ibm59
Active Member
Posts: 314
|
Post by ibm59 on Dec 4, 2007 21:53:55 GMT
Thoughts , guys ! From my point of view it isn't. But I'm sure you won't all agree . Go for it.
|
|
Speyducer
Advisory Board
Release to spawn another day
Posts: 4,123
|
Post by Speyducer on Dec 4, 2007 22:40:29 GMT
If your point is that 'we shouldn't be playing with fish - ie hooking them, stressing them, damaging them, then returning them to the water' then you must, if logical argument is taken to its only conclusion, either....
1. Kill every fish you catch 2. If you set catch limits, you must stop fishing after you have caught your limit 3. You must not fish at all.
However, 100% catch & release has been utilised almost universally for coarse fishing in the UK - very few people (apart from some recent East European migrants apparently) kill such coarse fish for the pot, and very rarely for specimen mounting.
It should be remembered that UK migratory game fish (salmonids) have a limited lifespan anyway, perhaps 6-10 years, and as they are moving through the river system they have a small chance of being 'intercepted' by rod & line fishermen.
Also, the migratory pacific salmon ALL die after spawning, it's their destiny to provide their dead bodies as food material for the next generation of their own species.
If 100% catch & kill is advocated for UK Salmon & Seatrout, even with strict catch limits, and ceasing fishing thereafter, it won't be long before those that control or own the fisheries will have to rely on hatcheries to replenish their 'stock', and so stay in business.
If this latter situation does arise, then we may as well just go to 'put & take' fisheries anywhere.
Mike
|
|
knoxy
Active Member
Posts: 31
|
Post by knoxy on Dec 5, 2007 14:14:27 GMT
Speyducer wrote "If your point is that 'we shouldn't be playing with fish - ie hooking them, stressing them, damaging them, then returning them to the water' then you must, if logical argument is taken to its only conclusion, either....
1. Kill every fish you catch 2. If you set catch limits, you must stop fishing after you have caught your limit 3. You must not fish at all."
Speyducer i think that you are taking the conclusion too far.
Ideally there should be a happy medium which allows people who wish to have a few salmon for the pot and those that like/want to release all they catch to coexist at all times.
I know that on some rivers it is necessary to practice 100% catch and release (possibly some should close for a period of time to allow recovery measures to work) as they do not have sustainable numbers of Salmon entering the river.
But i think that 100% Catch and Release accross the board would give the antis a new stick to beat game angling with.
Remember they are a VERY Vocal Minority whose voice seems to be heard above most others in the corridors of power.
Iain
|
|
Speyducer
Advisory Board
Release to spawn another day
Posts: 4,123
|
Post by Speyducer on Dec 5, 2007 17:08:42 GMT
But i think that 100% Catch and Release accross the board would give the antis a new stick to beat game angling with. Remember they are a VERY Vocal Minority whose voice seems to be heard above most others in the corridors of power. Iain I don't believe that 100% catch & release on any river systems give the "antis" as you call them, any more 'ammunition' than they already have. It is of great interest that the "antis" haven't taken up the 'cause' against the HUGE army of coarse fishermen in the British Isles [of course, they may be just about to do so!], as they are a really huge 'target' with almost no justification (other than pure 'pleasure', or competition) to fish at all, as most of what they fish for and catch are thoroughly inedible. And why, in the last 10 years (and it HAS been both widely known about and publicised), haven't the "antis" descended on the fishermen, ghillies, owners, etc of the Aberdeenshire Dee then for their 100% catch & release policy? I have not heard any harranguing of such a magnificent river and those priviliged to own/contol the fishing, or be a ghillie or perchance a fly fishermen on such a dream piece of game fishing heaven. So why is it, then, that the game anglers in general feel so fragile in standing up for C&R principles that allow allow adequate replenishment of the species, yet still being able to 'angle' for them? I strongly believe in catch & release, as you may have surmised, but accept that some fish will be casualties (bleeders), and even some of those apparently successfully released will either not spawn but survive, or will just die some time after release. One thing is certain, and not being the first to say it, a chapped fish in the boot of your 4x4 ain't gonna spawn anytime soon. There are always going to be compromises in life, and in fishing. And I don't believe that game fishing will go down any road near that of the foxes soon. However, some rivers & systems will need 100% catch & release for a period of time, as well as other habitat, water, netting & high seas issues to be tackled at the same time, in order for the wild stocks to be allowed to replenish. Selective allowances for retaining rod-caught fish at some later date, on any system could be re-introduced once it is known what that system could tolerate as 'harvest' without affecting the base stock to keep the numbers steady. Mike
|
|
knoxy
Active Member
Posts: 31
|
Post by knoxy on Dec 5, 2007 18:39:55 GMT
Mike,
I actually agree with all that you are saying, but i also believe that J Bloggs when fishing on a river that can sustain it should be allowed to have one or two fish a year if that is his desire.
