Use of Keep Nets?

[peterjg]

Although I do have a keepnet I have not used one for many, many years.

I am reluctant to use one and prefer to just gently release straight back any fish that I catch.

I have often wondered though if releasing the fish straight back scares or unsettles any other fish in the swim? Or does the use of a keepnet cause even more disturbance?

I don't want to have to keep getting up and down to put the fish back in along the bank. I would never put either a barbel or carp in a keepnet whether the net was approved or not.

Does the use of a keepnet cause overall more unnecessary disturbance and is therefore more disadvantageous?

 

[sam vimes]

I'm very similar in the lack of use my keepnet gets. However, I'm fairly positive that sensible use of them can be advantageous to an angler in some situations. It's nigh on impossible to be absolutely conclusive in this regard though. I have been convinced that bigger nets of dace, and perhaps chub, can be accumulated with the use of a keepnet, especially in low, clear water conditions. I've also had days when fishing clear stillwaters for roach and rudd where the use of a keepnet has seemed beneficial.

 

[Philip]

I think I have 4 keepnets of various sizes but like others they rarely get used...in fact thinking about it 3 of those 4 have never been used !

The reason I have used one on occasion is to avoid putting fish directly back into the swim if I suspect I catch a bag of fish rather than just 1. However I dont set the net up in the swim itself as then it would be self defeating...the disturbance from the net messing it up anyway so it tends tp be in situations were I am either trotting or ledgering to a spot some way away from were I am actually sitting with the net.

Or to put it another way, if I was catching fish at my feet I would not bother sticking a net at my feet as I may as well just return the fish. In this situation I usually walk the fish some way away to release it...although even then getting up and down all the time can mess it up too so overall I would say its best to fish to a spot if you can rather than plonk yourself in the spot.

If that makes any sense at all !

 

[barbelboi]

I believe that the 'releasing fish' theory is debatable - however, I do believe that bumping fish off will generally spook the shoal..................

 

[tigger]

Imo and experiences relaeasing fish straight back into the swim does not frighten other fish away or kill hthe swim, infact i've released fish into my swim only to catch them again during the same session and that's happened numerous times.
Regarding bumping fish I just never seem to have that problem......as I said recently on another thread "maybe it's down to my superiour choice in mono" as I could use a boat road designed for sharks and still don't bump any fish.

 

[terry m]

Completely agree that the ‘releasing the fish theory ‘ is unfounded and a shallow attempt at justification of an outdated practice.

 

[Philip]

if you have anything to share that proves its unfounded Terry I am all ears as i imagine others will be.

..and i am being serious because i would love to change my opinion that there are occasions when releasing a fish into a swim will hinder you chances of further fish, if for nothing else but to know i can forget about ever having to lug about and put wet smelly nets into my car ever again.

 

[tigger]

if you have anything to share that proves its unfounded Terry I am all ears as i imagine others will be.

..and i am being serious because i would love to change my opinion that there are occasions when releasing a fish into a swim will hinder you chances of further fish, if for nothing else but to know i can forget about ever having to lug about and put wet smelly nets into my car ever again.

Nearly everytime I go fishing i prove thaat it's an unfounded theory.
I always release the fish straight back into my swim and it's never stopped me catching others on the next trott through lol.

Oh, I never lug a keep net round .

 

[sam vimes]

Nearly everytime I go fishing i prove thaat it's an unfounded theory.
I always release the fish straight back into my swim and it's never stopped me catching others on the next trott through lol.

Oh, I never lug a keep net round .

Much like the use, or not, of bait additives, it's simply not possible to prove or disprove. Whilst you can theorize that it makes no difference, in your experience, you'll never know for sure that using a keepnet wouldn't result in you catching even more.

 

[Philip]

Nearly everytime I go fishing i prove thaat it's an unfounded theory.
I always release the fish straight back into my swim and it's never stopped me catching others on the next trott through lol.

Oh well in that case nearly every time I go fishing I prove its a theory thats founded on perfect sense beause when I put my fish in nets & I catch loads of others after.

Stop spouting hot air !!!

I dont care how brilliant you are in your own head or how right you think you ALWAYS (....always...) are. Show some FACTS and PROOF of what your saying.

Well hacked off now.

 

[tigger]

Much like the use, or not, of bait additives, it's simply not possible to prove or disprove. Whilst you can theorize that it makes no difference, in your experience, you'll never know for sure that using a keepnet wouldn't result in you catching even more.

If I keep catching on virtualy every trot or cast then I couldn't have caught any more. Recently i've kept a few fish in the landing net head for a picture and by doing that it didn't make me get any more bites, the bites carry on just the same as soon as i release all the fish in the net head also. For me that's proof enough. I don't know what people think the released fish do that frightens the rest away?....they don't all bolt of because a fish rejoins em. If they where gonna bolt off then i'm sure seeing the fish being wound in and going crazy would acheive that better.
At the end of the day it's up to the individual wether they use a net or not, but I certainly won't be carrying one round with me.

 

[tigger]

Oh well in that case nearly every time I go fishing I prove its a theory thats founded on perfect sense beause when I put my fish in nets & I catch loads of others after.

Stop spouting hot air !!!

I dont care how brilliant you are in your own head or how right you think you ALWAYS (....always...) are. Show some FACTS and PROOF of what your saying.

Well hacked off now.

PMSL...at you hahaha.

