Should the taking of trophy photos be banned?

dezza · Jan 6, 2012

On occasions I have watched anglers keep a fish as long as 6 minutes (by my watch) out of water in order to weigh it on two balances, and to get the right trophy shot.

Now I have got literally hundreds of photos of myself holding fish, so I don't want to seem to be some sort of angel. But in these more enlightened times, especially where keepnets are banned, should we also be banning photo sessions with fish. It's only another form of egotism, isn't it? And perhaps this sort of thing doesn't belong in modern angling.

But what do you think - should we ban the camera on the bank?

Bluenose · Jan 6, 2012

Lets just ban hooks and be done with!

Lord Paul of Sheffield · Jan 6, 2012

No Ron they shouldn't

you may as well ban horse racing for making horses run using a whip

What about those who capture animal and birds - hold them - tag them just so they can monitor there travels - surely that needs banning the stress it must casue the creatures

barbelboi · Jan 6, 2012

Ron The Hat Clay said:
But what do you think - should we ban the camera on the bank?

No Ron, IMO that would be as bad as the proposed 'unit' tax on booze that would penalize the millions of moderate drinkers for sake of a relatively small number of hooligan binge drinkers.
Jerry
PS No reference to the previous poster

Lord Paul of Sheffield · Jan 6, 2012

yes that unit tax has me darn worried - I may have to start stock piling booze:w

dangermouse · Jan 6, 2012

I`ve seen "no photos" on the rules of at least one commercial (can`t remember which). That`s their right of course but I doubt I`d fish anywhere that wouldn`t allow me to take a photo of a memorable fish. I rarely bother weighing a fish but I do like to grab a snapshot now and again.

chav professor · Jan 7, 2012

Properly organised photographs are fine. After landing, unhooking and weighing the chub I want to photograph, I place him back into the landing net and put him back in the water ensuring he cannot escape (its a deep pan type net).

Because I do self take pics I can faff about, get the tripod, organiose a point of focus, remove it, get the self timer set on the camera - and then, take the fish out of the water.

Quick picture, check its ok - maybe a slight adjustment for a better picture - then return. The fish has partially recovered in the net and is a bit lively, but If you hold them confidently, they don't seem to struggle. This process may take under two minutes.

rudd enthusiast · Jan 7, 2012

Chav professor is exactly right. Its about how you do it and placing the fish back into the net/sack/floatation sack, befor taking the shots themselves will ensure it stays strong and healthy.

I just wish my self takes came out as well as yours

mg:

chav professor · Jan 7, 2012

rudd enthusiast said:
Chav professor is exactly right. Its about how you do it and placing the fish back into the net/sack/floatation sack, befor taking the shots themselves will ensure it stays strong and healthy.

I just wish my self takes came out as well as yours mg:

Cheers Rudd. A lot of practice - at home!! remember, you can always edit or adjust the frame later. I used to use a remote shutter control, but disliked having a piece of equipment in the shot. I now use the 10s timer, which just gives enough time to return to the fish, compose and smile for the camera!

904_cannon · Jan 7, 2012

I once watched a video with the title of 'Fish Care' that lasted a few seconds short of 5 minutes. The 'angler' didn't even have forceps to remove a deeply set hook and at one time he threw himself over the poor fish to stop it thrashing about. All this was before any 'trophy' shot. This video was produced by the so called Brasside Carp Crew 'specimen' anglers of my own club

The few photographs I take usually finish up showing half the fish, my belly and a boot or two

After reading many many articles in the CSG magazine written by some very experienced angling photographers for over 25 years I really should be doing much better.

mark brailsford 2 · Jan 7, 2012

hope they don't ban photos before I have caught my record barbel!
seriously though, why should taking pics at the bank be banned? As long as the fish are handled properly and put back quickly and in the right manner there should not be need for concern.

Mark

richard bowler · Jan 7, 2012

A camera is the first thing I pack when going fishing, in fact my camera gear weighs more than the rest of my tackle. Photography now is more important to me than catching the fish, in fact I often stop my own fishing to get good shots for other anglers or nice senic's. Fish welfare is always at the top of my mind though, fish should be kept in the water until the last minute, camera setting have already been sorted unhooking mat placed in position. A photo shoot is over in under a minute.
I always wear breathable chest waders, where possible I like to get in the water with the fish (especially barbel) that way the fish is out the water for seconds.
In the past I've put back 4lb perch and 15lb+ barbel without a picture as I was on my own and didn't want to risk the fish's welfare.
There will always be people who put the picture first, this is true also in wildlife photography, Last winter while photographing waxwings one photographer ignored the rest of us standing a safe distance away and set up under the bush they were feeding on, spooking the flock. He was left in no doubt about his behaviour by the other photographers, prehaps instead of banning photographs clubs should set out rules for photography that must be followed.
All the best
Richard
- Home

chav professor · Jan 7, 2012

It is an admirable quality that you felt it best to release specimen sized fish without a photograph (that sounds so patronising-----sorry, not meant to read quite like that). I personally think that fish welfare is not seriously comprimised if removed from the water for as short a time as possible.

In fact, retaining for a short time in the landing net IS good practice as the fish has already had its welfare comprimised in the catching and landing. resting in a net allows the fish to break down the products of anearobic respiration.