Iain
|
|
|
Post by Willie Gunn on Dec 5, 2007 18:53:08 GMT
Yes but is it politically acceptable to suggest fishermen give up their livings so "anglers" can kill what ever they want?
|
|
|
Post by speyghillie on Dec 5, 2007 20:29:19 GMT
Of course 100% C&R is ethically justifiable.
As Speyducer has stated the coarse anglers have been practicing C&R for years.
As I see it, this argument like most has 2 sides. Those who routinely return all their fish, apart from those too badly damaged and those who want a justifiable 'reason/excuse' to be allowed to keep them/some. It's absolutely nothing to do with the Anti's.
Be honest - Is it really that important to have a wild Salmon in the freezer, considering the many conservation measures in place today. If it is, get them from the Fishmonger either Wild or Farmed. I'm totally fed up with the 'one for the pot or smoker crowd' - Its a Sport, lets treat it as such.
I for one just wish that Salmon tasted more like Chubb ( not that I eat Chubb on a regular basis!)
|
|
|
Post by speyghillie on Dec 5, 2007 21:49:17 GMT
I've just been on a forum where certain 'fishmongers' seem to be complaining about recent C&R recommendations on the Tay. Sheer frustration - Sorry Q-n-Q, didn't mean to preach and may have been firing from the hip somewhat. I totally agree that the right of choice is an important factor but unfortunately there are some who choose more than others.
We are all pretty experienced anglers I'm sure and fully appreciate the current plight of the mighty Salmo. My point in reality was that because of the right to choose, there are far too many 'anglers' who choose to keep too many fish.
Unlike the smokers, the Salmon have no choice.
Whether 100% C&R its ethically justifiable - without preaching, of course it is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2007 0:34:17 GMT
My concern about 100% catch and release is from my own morals - if all goes back its simply a game.
I ENJOY catching fish for the table, not too many and I'd settle for max 6 per year say, but catching a wild salmon that is personally guaranteed organic wild untainted by unilever dye food substitute and converting it to a food item is part of the pleasure in the sport, and a social occasion. I feel a per rod per year maximum is more important than 100% C&R.
Be as well shooting pheasant with paintballs IMHO.
Malcolm
|
|
|
Post by charlieH on Dec 6, 2007 17:50:44 GMT
It depends what you mean by 100% C&R!
I would be perfectly happy to fish 100% C&R under Dee rules, where if you do happen to get a fish that takes a fly deep and is bleeding badly, it is killed and becomes the property of the estate.
I am distinctly unhappy about fishing under the 100% C&R rules applied by the EA in England and Wales that demand that ALL fish are returned to the river, with no exceptions.
Of course, Dee rules are open to abuse, as I understand the Dee proprietors discovered - I have been told that the proportion of 'bleeders' dropped from about 20% to 5% when rods were no longer allowed to keep any such fish. Human nature being as it is, I suppose it would be too much to expect everyone to be entirely honest. However, you will inevitably encounter the odd genuine bleeder, and I find it more or less impossible to justify throwing a good springer back to die.
