Is it worth killing a fish, just to try and claim a record??

I

Ian Cloke

Guest
A monster shark caught off Guernsey would still be alive ? if only it had been smaller.

James Allen, who spent nearly an hour battling to reel in the 295lb porbeagle, said he would have set it free had it not been a record catch.
?We weren?t planning on keeping it but we thought that it must be a record so we brought it in,? said the 26-year-old. ?We would have thrown it back otherwise, because it?s only recreational fishing so I don?t usually think you should keep them.?
The creature was enjoyed by many islanders yesterday as Checkers sold it for ?2.99 per lb.
?I didn?t know what to do with it so I gave it to my mate who put it in his van and took it to Checkers.?
The supermarket?s fishmonger, Simon Newton, confirmed it had been a big hit with customers.
?We have nothing left,? he said. ?It?s been great and we?ve sold loads of it. It?s the fifth porbeagle we?ve had in two years and it always goes down well.?
The porbeagle is listed by Cites (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) as vulnerable to extinction.
The convention has three lists and the shark features in Appendix II, which sets out species that are not in current danger of extinction but could become so unless trade in them is closely monitored.
Guernsey Press angling correspondent Len Le Page said there were no commercial fishermen in Guernsey who fished for porbeagle.
?Fewer than 10 have been killed in local waters in the last 20 years. The French have killed lots commercially but I do not know of any Guernsey fisherman who fishes for shark intentionally,? he said.
?If we were killing 50 or 60 porbeagle sharks a week, I would say hang on but there are so few that are killed. The angling commitment for shark has been extremely low-key for many years and that?s not going to change.?
Jon Torode, senior sea fisheries officer for Commerce and Employment, said Guernsey followed the EU?s lead on endangered species.
?Porbeagles are a species that have been caught here for many years,? he said. ?I don?t think people target them any more and if Defra in the UK or the European policy on fisheries made a decision on them, then we would follow that.?
Marine enthusiast and educator Richard Lord said that people needed to be responsible.
?There was a big fishery for them in the 1960s,? he said. ?They have the best eating meat of any of the sharks. The listing of them as vulnerable is a fairly new thing and there are lots of responsible anglers in Guernsey, but there is a constant battle.
?I think everyone has to be responsible. I?m not for targeting them but I think it should be up to the individual?s choice.?
 

alan

Well-known member
Joined
May 4, 2003
Messages
2,315
Reaction score
1
Location
portsmouth
No.

fish for them by all means,
keeping a small one for a meal, not a problem,
killing something for a record, and then not knowing what to do with it makes the bloke an idiot.
what would he have done if the shop didnt want it?
 

Alan Tyler

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
4,282
Reaction score
51
Location
Barnet, S.Herts/N. London
So, is a fishy flavour a worthier cause for a fish to die for than a place in angling history?
A fish in a glss case - or a photo - lives on in our minds in a way that yesterday's pizza topping doesn't.
A big fish is valuable as breeding stock, but it's still just a fish - like any other Joe Anchovy.
 
T

The Monk

Guest
Joe Anchovy, wasnt he the anchovy on top of my ASDA Pizza last friday night?
 
T

The Monk

Guest
I think killing for food is acceptable but killing for a record is something else, unless you are a staving Marvin and going to eat it afterwards
 
T

The Monk

Guest
actually I could probably be a veggie quite easily,

mind you I do like me Kebabas and full English
 
J

Jonathan Northmore BA HONS

Guest
Killiing for food...........fine.

Killing just for a record.............not fine.

Killing for food which also happens to be a record.........fine.





















Anchovies..................no no no no no no no no no NO!
 

Alan Tyler

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
4,282
Reaction score
51
Location
Barnet, S.Herts/N. London
But nobody actually NEEDS to eat lots of tiny fish! One dead shark = lots of meals, one dead anchovy = a mere smear of flavour. But from the perspective of the individual fish, death was identically terminal.
To further complicate things, what about fish-skin leather? Tremendously durable; much easier to work than hide; is it only ok to make leather as a by-product from fish killed primarily for food?
Or is edible flesh to be considered a happy side-crop of fish killed for their skin ( as far as I know, all tanned fish-skin currently produced is from farmed fish (unless someone's still making "shagreen"), so this isn't a "real world" argument, but things could change).
 
T

The Monk

Guest
anchovy`s are not just used for flavoring though, they also contain healthy and nutrious mineral salts, in addition they sit lower down in the food chain, they are presently plentiful and of course support fauna in the higher chain, the shark however is more limited in numbers and thus a rarer commodity with greater ecological value which requires a greater survival rate, anchovies are higher in number for the very reason they have a lesser survival rate, they breed more prolifically for that reason
 
Top