Should Anglers Retain Their Catch?

[Fastd]

Hi Sandtiger,

 

Yep 3 hours is a long battle. Perhaps brought about by the fact it was his first and the tackle used could have been a bit on the light side.

 

I think that regardless of its state it stands a far better chance of living if returned rather than been hung up on a hoist. The fact that sharks have been at the top of the tree for millions of years suggests they are pretty hardly creatures

 

If we want all fish to live then technically we should not fish for them at all. But then who would be out there making a case for their protection?

 

I wonder if any angling publication would actually print that picture?

 

Cheers

dave

[nick]

I wonder if any angling publication would actually print that picture?

 

Unfortunately Dave I think the better question would be are there any that would not publish it. And I can only think of one that I believe would possibly not publish it, and I'm sure Norm B will correct me if I'm wrong about that one!

[Fastd]

Nick,

 

You suprise me with that. I could imagine many anglers complaining if that was published

 

It would be intresting to here from Eltons contacts or perhaps shaun on this.

 

Cheers

dave

[nick]

Mr Benson

 

To answer your actual question.

 

Anglers MUST retain their right to retain their catch. But not necessarily all species should be kept.

 

Indeed some species should as a matter of principle not be kept unless their is a specific good reason to do so. Amongst those species I would include most elasmobranchs (with the possible exeption of LSD). Undoubtedly there will be occasions on which a fish dies as a result of capture, in which case let the angler decide upon disposal of the fish. But to deliberately set out with the intent to kill a fish which is endangered is in my mind morally repugnant.

[Norm B]

Unfortunately Dave I think the better question would be are there any that would not publish it. And I can only think of one that I believe would possibly not publish it, and I'm sure Norm B will correct me if I'm wrong about that one!

I would not print that picture for the following reasons. 1. It's a poor quality picture.

2. The shark is not a record and therefore printing the picture would serve no useful purpose except to massage the anglers ego.

3. I have no wish to encourage anglers to kill sharks just for a picture. If you look through back copies of the SAN, only sharks pictured on the boat with the caption, 'returned alive' are printed. The sharks may die later, I don't know but if returned they have a chance as they are fairly hardy species.

[nick]

Just about what I suspected you might say, and good to hear.

 

Any thoughts on what some other publications might do Norm?

[Ian Burrett]

As the Porbeagle shark is critically endangered and hopefully their will be a Zero TAC after next months EU talks so their is no justification for an angler killing one

[Norm B]

Just about what I suspected you might say, and good to hear.

 

Any thoughts on what some other publications might do Norm?

I would think it depends on how well off they are for copy and pictures.

They run a commercial enterprise with shareholders to please, I don't. As long as I don't lose too much, SWMBO leaves me to it.

[Guest sandpipper]

Hi Tiggs, im the same as some of the other here back in the 70`s we all thought that the fish stocks were all ok and to be honest most of us didnt give it a thought, last week i had another 3 good cod to 12lb and a 5lb bass i put all three back for two reasons, one ive still got some cod left in the freezer from the week before and i put the bass back because quiet a few years ago i found out that a bass i killed was the same age as me and it niggled me for a long time.

So as for your question if i had to feed my family yes i would, but as i only fish as a sport no i wouldnt.

Tony

[Ian Burrett]

Dave Morton from SOS has written to the skipper concerned and he has kindly agreed to get involved in the UK Shark tagging programme and return all Porbeagle