|
|
|
Post by mucklesalmon on Dec 6, 2007 18:37:51 GMT
I have practiced 100% C&R for both Atlantic Salmon and Steelhead for the past 15 years or so regardless of any regulations. My reason for doing so does not come from any moral or ethical base. It is simply that from a conservation stand point that as long as some can take " too many" then someone has to compensate by " not taking any". Allthough this is my own coice I still resent the fact that I feel I have to do this as I honestly would like to keep a couple of fish per year. Prior to going totally catch and release I limited myself to one fish for my family and one for my parents. I felt that this kept me in touch with the roots of our sport (as well as contributing to a really nice dinner This 1 meal gave significance and ceremony to the death of a fish which we hold in such high regard. As the resource depleted over time I felt that I could no longer justify this. I believe that the true solution lies in a rigidly enforced (tags) annual bag limit of one or two fish. If any one feels that they need to kill more than this then they are obviously not "sport fishing" and should target some other species that can take the pressure and should see nothing wrong with limiting themselves to a put and take fishery as it is really the "taking" part they are interested in. Ramsay
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2007 19:40:11 GMT
Ramsay,
I'm almost 100% with you - maybe everyone has a point of view on numbers. The tagging system will come to Scotland eventually when the marine environment collapses.
Agree 100% with CharlieH regarding bleeders. "Daft" on the EA basis - why not kill the fish and give it to the nearest otter ? or Corm or rant ? And hope the latter chokes ?
I'd do 100% if salmon were "endangered" in any of the rivers I fish. But I partly justify taking a fish on the basis that I have generally paid more for it than it would have been if it were netted. I cannot get nets out of my mind at the moment - hairnets, fixed nets, cobble nets, fishnets .. oops ?
Malcolm
|
|
|
Post by speyghillie on Dec 6, 2007 21:04:10 GMT
Charlie H - with you 100%
Mucklesalmon, great post.
Tweedcast - Digressing from the ethically justifiable point slightly - Yes everyone will have their own opinion on numbers of Tags, which if ever issued do need to be rigidly controlled. Without waffling on too much, here's my thoughts. (new thread possibly - sorry for the hijack) I'd suggest that if tags are issued then they must be accompanied with a Rod Licence/permit. The 1 or 2 tags should directly correspond to the serial number of the license/permit, which would then prevent the swapping of tags between anglers, which I certainly know goes on in Ireland. As we are all too aware, CharlieH is absolutely right about the integrity of certain members of the human race.
The problem that I personally have with the issue of more than 1 or 2 tags is how individuals use them. As an example, a fair percentage of my guests visit the river for 1 week a year - thats all the fishing they do. It's complicated now, as without imposing restrictions on tag use, these guest could easily use all their tags in a week. At least for now I have control of the number of fish killed/released and I'd personally like to keep it that way. Cynically, I feel that if Tags are issued, one way or another, they will be used, maybe I'm way off track - I certainly am from the ethics of 100% C&R for which I apologise again.
|
|
|
Post by mucklesalmon on Dec 7, 2007 2:30:40 GMT
Questions What happens in the rivers that have and do continue to have increasing catch rates and also what happens to a river that is overstocked. I believe Eric Verspoor, of the Fisheries Research Service, warned that overstocking can have the opposite effect than what is desired. Not trying to be a s#!t disturber but can you give an example of a Salmon river anywhere in the world that is "overstocked". Ramsay
|
|
logie
Active Member
Posts: 54
|
Post by logie on Dec 7, 2007 6:46:45 GMT
If a salmon river had too many fish surely we would not be bother with catch and release and we would take one home every time!
logie
|
|
|
Post by Willie Gunn on Dec 7, 2007 9:21:35 GMT
I believe Eric Verspoor, of the Fisheries Research Service, warned that overstocking can have the opposite effect than what is desired. Was he referring to natural or hatchery overstocking? I believe the first is nearly impossible to achieve, read the history of young farm workers having clauses that they could only be fed salmon three times a week, there must have been a few salmon on the go then.
|
|
tweedsider
Active Member
Quietness is best
Posts: 993
|
Post by tweedsider on Dec 7, 2007 9:56:37 GMT
Like many others I like to take an occasional fish for the table. Alas there are members of my association who feel thay must kill every fish, a 100% catch and kill policy which extends to at least two private clubs on the same river. 100% return in coarse fishing may be due to the eating qualities of the quarry.
