Fish Welfare

Are we taking fish welfare too far now. I was looking at a new water till I read the rules, no braid main line or leaders, barbless hooks only, no hooks bigger than size 6. 42” landing net, carp cradles only to be used on carp, no carp on mats. All anglers must carry a first aid kit for fish. No lure fishing, no trebles when pike fishing. No coarse fish dead baits, no live baiting.
All these rules were put in place by the anglers for the welfare of the fish.

First aid on fish as always puzzled me, you damage the fish in the first place then you try to put it right.
Makes me wonder how some anglers can stick a hook in a fish in the first place.

If you find a sore where the hook has been or a red mark where a mirror has lost a scale for instance against a snag when being played, a dab of the liquid antiseptic is to stop infection.

steve2 said:

Are we taking fish welfare too far now. I was looking at a new water till I read the rules, no braid main line or leaders, barbless hooks only, no hooks bigger than size 6. 42” landing net, carp cradles only to be used on carp, no carp on mats. All anglers must carry a first aid kit for fish. No lure fishing, no trebles when pike fishing. No coarse fish dead baits, no live baiting.
All these rules were put in place by the anglers for the welfare of the fish.

First aid on fish as always puzzled me, you damage the fish in the first place then you try to put it right.
Makes me wonder how some anglers can stick a hook in a fish in the first place.

Click to expand...

I've nothing against sensible measures in aid of fish welfare if that's what they are but I find it a rather glaring oversight that there is no mention of a rule about keeping a fish out of water for a prolonged period of time whilst it's weighed and photographed on both sides and from every angle, it's something I have witnessed a fair bit over the years

I take it from the reference to pike that this is a mixed fishery?

I'm just wondering how the 42" landing net pans out with the average silver fish angler??

binka said:

I've nothing against sensible measures in aid of fish welfare if that's what they are but I find it a rather glaring oversight that there is no mention of a rule about keeping a fish out of water for a prolonged period of time whilst it's weighed and photographed on both sides and from every angle, it's something I have witnessed a fair bit over the years

I take it from the reference to pike that this is a mixed fishery?

I'm just wondering how the 42" landing net pans out with the average silver fish angler??

Click to expand...

Bang on Steve. With regarding photographing fish to death,which combined with weighing is a recipe for disaster. Surprisingly it's the experienced guys who are the main culprits. I won't make many friends saying this, but it's the truth.

Couldnt agree more with the above, how many pictures do people want, i rarely photograph anything, dont even carry a camera, and nothing more boring than being shown endless pictures of mid doubles, big deal, put them straight back unless it is something unusual. As for fish care, it doesnt hurt to help them a bit, but i have caught many fish with wounds from spawning, these are wild creatures and lifes rough, walk down any town centre when the nightclubs empty if you want to practice your first aid. Every fishery has different rules, some ban barbs, some ban barbless, some ban particle, some ban boilies, takes some reasoning to understand their motives, profit probably.

Raised this point before a couple of forums. Got slated on one and the other was in almost total agreement. Anyway, why is it permissible to show fish being held in the "American" way? You know, one thumb inside the mouth and hanging the fish down, often unsupported and at a sometimes ridiculous angle.

Of course not, but if you look at some of the old pictures of Richard Walkers captures, you will be horrified by what went on then.

soft plastic said:

Raised this point before a couple of forums. Got slated on one and the other was in almost total agreement. Anyway, why is it permissible to show fish being held in the "American" way? You know, one thumb inside the mouth and hanging the fish down, often unsupported and at a sometimes ridiculous angle.

Click to expand...

Not acceptable IMO, how would those that slated you feel if the were held up by the jaw?

wanderer said:

Of course not, but if you look at some of the old pictures of Richard Walkers captures, you will be horrified by what went on then.

Click to expand...

True, but equally many would be horrified to know that not only pike were gaffed, carp were too in the early days of carp fishing.

We have progressed in so many ways during the last seventy years, and that is something to applaud. The last one being the abolishment of the pike gaff and gag in my field. Now there's an example of genuine fish welfare.

Perchfishers advice is to avoid the holding of perch by the jaw, their handling code is here...

Perchfishers - The Perch

Derek Gibson said:

True, but equally many would be horrified to know that not only pike were gaffed, carp were too in the early days of carp fishing.

We have progressed in so many ways during the last seventy years, and that is something to applaud. The last one being the abolishment of the pike gaff and gag in my field. Now there's an example of genuine fish welfare.

Click to expand...

The use of the Gaff is what i was hinting at, there is a picture with Richard with two gaffed carp posing for the camera.

I'm all for a general raising of the bar with regards to fish welfare. However, I do believe that there's a fish welfare product arms race going on. Naturally, the various tackle manufacturers seem to be only too happy to go along with it. I firmly recall my early days of carping, where almost no one had anything resembling an unhooking mat. Soft vegetation or a canvas/poly sheet was about as good as it got. However, I don't recall seeing any greater level of casualties, fatal or non-fatal.

