|
Post by Yorkshire Esk on Oct 18, 2007 19:54:03 GMT
For pities sake. He caught and killed two fish, so what. I say well done. Cracking fish. Excellent pics, pitty we don't see more pics of fish caught and or released. Not everyone gets the chance to catch teens of salmon per year. Unlike some of you guys on here that are out fishing everyday or week and catch more fish than you can shake a stick at.
|
|
|
Post by neptune on Oct 18, 2007 22:22:18 GMT
if you stopped fishing after taking 1st fish that could work out quite expensive. if you pay £150 to fish tomorrow & catch & take 1st fish after 10 mins then you go home i personally would fish all day returning all to enjoy the days fishing rather than go out just to take 1 for the pot. another point would the 1st fish taken count if it had to be killed or only if it was chapped for tea
|
|
|
Post by salmonking on Oct 19, 2007 6:27:18 GMT
if you stopped fishing after taking 1st fish that could work out quite expensive. if you pay £150 to fish tomorrow & catch & take 1st fish after 10 mins then you go home i personally would fish all day returning all to enjoy the days fishing rather than go out just to take 1 for the pot. another point would the 1st fish taken count if it had to be killed or only if it was chapped for tea Then you would have everybody saying "it had to be chapped" cmon,,,,,,,,,, think about it Neptune.
|
|
|
Post by Willie Gunn on Oct 19, 2007 7:34:44 GMT
I still think one of the best conservation measures is , once you have taken one fish you stop fishing, and would defend the right to take a fish for the table when I wanted. Tweedsider This policy if adopted could produce 100% catch and kill. I'm not saying more fish would be killed but the C&R rate would come close to zero. Presently on the Spey it is the top side of 70%. What kind of a message would that send out to politicians? Buy off the drift nets for the anglers and we will kill every fish we catch.........................really effective PR.
|
|
tweedsider
Active Member
Quietness is best
Posts: 993
|
Post by tweedsider on Oct 19, 2007 7:35:12 GMT
if you stopped fishing after taking 1st fish that could work out quite expensive. if you pay £150 to fish tomorrow & catch & take 1st fish after 10 mins then you go home i personally would fish all day returning all to enjoy the days fishing rather than go out just to take 1 for the pot. another point would the 1st fish taken count if it had to be killed or only if it was chapped for tea Hello neptune taken one fish, not caught one fish.
|
|
|
Post by salmonking on Oct 19, 2007 17:06:11 GMT
Also that would advocate taking six fish per week, a sum that should span about two seasons,,,,also could you picture this,,,fishmonger catches a fish at 9 pm,,,knocks it ,,, back at 12pm ,for another,,,nah silly idea,,,sorry tweedsider but that ,encourages fish mongering.
|
|
nessc
Active Member
Posts: 143
|
Post by nessc on Oct 19, 2007 17:31:31 GMT
Catch and release is an important part of a bigger picture although it is not the be all and end all to the revival of salmon stocks.
On Ness Castle we achieved 73% c&r this year, however I would hate to see a day where it had to be 100%.
It is important as fisherman not to use salmon purely for sport and that we are able to practice our "hunter gatherer" instinct and take a fish or two for the pot.
|
|
tweedsider
Active Member
Quietness is best
Posts: 993
|
Post by tweedsider on Oct 19, 2007 17:48:45 GMT
Would continue to disagree with you both there Willie Gunn and Salmonking. When I wrote that I was thinking mainly of the crafty types who breach assoc recommendations of keep only one fish per day. These individuals can flit from beat to beat with the victim of the previous beat concealed in the car boot. Anglers who catch and return would not chap every fish, but would continue to catch and return. Those who wished to keep a fish might catch say, a three pound grilse in the morning and return it in the hope of something better later in the day, and fail to do so. Or have you assumed that I was advocating keeping the first fish caught, not so. Therefore the pair o ye are far frae cloakin.
Tweedsider
|
|
|
Post by salmonking on Oct 19, 2007 18:02:59 GMT
What's wrong with 1 per week?
|
|
tweedsider
Active Member
Quietness is best
Posts: 993
|
Post by tweedsider on Oct 19, 2007 18:13:32 GMT
To many
|
|
|
Post by John Gray on Oct 19, 2007 19:07:00 GMT
Catch and release is an important part of a bigger picture although it is not the be all and end all to the revival of salmon stocks. On Ness Castle we achieved 73% c&r this year, however I would hate to see a day where it had to be 100%. It is important as fisherman not to use salmon purely for sport and that we are able to practice our "hunter gatherer" instinct and take a fish or two for the pot. An eminently sensible approach...... Where stocks of fish, migratory and non migratory, are fragile, there is certainly a need for some restraint on the part of anglers. Indeed, it would be reasonable to impose a moratorium on fishing in such places until stocks recover to a safe level. In rivers with healthy stocks of fish, catch and release, as a morally rational policy, is hard to justify. Many fishermen, myself included, see the killing of a trout, sea trout or salmon as the natural and entirely justifiable conclusion to the whole business of fishing. It is what fishing is all about. Deny a man that option of an occasional fish for the table and fishing ceases to make sense. In the interests of conservation, I, like many other fishermen, find myself returning an increasing proportion of my catch, more aware of my impact on our environment and, perhaps more selfishly, on future sport. Most of my fishing is done on association waters, where, in recent years, there has been a definite move towards catch and release. There is a growing awareness among salmon and sea trout anglers of the potential benefits of catch and release, if only to improve their own fishing in the coming seasons, to the extent that an increasing proportion of anglers wouldn’t now think of killing a fish. The ban, in Scotland, on the sale of all rod caught salmon has provided a further disincentive to the killing of fish. But catch and release should not, in all places at all times, become compulsory. Sustainability is the key. Catch and release has a part to play, as a tool of conservation but not as an eleventh commandment in the new testament of the Church of Latter Day Tree Huggers. It is worth remembering that a river can sustain a limited number of juvenile fish. In many rivers, the harvesting, by anglers, of a proportion of the annual run, will have no adverse effect on fish stocks. Where there is the slightest suspicion that the run of migratory fish is insufficient to fully populate the nursery streams, then, of course, all fish caught should be returned. Where stocks are healthy, though, I would have no hesitation in taking a fish for the table. Sometimes now, when I go fishing, I return all fish caught, brow-beaten into subconscious submission by the C&R protagonists..... but there is a feeling, then, that something in the experience is missing, that I am some kind of frivolous fraud, there for the wrong reasons.
