Trophy Shot

[Carp Angler]

I can't answer your question, as I previously said, because I don't know how to.

I've been told that gloving pike is a great way to land them, but I wouldn't tell people how to do it because I don't know and haven't done it myself.

If it's the question of trophy shots, then I don't like most trophy net shots, as I previously commented, some aren't bad and some are abysmal.
Grahams photo isn't bad, I personally wouldn't do it, but it's not heinous.
100lb+ of large carp in a net on boards is atrocious and these I do not like.
But some are OK.

Not a one word answer, but then nothing is ever as clear as that, except maybe the virginity question......

 

[Stewart Bloor]

Goose, it's not a case of upsetting Graham, or not, as the case may be. I do have a mind of my own, you know. It's just that most subjects raised are not always as black and white as those who raise them would like to make out.
The notion that eradicating photos like this would somehow appease the anti's is a non-starter. I've shared my thoughts on that (even by mentioning keep nets) in this weeks PP. I know your objection is not to the use of keepnets, but to their mis-use, and I do understand your concerns. It's a good question to raise, we need more disscussion from those who actually take photos like this on a regular basis.
I'm outa here....

 

[GrahamM]

Goose, I answered as requested with a straight 'no' mainly to illustrate that 'yes' or 'no' answers are useless. Most often they are not answers at all without qualifications are they?

And when someone asks for a straight yes or no it's usually because they've already made their mind up about something and don't really want to debate it. Hardly forum material then, eh?

Right, so let me give you a proper answer.

First, I'm for the use of keepnets where appropriate, providing they're used correctly - staked out in sufficiently deep water, in the shade, and not over-filled (there is an NFA Keepnet Code which spells it all out). Most of it is common sense.

But, I understand that not all anglers are careful enough in their use of keepnets and therefore they're banned by many fisheries. That's fair enough, and I don't disagree with that. I tend to look at keepnets from my own perspective, in that when I do use them I use them properly and the fish go back undamaged. Although it should be said that I rarely carry a keepnet because for most of my fishing they're inappropriate and unnecessary.

The next point is that you have to understand that as well as being an angler I'm also an angling editor/writer/photographer and often have to think with a hat on to suit. Like it or not the fact is that many anglers do use keepnets and see them as much a part of their gear as the rod and line.

Although you don't see many, if any, keepnet shots in some magazines, particularly carp and specialist slanted magazines like Coarse Fisherman, you'll find plenty of them in match magazines.

FISHINGmagic tries to cover all angling disciplines and the Border Fisheries article was about an out an out match water and I debated with myself long and hard (I anticipated your forum thread, or one like it) before I decided that it would be appropriate to show a catch shot. After all, it is a water where a catch of small fish is the target and a picture feature would have been incomplete witout it.

The Border Fishery manager lent us keepnets and obviously gave permission for their use. He carefully transferred the fish to the landing net (as he does each week after matches, except the landing net is a weigh net), and a quick catch shot/trophy shot, whatever you want to call it, was taken.

But no, there won't be a glut of keepnet shots appearing in FISHINGmagic, but there may be the very occasional shot like the Border Fisheries one when I think it appropriate.

 

[Goose Ganderton]

Sedge, sorry if I gave the impression that you were unable to form your own opinion.

My only concern in this subject is the welfare of the fish, not trying to appease the antis.

But do you not think that by not using this type of picture, or indeed stopping this misuse of keepnets that it will remove just one of the many cruelty charges leveled at anglers.

Do you think that this use of keepnets is conducive fish welfare.

 

[GrahamM]

I think they're conducive to angler welfare, and that it's about time we stopped trying to appease the antis all the time and thought about what WE want. Or at least what many want.

No matter what else we discuss we all - every single one of us - stick hooks in fish. That's what we've got to stand by and be counted and we won't do that while we're tearing strips off each other about angling practises that we don't personally approve of.

Keepnets don't harm fish if used correctly. Let's limit their use by all means. But above all let's educate, not eradicate.

I could list one or two other angling practices that I don't think are good for fish, but I think the time has come when we should be pulling together and fighting the common enemy rather than ourselves.

 

[Paul Williams]

Goose,
I'll throw in my twopennorth worth!!..imo the antis cannot tell the difference between a sensibly used keepnet and one that is being abused, or come to that the use of a decent sack.
It is up to us to give guidlines within the sport and to point out errors of judgement made by other anglers.
To ban keepnets is the single most damaging act to angling i can imagine....think of the thousands of anglers we would lose, match and please anglers would desert in their droves.
Part of the exitment for me as a kid was to "bag up"how can we think of denying kids and newcommers that now?
I do own a modern roomy keepnet and i do use it now and again, i use it sensibly and i honestly don't believe that i cause fish mortailty with it.

 

[Goose Ganderton]

Graham firstly I am happy to debate any subject and will always respect the opinions of others. The reason that I asked for a Yes/No answer was just to have a straw poll on the subject, to gauge the feeling of others. I did not want reopen the use of keepnet debate, which has been done to death.

As I have already stated I am not against the correct use of Keepnets, sacks or tubes and indeed I will use all three if I feel it is appropriate.
This was not the question I asked.

I realise that you have a job to do, I for one think you do a sterling one as editor of this site, and have enjoyed your writing for more years than I care to remember. But if you are unaware of the feeling of others you soon become out of touch with members feeling and would therefore be failing in your duties.

I am unaware of the feeling of other members on this matter and was just hoping for a straw poll to get a better understanding of their feelings on the subject.