The next step amongst the carpers was the use of fairly basic covered foam mats. Things have progressed steadily since then. I now own a mat that is thicker than plenty of mattresses I've slept on, it's not far off the same size too. An awful lot of the time, the dimensions are fairly laughable as, sadly, I'll probably never come close to filling it. Similar can be said for many of the nets out there. We've got to the pitch where the standard, and often insisted upon, size is 42". On many venues this is simply way more than is really necessary. I'd also question the depth of many nets on the market. I see a few too many fish dragged across gravel due to excessively deep nets and overly short landing net poles.

I do carry one of the fishy antiseptic sets, though I rarely find that I need to use it. I'll often use nets I believe are appropriate for the fishery concerned (unless the rules insist) rather than sticking just to a standard 42" minimum with 6' pole. I also have poles much longer than the usual 6'. There are so many situations when 6' is just not adequate and fish welfar is compromised if that's all you've got available.

The one thing I've yet to be persuaded over are the merits of carp cradles. In some respects they are excellent. However, since seeing a fish dropped on one of the support bars, and dying as a result, I have reservations. Don't get me wrong, dropping a fish is never going to be good, but I suspect the fish would have survived the same drop onto a flat padded mat.

Ultimately, I do think that there are more than a few folk that seem to forget that the ultimate aim of angling is to stick hooks in fish. I'm also not keen on imposed handling codes or fisheries specifying certan makes/models of equipment. What does actually surprise me these days is that so few fisheries supply their own nets/mats/cradles etc for the use of visiting anglers. I believe that would be beneficial in a few ways, not least that their minimums are met, but also for disease prevention.

steve2 said:

Are we taking fish welfare too far now. I was looking at a new water till I read the rules, no braid main line or leaders, barbless hooks only, no hooks bigger than size 6. 42” landing net, carp cradles only to be used on carp, no carp on mats. All anglers must carry a first aid kit for fish. No lure fishing, no trebles when pike fishing. No coarse fish dead baits, no live baiting.
All these rules were put in place by the anglers for the welfare of the fish.

First aid on fish as always puzzled me, you damage the fish in the first place then you try to put it right.
Makes me wonder how some anglers can stick a hook in a fish in the first place.

Click to expand...

.

The single hook one for pike makes me laugh. That encourages people to hold back on the strike and therefore results in deep hooking.
I was talking to a guy in my local shop about this last night funnily enough. I've seen it on so many day ticket waters.

The net rule always makes me laugh too. They insist on big nets, but dont mention anything about how fine the mesh is. Have too big holes in the mesh, and it can tear the flesh between the spines on the fishes dorsal.

---------- Post added at 22:08 ---------- Previous post was at 22:04 ----------

Derek Gibson said:

True, but equally many would be horrified to know that not only pike were gaffed, carp were too in the early days of carp fishing.
.

Click to expand...

I remember seeing people weigh fish from under the gill too.

I remember Gaff's being used in Sea Fishing many, many years ago. Never really had a problem with that if the catch was going to be taken and eaten. Agree with Sam Vines and deep 42" landing nets when landing fish, far too large and deep for most occasions. Also have a few thoughts on anglers trying to prove how caring we are, in order to challenge the anti's and tackle Co's cashing in on that, but that's probably a whole new thread.

Times change - Gaffs were often used for pike, even in the 50's. Bob Richards record carp, the one before DW's, was gaffed as it was too big for the net and no one 'blinked an eye' then. It was then killed and stuffed.................

Oops, sorry Derek, missed your previous post............

binka said:

Perchfishers advice is to avoid the holding of perch by the jaw, their handling code is here...

Perchfishers - The Perch

Click to expand...

That's a good link, thanks for sharing.

I have to admit that I hold smaller perch in the mouth, I have always seen it done so presumed it was OK for the fish. I now consider myself educated and wont do it again A perfect example of why I joined this forum, there is always something to learn.

I do find the idea of fish welfare an interesting one, we go out of our way to yank a fish out of its natural environment by sticking a sharp hook in its mouth. It is almost ironic that we then worry about how we hold it when we get it out. If we were that worried about it, we'd leave it be and take up needlework or knitting

Last point on the welfare subject is keep nets, I see a few fisheries ban them too. Having not used one, do the fish get distressed being held on top of each other for several hours or is there another reason for them being banned?

dann said:

do the fish get distressed being held on top of each other for several hours or is there another reason for them being banned?

Click to expand...

If they are used correctly, there's often little issue. Unfortunately, many don't use them properly. However, they generally aren't a big problem unless the angler tries to cram too many fish in, the mesh is of a size that allows the serrated dorsal of fish like carp and barbel to become caught, people keep inappropriately large fish or inappropriate species in them, or people put the net in shallow, warm marginal water.

I very rarely use a keepnet. In most instances there's just no need for me to do so. However, once in a blue moon I will, usually when fishing for dace or roach. I've found that the use of a net actually increases my catch. Immediate reintroduction of caught shoal fish can see the shoal spooked prematurely.

Ultimately, like many fishery rules, the banning of keepnets is a lowest common denomintator thing. Though I can't say I blame any fishery for banning them.