fisheries similar to present trout fisheries. Where the problem lies is with people (of any ethnicity) taking fish en masse by illegal means - and there is adequate legislation to deal with that.

Edited by Vagabond

 

 

RNLI Governor

 

World species 471 : UK species 105 : English species 95 .

Certhia's world species - 215

Eclectic "husband and wife combined" world species 501

 

"Nothing matters very much, few things matter at all" - Plato

...only things like fresh bait and cold beer...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Rabbit

Its late and I am tired so I will be very brief. You say that the likes of Fred Taylor Dick Walker and so on have eaten coarse fish, i have not but in my early days of angling I did take the odd fish home for the cat. but that was many years ago, the same time Dick and Fred were tucking in to their fillet of roach.

 

However times have changed, and I would put my house on the fact that present day anglers either in the media or not do not eat coarse fish. well there will always be the exception of course, probably found mostly on AN it would seem, but, outside of here I think you will find this practise is not followed..

 

I think with respect the rest of your reply is flawed and the ground you are trying to defend is fast turning into quicksand, stop thrashing around it doesn't help!!

 

Anyway it always good to talk with you, :thumbs: Off to bed up at 5am :headhurt:

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

×
×
  • Create New...