You can?t please all of the people all of the time.
But it helps to know what the split is, wouldn?t you agree

 

[GrahamM]

I have a better understanding now of where you're coming from. Perhaps it would have been better if you'd said you just wanted a yes/no answer from everyone. But that would make for a really boring forum wouldn't it.

And you're right, you can't please all the people all the time - but it can sometimes be good fun trying, and knowing, for an absolute fact, that someone, somewhere, will be stood at the edge of a great height, waiting to jump........

 

[Goose Ganderton]

Guy?s can we just stop a mo and take stock. I have NOT said that we should ban keepnets as Paul seems to think. I would NEVER dream of such a thing and I would be the first to oppose such a suggestion.

I would also agree with Graham that keepnets do not harm fish if used correctly.

I have not interest in trying to appease the antis. I personally would like to drown the lot of them.

I personally do not feel that is it conducive to fish welfare to haul a net full of fish on to the bank just for the purpose of getting a trophy photograph.
No angler can guarantee that it will not cause unnecessary damage to some of the fish.

That?s all my argument is, no more, no less.

 

[Paul Williams]

Goose,
Sorry if it came over that you were suggesting that keepnets were banned......it is just that there are others who do seem intent on telling us that this and that should be banned and it does i suppose make me angry.
It is nice to know we are basically on the same side.....so please don't cross me off that waiting list!!!!!lol

 

[john conway]

Here’s my opinion, but it can’t be just a yes or no. I don’t have a problem with the correct use of keep-nets nor the appropriate shot of the days catch. If taking such shots is inappropriate because it shows fish which may be stressed or damaged, and this is something which is to be discouraged, then in a roundabout way we are saying ban keep-nets. And if we are not saying ban keep-nets then we must be saying, it’s OK to stress fish but lets keep it quiet! Sorry but I think this has been said before “ we educate not eradicate”.

 

[Andrew Miller]

I do see what Goose is getting at. But it seems strange to me that Goose is happy to pose with his big fish. Surely that is just as much as a trophy shot as the one in graham article. I am sure that the picture was taken with the mimumum of distress BUT as long as the fish/fishes were out of the water there will alway be a stress factor
Windy

 

[Goose Ganderton]

John that was a great non answers. I think you and Windy have totally missed the point. The original question I asked was.

DO YOU WANT TO SEE KEEPNET TROPHY PICTURES ON THIS SITE?

Nothing to do with the use of keepnets or the banning of them.

Nothing to do with trophy pictures of fish (other than those shown where there is a large number of fish in a net on the bank.

 

[john conway]

You don't need to shout Goose, I'm not deaf, no I don’t mind pictures of fish in keep-nets on this site.

 

[Goose Ganderton]

Thats all I was asking John.
Thank you.

 

[DAVE COOPER]

I have been reading this thread for a couple of days now and have been tempted to reply before, but have held back to think the question through and make sure I believe my own answer.

It might seem a silly thing to say but in the heat of the moment, especially now, I tend to say 'do what the hell you like and sod upsetting anyone else' because I get really annoyed when I see the angling fraternity bending over backwards to appease an audience we shouldn't give a sod about.

However, I have thought about this one and I still come the same conclusion. I don't mind trophy shots of multiple fish catches. As said by others, if done correctly, I don't think it does any harm.

I have been fishing for more than 30 of my 40 years and have taken this kind of shot on a number of occassions. (Overjoyed would be me if I could catch that many on a more frequent basis). I can honestly say that I can't remember a time when a fish has not swum strongly back into it's home.

Therefore, from my point of view, I am happy with taking that kind of shot and I am happy that I still have the welfare of the fish in mind. Therefore I cannot be unhappy with others doing it or with this site for publishing such shots.

 

[Goose Ganderton]

Dave, thank you for your answer. I respect your honesty and your opinion, may I also add that it was so refreshing to read that you had thought about the question then answered from the heart and not fudged around the issue.

Can I further add that I am in no way interested in appeasing the anti angling scum withwho I hold in utter contempt. The original post was just my personal opinion on the matter.

Once again thank?s Dave for your well-constructed and honest reply.

 

[Andrew Miller]

Well you have to shout at me as I am profoundly deaf!!!! I don't mind any trophy shot (INCLUDING KEEPNET) as long as the situation was kept as brief as possible.
Windy

 

[Philip Inzani]

OK here goes my opinion. Although I would not want to see keepnets banned I think they are one area that really does need to be looked at very carefully. IMO the greatest damage occurs at the point the net if removed from the water and unfortunately keepnets do encourage people to fill the net up and then drag it out to have a look ....why else would you use one if you are not fishing in a match ?
I mean, how many anglers fill the net only to carefully tip all the fish back at the end of the day without taking a look at it!

So I guess that my conclusion would be to not allow keepnets if there was not a good reason, to use them?and only good reason I can think of so far is in a match situation

..am I right in thinking that some matches on commercial Carp fisheries require more than one weigh in to minimise damage to fish ?

 

[DAVE COOPER]

Philip - you are right, some fisheries do have more than one weigh in. This is because match nets on some fisheries regularly top one hundred pounds.

Clattercote, where we are fishing on Saturday, make you use two nets, one for carp and one for silver fish.

But I can't agree with you that a match situation is the only valid reason for using a keepnet. When I am roach fishing on the float and get a reasonable bag, I like to see my catch at the end of the day and if I feel like it take a photo.

If I am perch fishing on a river where I know I can take four or more decent fish in a session, I will use a keepnet and photgraph all the fish together at the end of the session or after a reasonable period.

I am sorry, but I can't see the problem with this as long as the fish are treated sensibly and returned unharmed.