When you do take self take photos organisation is the key. Rest the fish and plan every step in your mind before you take the fish out of the water a second time.

I don't think fishing needs more rules, this is an aspect of the sport that really winds me up. Yes I abide by them - but most if not all rules are often rediculous, based on predudice or target the stupid few - not fish welfare.

Guide lines for safe handling of fish and photography is more welcome and is more likely to be followed. Most poor practice is down to ignorance.

soffit · Jan 7, 2012

Dvd's of famous anglers could show a bit of a lead here. Last one I recall is a chap standing with a bloody great perch in each hand held at head height! Perhaps he administered the priest just enough to render them placid?

dezza · Jan 7, 2012

It's comforting to know that the responses to this thread are in line with my own ideals. I also carry a camera whenever I go fishing, but due to the fact that most of my fishing is done alone, the vast majority of my specimen fish photos show the fish laid on the grass or an unhooking mat with the rod and reel placed next to the fish to show size.

However in the last two years I have been told twice to take my camera back to my car and keep it there, as photography had been banned by the committee. When I asked why, I was told that photos had appeared in the press and this caused the fishery to be poached.

There is also the possibility that a trophy shot might reveal the location of where a fish was caught.

I've had that problem too.

richard bowler · Jan 7, 2012

I agree that guidlines are preferable than rules, though I'd rather rules than banning.
I think really it's down to good fish welfare, from where you place your hookbait right down to how you release your fish. All to often I've seen catch at all cost with no respect for the fish. In my opinion there's no excuse for not putting the fish first. That sounds like me getting on my high horse but I've witnessed people fishing over the top of mid river rushes recently where the only way to land a fish would be to drag it through the bulrushes, barbel not being given a chance to recover in the net before being dragged out to unhook and photograph, these are all common sense things that should be second nature it does make me want to despair at times.
All the best
Richard
- Home

waggy · Jan 7, 2012

chav professor said:
Properly organised photographs are fine. After landing, unhooking and weighing the chub I want to photograph, I place him back into the landing net and put him back in the water ensuring he cannot escape (its a deep pan type net).

Because I do self take pics I can faff about, get the tripod, organiose a point of focus, remove it, get the self timer set on the camera - and then, take the fish out of the water.

Quick picture, check its ok - maybe a slight adjustment for a better picture - then return. The fish has partially recovered in the net and is a bit lively, but If you hold them confidently, they don't seem to struggle. This process may take under two minutes.

I wouldn't have thought this was the best fish shot to show for the subject under discussion, Chav.
Although not caused by anything You've done, I think; the tail deformation and recent lower lobe damage raise suspicions of previous bad handling, as could the healed scale damage just above your right hand fingers.
Just my opinion, but the tail deformations may be due to net previous confinement.

little oik · Jan 7, 2012

The majority of the fish I catch are returned with as minimal of handling as possible (ie if lip hooked no touched at all.).In my opinion handling a fish can lead to possible problems as you are actually holding a cold blooded animal with warm hands and also the slime on a fish is a defence against infection etc ,so touching it with your hands will remove some of it .
The only Photographs I tend to take are of a notable looking fish and then its taken when in the landing net or on a mat .

chav professor · Jan 7, 2012

waggy said:
I wouldn't have thought this was the best fish shot to show for the subject under discussion, Chav.
Although not caused by anything You've done, I think; the tail deformation and recent lower lobe damage raise suspicions of previous bad handling, as could the healed scale damage just above your right hand fingers.
Just my opinion, but the tail deformations may be due to net previous confinement.

I have far more extreme examples of fin deformation in my albulm - attributed to otter damage, predation etc. Fish lead a tough existance! I would be very surprised if this fish has been retained, it comes from a little fished stretch.............. Tails become torn for a number of reasons. Angling is but one. I shall not use tail damage as a tool for fish recognition as it should grow back in time.

It is the perfect picture to illistrate my point. It was taken on friday 6th Jan 2012, it was landed, allowed to recover by resting it in the folds of a deep landing net. The photography kit was organised on the bank. A practice shot taken to ensure every was OK. The fish was then photographed (2 shots on a 10 second timer) and returned.

Why did I photograph it in the first place? I keep a photo journal, diary and like to identify fish to see how common recapture occur. Mostly I photograph in the landing net. Its part of my enjoyment of the sport and is legitamit and causes little or no harm compared to the initial contact and unhooking etc.

cg74 · Jan 7, 2012

chav professor said:
It is an admirable quality that you felt it best to release specimen sized fish without a photograph (that sounds so patronising-----sorry, not meant to read quite like that). I personally think that fish welfare is not seriously comprimised if removed from the water for as short a time as possible.

I wholly agree. That said I only ever take pics of fish purely for identity purposes; a pic of a fish layed flat on a mat with a size reference, like a rod and reel.

I'm not saying others should follow suit but maybe some should consider why they feel the need to take so many pics. A mate of mine used to email me pics of every chub he caught over 4lbs, after a while I had to tell him I only wanted 7lbers+. I was delighted to wait two seasons for the next pic and even more pleased for him that it weighed 7-06.

Should the taking of trophy photos be banned?

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Banned

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member