Fishing petition

As many of you will already know, the last petition was 'pulled', due to somewhat emotive wording, this has now been amended.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/fishremoval/

Done.

Let's hope this one does better, I can't see anything wrong with it.

What will this petition do exactly?

Don't get me wrong, i'm all for preventing the illegal removing of fish from anywhere. But isn't this petition the same as saying:

I want to legislate against the illegal removal of TVs from houses

or

I want to legislate against people nicking bikes from bike sheds?

This is an angling site mate,some of us are concerned about fish thefts, that's what the petitions all about.

But a petition isn't going to do anything is it.

It may have no effect at all but at least it will bring the matter to someone's attention. There again, you just never know what will happen with any government.

Much better to have your voice heard than for the government to think there isn't enough complaints to worry about.

I agree Terry but for me it doesn't go far enough.

I would like the petition to ''Stop the removal of all coarse fish from our waters'' (Including eels which are now an endangered species.)

Then there would be no confusion as to how many fish can be legally removed, make it an offence across the board so everyone, irrespective of their nationality will know it's illegal to take fish away.

It still puzzles me as to why people in this day and age want to take fish home for the pot anyway, not only is it unneccessary but I find itslightly selfish in the fact that you are taking away another mansenjoyment in catching it in the future.

Everyone know my views on Eastern Europeans andillegal fishing. I have never saidthey are responsible for ALL fish thefts (before anyone else jumps on the bandwagon to have a pop) The fact is a lotof fish thefts are carried out by them so what I am suggesting is to make it illegal to removeANY coarse fish, soeveryone understands the law and we as anglers can enjoy catchingthem for many years to come.

Do you not think that some of the people taking these fish KNOW it's illegal.

Do you really think that if it was made illegal to take any fish from the rivers, that the number of thefts would decrease?

I do but the problem is it IS legal to take fish at the moment, usually two,depending on bylaws, and that is exactly the problem, knowing where and how many you can take within the law.

What I am suggesting will stop all of that.

Making it illegal would help yes but it wouldn't stop it totally, obviously people have a choice if they choose to break the law or not. It's better to have a law than none at all dont you think?

Is that not just shooting ourselves in the foot?

How

Imagine you are an anti and you hearthat fishermen/women can now not take fish from the rivers for the pot.

Isn't that the point of fishing in the first place? Does that not sound like something they would jump all over?

You say it is not necessary to take fish for the pot, BUT by your logic it is also not necessary for me to go shooting for rabbits, pheasants and pigeons. So lets stop that too?

What about Salmon and Trout? No need to take them as we can buy them in supermarkets. So lets have a ban on taking them too?

Completely hopeless. The minute you introduce the word "unreasonably" or "reasonably" you've lost the plot. A waste of time signing I am afraid.

And I'm not even against the proposition as framed. It's just that my definition of "reasonably" does include taking the two fish for the pot not less than thespecified sizes allowed by present Thames area regulations....

But the framers of the proposition have no doubt got other ideas for what "reasonably" should or should not mean. Return to square one.

Imagine you are an anti and you hearthat fishermen/women can now not take fish from the rivers for the pot.

Isn't that the point of fishing in the first place? Does that not sound like something they would jump all over?

Look mate, I'm sure the vast majority of people know it is a sport and we as anglers release the fish, unharmed to swim away. Isn't that better for the fish than cracking it over the head?

You say it is not necessary to take fish for the pot, BUT by your logic it is also not necessary for me to go shooting for rabbits, pheasants and pigeons. So lets stop that too?

As I said im my earlier post I am talking about fish, let me remind you that this is an ANGLING site.

What about Salmon and Trout? No need to take them as we can buy them in supermarkets. So lets have a ban on taking them too?

Read my post again, I said COARSE fish.

Paul, what you advocate is basically a law which says the fish whichI catch for pleasure and then return to be caught again are more important than the fish which you catch to eat.

This makes emminent sense to an angler butI am less sure the logic adds up to anyone else.

By removing the right to take fish for the table, the sole rationale for angling is that it is for our pleasure.We therefore remove at a stroke a crucial argument against the antis in the future.It is far easier for them to make a case for the banning of angling for pleasure that it would be if the right to take fish for the table was preserved.A key plank of the argument against the antis is that the right to fish is a long estblished right and taking it away is a removal of a fundamental liberty.That is weakened if we are ourselves have already voluntarily sought the equally fundamnetal liberty to take fish to eat.

Jonathan is right in that the majority of fish thefts in this country are illegal either because they are from private waters, in breach of by-laws or by unlicensed anglers.Due to the lack of enforcement, fish theft continues regrdless.How would the introduction of another unenforced law assist?

IMHO the answer to this issue is by rationalising very confusing by -laws to establish a uniform limit of two fish to be taken and on the back of that a program of eductaion/information on waters where this is an ongoing problem.Private fishery owners of course already have the law of theft and trespass on their side and like any commercial interest should take the necessary steps to protect their assets.

"Look mate, I'm sure the vast majority of people know it is a sport and we as anglers release the fish, unharmed to swim away. Isn't that better for the fish than cracking it over the head?"

This is a dangerous presumption to make.I believe catch and release angling in Germany is now banned just because the perception is that it is LESS cruel to kill the fish than release it for repeat capture.

We go down this route at considerable peril.Strategic thinking is needed, not a knee jerk reaction.

Paul,

It doesn't matter whether you are talking about fish, coarse or otherwise. Your same logic can be applied to the rabbit shooting scenario.

I have no problem what-so-ever with anyone taking any animal's life in order to eat it.

Nigel, you make a lot of good points, everyone has their own views on this I'm sure. I totally understand your point about us giving up our right to take fish for the table but isn't that something justto appease the antis? Are we saying we'll let them have that one hoping it will satisfy them so they'll leave us alone? Where will it stop?

If you askedall non anglers 'is it more acceptable to kill the fish or let them go' i'm surea vast majority would say the latter.

If the antis want to try and stop angling I don't think the law about taking fish for the table will make a scrap of difference to them, but it will to the fish.

If the antis want to try and stop angling I don't think the law about taking fish for the table will make a scrap of difference to them

They would rather you did takefishwouldn't they? Wasn't this brought up on here sometime ago?

Paul, Its not so much about appeasement as ensuring that the sport has as much protection as possible when the anti's pressure is turned upon it, as one day , maybe not in our lifetime, but in our children's life time, it surely will.

The antis will want to stop angling for whatever purpose.Retatining the right to fish for the table and not just for sport, is about convincing the non-committed of our right to continue to fish.

I personally will not support any total restriction on the taking of coarse fish for that reason.IfI felt it would make a difference,I might swallow my concerns but since it will not due to lack of enforcement resources, then my opposition is strengthened.

I have no problem what-so-ever with anyone taking any animal's life in order to eat it.

Jonathan, that is your view and I eat meat myself but a lot of people would disagree with that.

A scenario for you; You are fishing on a lovely river in beautiful surroundings, along comes a guy, starts fishing, catches a lovely carp, 20lbs say, then smashes its skull in and puts it in a black bin liner. Then a few moments later he catches a 12lb barbel and does the same thing.Because he can and it's within the law. Would you feel comfortable with that? Could you accept that and carry on as if nothing happened? Because I bloody well couldn't! Are we saying that behaviour is acceptable because there is no law against it? To my way of thinking there is no place for that in this day and age.

I still think that by reserving the right to take fish you are doing simply that, appeasing the antis, but it won't, they will want more and more, where will it end? Like Germany where it's an offence to actually put fish back? If that happens here I for one will give up angling altogether.

Fishing is a sport, not a cull.