 

[sam vimes]

If I keep catching on virtualy every trot or cast then I couldn't have caught any more. Recently i've kept a few fish in the landing net head for a picture and by doing that it didn't make me get any more bites, the bites carry on just the same as soon as i release all the fish in the net head also. For me that's proof enough. I don't know what people think the released fish do that frightens the rest away?....they don't all bolt of because a fish rejoins em. If they where gonna bolt off then i'm sure seeing the fish being wound in and going crazy would acheive that better.
At the end of the day it's up to the individual wether they use a net or not, but I certainly won't be carrying one round with me.

It may be proof enough for you, but that's nowhere near being empirical proof.
You catching every trot through is indicative of a day that they are really having it. What about the days when they aren't? What about the days when the bites dry up for no obvious reason? How do you know that using a keepnet wouldn't have kept bites coming longer, especially if you never use a net? The bottom line is that no angler can give genuine empirical proof either way. Such is the nature of angling. It's all about gut feelings and and experiences. Neither count as genuine proof.

 

[Philip]

PMSL...at you hahaha.

So no facts. No proof. SURPRISE !

 

[tigger]

It may be proof enough for you, but that's nowhere near being empirical proof.
You catching every trot through is indicative of a day that they are really having it. What about the days when they aren't? What about the days when the bites dry up for no obvious reason? How do you know that using a keepnet wouldn't have kept bites coming longer, especially if you never use a net? The bottom line is that no angler can give genuine empirical proof either way. Such is the nature of angling. It's all about gut feelings and and experiences. Neither count as genuine proof]



Ok, gut feeling it is then, i'm happy to roll with that. I feel i've had enough experience fishing the waters I fish to trust my gut feelings on how things are going. I'm quite sure my catches wouldn't improve if I used a keepnet.

 

[peterjg]

I've been reading all the posts, thanks for the replies. There is obviously no definative answer to this issue? The use of keepnets does not stop canal anglers from catching - but would they have caught more without using a keepnet? I really don't know. Does the putting-in of the keepnet disturb fish - surely it must do - if you intend to fish close in.

Trying to look at this logically:
if I fish at range using a keepnet would not disturb the fish neither would returning the fish back into the swim - so why bother with a keepnet?
but
if I am fishing close-in a keepnet might disturb the fish so why use one?

Still no real answer? But, no, I won't start using a keepnet and I won't have to put a dripping keepnet in my car when I pack up.

 

[Philip]

if I fish at range using a keepnet would not disturb the fish neither would returning the fish back into the swim - so why bother with a keepnet?

Yes I see what you mean Peter however at least for me its question of what that distance actually is. At long range I agree compleatly but its when I am fishing to a spot thats not by my feet but still close enough that I feel a returned fish may spook others that I may use a net.

Also another use for a net outside matches is to keep livebait.

 

[108831]

I do believe Peter that if you fish smallish rivers,returning an upset chub can lessen your catch,I'm not saying a catch won't be made,but maybe a few more fish,possibly a better one may grace the net,as I've said on the other thread I don't bother,but I think it might help sometimes,to top that you wouldn't catch one twice,which imo is a bonus...

 

[mikench]

I must admit to finding this thread amusing ! What cannot be denied is that Tigger catches loads of fish and in his opinion releasing one in his swim has had little effect! Philip, with the vehemence of teenage years is equally adamant ( If I have interpreted him correctly) that using a keep net has kept his swim going! Sam is ambivalent without empirical proof! Well empirical or not there is no proof and unlikely to ever be !

If the little fishes are going to go back to their shoal and warn all their brethren of the potential dangers of the free food on offer( assuming roach can speak bream and Chub and so on) , they are as likely to communicate the same warnings from the net about their captivity! The presence of the net would be a visual warning also but clearly isn't!

Each to their own! I wish I could use a keep net sometimes if only to prove that my 40 odd roach are not a delusion! I can't however and I'm not at all concerned! I do enjoy looking at the nets Of Peter Crabtree and Nottskev stuffed with fish! In the latter case if fish were harmed or warning off the shoals, Kev would be constantly looking for new venues!:behindsofa:

 

[108831]

I must admit to finding this thread amusing ! What cannot be denied is that Tigger catches loads of fish and in his opinion releasing one in his swim has had little effect! Philip, with the vehemence of teenage years is equally adamant ( If I have interpreted him correctly) that using a keep net has kept his swim going! Sam is ambivalent without empirical proof! Well empirical or not there is no proof and unlikely to ever be !

If the little fishes are going to go back to their shoal and warn all their brethren of the potential dangers of the free food on offer( assuming roach can speak bream and Chub and so on) , they are as likely to communicate the same warnings from the net about their captivity! The presence of the net would be a visual warning also but clearly isn't!

Each to their own! I wish I could use a keep net sometimes if only to prove that my 40 odd roach are not a delusion! I can't however and I'm not at all concerned! I do enjoy looking at the nets Of Peter Crabtree and Nottskev stuffed with fish! In the latter case if fish were harmed or warning off the shoals, Kev would be constantly looking for new venues!:behindsofa:

Right Mike,Ian's venues can be larger,deeper,even so full of fish nothing would put them down,on the rivers im fishing populations are reduced,otters I'm afraid are leaving fewer fish to fish for,so unless I want to lug my tackle miles and fish several different pegs(which I don't enjoy as much as building a catch),no keep net means fewer fish,something I've noticed in the last three years sadly,whereas I could catch 8-10 chub in a day,often I only catch two or three.