Tweedsider
|
|
Speyducer
Advisory Board
Release to spawn another day
Posts: 4,123
|
Post by Speyducer on Dec 7, 2007 11:36:54 GMT
Rivers can only be 'overstocked' by man adding adding hatchery fish.
Whatever the number of spawners/potential spawners, there is a finite amount of riverbed & tributary stream beds suited for redds.
If the spawners do lay down their eggs in poor redds, fewer will develop to fry, parr, smolt etc.
Even if many more fry do eventually appear from such redds than can be supported by the river habitat's food for them to eat, then some will not survive due to lack of food, developing weakness & perhaps disease, and being easy prey for all the predators next up on the river food chain - eg herons, trout, otters etc. With extra fry and then parr surviving in the river, more than can be normally supported through to smolt stage, there will be better pickings for such predators anyway.
Thus, the overproduction of eggs, then to fry, then to parr is most likely to be whittled down by nature anyway.
Even if more smolts than normally supported by the river system do indeed survive to the estuarine stage, again they will suffer more predation (seals etc) than normal.
When the remaining (still boosted) numbers of smolts escape to the high seas, and head off to their feeding grounds, the higher than average number will find, on average, that there is not enough food to support all of them properly, and either the average weight gain at sea will be lower per unit time, or more of them will die (probably a combination of both).
When these thinner/smaller grilse return to the estuaries to begin the breeding cycle again, they will be more at risk of predation, disease, or succumbing to 'starvation' effects due to poor weight gain at sea, hence low fat reserves, hence lower chance of survival back in the estuaries & spawning rivers.
This cycle may be repeated, but, eventually, mother nature will balance it all out again.
The bottom line: there is a finite ecological resource in habitat, feeding, and therefore 'stock'. Natural 'overstocking, therefore, can only exist in a very temporary form, soon to be corrected by mother nature's forces, as outlined above.
Agree or disagree, but mother nature IS the boss!
Mike
PS. Forgot to mention in all this: primary predator = man; whether that be on the high seas, around the coastline, in the estuaries, and in the rivers.
M
|
|
vacant
Active Member
Posts: 74
|
Post by vacant on Dec 7, 2007 13:20:15 GMT
its getting harder to justify c&r to myself - i return most of my fish but the arguement that we are using animals as playthings still worries me =plays into the hands of the antis- perhaps we shoudl only fish for the table, and if there isnt a harvestable excess then we shouldnt fish until stocks have recovered.
|
|
|
Post by speyghillie on Dec 7, 2007 20:36:35 GMT
Q-n-Q, In my opinion, I wouldn't be too concerned with the likes of 'optimum fry levels'. These kind of studies may just be keeping 'our' scientists in their jobs. I've read various reports stating that certain rivers can only sustain certain numbers of fry/parr/smolts - pie in the sky in my opinion. When I was a youngster, you had to stop fishing around the end of May as without question, every cast resuted in a smolt being caught, irrespective of fly size. I have not caught a smolt for over 5 years. Considering the current state of Marine Mortality, I'd suggest that we couldn't stock the river with enough fry; if there's not enough food, then its all about survival of the fittest, but at least a few more smolts make it to sea. Tweedsider, I'm not surprised by the attitude of certain members of your local AA, as unfortunately this approach is shared throughout the country. IMO, visiting anglers don't seem to have the same problems with regard to releasing their fish, however many local anglers who should know better, struggle with the concept. It's all very disappointing but these folk need to be encouraged by their committees, that it's no longer acceptable to kill such a high number. (Don't tell me, they are the committee!) Jan, I'm sorry to read that you're personally struggling to justify C&R. It's not all doom and gloom and I certainly don't think that most of our rivers are in such bad shape that we need to stop fishing, or just fish for the table C&R in the main is a very acceptable and supported initiative, and as far as the antis are concerned, I believe fishing is the most participated sport in the UK - I'm sure they have higher priorities and more realistically attainable targets. They'd be keen on your first couple of thoughts for their next manifesto though ;D
|
|