|
|
|
Post by salmonking on Oct 19, 2007 19:24:43 GMT
Back to the original thread,as this has got derailed,,,,, those superb fish,,,a pair that would have run the river together and spawned,,,if so what superb genes to fruit had they done so.
|
|
|
Post by neptune on Oct 19, 2007 19:33:54 GMT
i think there should be a compulsory c&r every year maybe every 2nd month or dedicated days weeks or months throughout the year. if people are really desperate to get 1 for the table i know a fish monger (a real one not an angler) whos prices are very reasonable i know there will be a big percentage who will dissagree with this idea but in 20 years time when the fish are gone they may look back & think i wish id not taken all those fish
|
|
|
Post by John Gray on Oct 19, 2007 19:35:11 GMT
Back to the original thread,as this has got derailed,,,,, those superb fish,,,a pair that would have run the river together and spawned,,,if so what superb genes to fruit had they done so. I cannot see why you think that the thread has been "derailed". It has simply gone from one thing to another, in the way of every day conversation. Perhaps you might explain the purpose of your opening post, if not to stimulate discussion.
|
|
tweedsider
Active Member
Quietness is best
Posts: 993
|
Post by tweedsider on Oct 19, 2007 19:54:08 GMT
Back to the original thread,as this has got derailed,,,,, those superb fish,,,a pair that would have run the river together and spawned,,,if so what superb genes to fruit had they done so. If that angler on the photo, and I am not condemning him, had been fishing under the restriction of take one fish and stop fishing, one of these fish would have been spared. Should he have been fortunate enough to have caught a fish previously and taken it both would have been spared.
|
|
|
Post by salmonking on Oct 19, 2007 19:57:36 GMT
Yes John Gray,,,i thought you of all people may have commented that these were a pair,,and maybe shed some more light on running pairs of fish,,,but its no big deal,,as for the de railment they got chapped,,shame,,yes,,wish id got em,,,,maybe tommorro.
|
|
nessc
Active Member
Posts: 143
|
Post by nessc on Oct 19, 2007 19:57:47 GMT
Lets put a slant on things.
The angler in the photo has put back his last 30 salmon, including two 20lbers this season. Would people complain as much?
There are always two sides to every story.
|
|
|
Post by salmonking on Oct 19, 2007 19:59:27 GMT
Back to the original thread,as this has got derailed,,,,, those superb fish,,,a pair that would have run the river together and spawned,,,if so what superb genes to fruit had they done so. If that angler on the photo, and I am not condemning him, had been fishing under the restriction of take one fish and stop fishing, one of these fish would have been spared. Should he have been fortunate enough to have caught a fish previously and taken it both would have been spared. Don't you think mrs 16lbs would have missed mr 16lbs ?
|
|
tweedsider
Active Member
Quietness is best
Posts: 993
|
Post by tweedsider on Oct 19, 2007 20:32:25 GMT
[ Don't you think mrs 16lbs would have missed mr 16lbs ?[/quote]
I dont know if fish would be capable of this emotion, like the twa corbies the leddy would soon have found anither mate, and vice versa.
|
|
|
Post by sinkingtip on Oct 19, 2007 21:00:26 GMT
i think there should be a compulsory c&r every year maybe every 2nd month or dedicated days weeks or months throughout the year. if people are really desperate to get 1 for the table i know a fish monger (a real one not an angler) who's prices are very reasonable i know there will be a big percentage who will dissagree with this idea but in 20 years time when the fish are gone they may look back & think i wish id not taken all those fish Hi Nep - interesting concept but ........ might you not be running the risk of some unscrupulous riparian owners taking advantage of this "dedicated week / month" kill time thang by introducing a two tier pricing system ........ ie. Chappy Fishy - Payee Pricee ? Don't know - just asking. I have to admit that I am a fully paid up and card carrying cynic at the best of times but hey ! My views on C+R ? - total, immediate and without waiver. Look at how poorly my wee 'burn' has performed this season. We cant rely anymore on half measures, selective restrictions or the conservation mindedness of a few / many (delete as appropriate) enlightened and sensible fishers. Remember - I am mainly a Tay fisher ...... god help me STip - aka I.M. Jolly
|
|