Perhaps they may not be seeing the wood for the trees?

Well last night I went to a consultative fishing meeting, it's dominated with Game anglers, mainly salmon, don't have a problem at all with them btw. One discussion was about a 2 fish per season bag kill limit from next year onwards. In principle they agree with it, but bemoan the fact that stocks are still on the downward cycle and getting less and less each year.

Now it could just be me, but as a coarse angler sat listening to all this, the thought struck me, why are you talking about any bag limit at all?
Surly you should be talking about a moratorium of a no bag limit for the next 10 years.
If it's as bad as you're saying it is, then your fiddling whilst Rome Burns? To me the only logical answer to the diminishing stocks is not to take any and allow the stocks to build up then look at it in the hence period.
Should add there is two fish counters on the river, so it's not like there isn't any way of known how many year on year are running the river.

Opinions please!

It's an interesting one. I fish for sea trout but am, at heart, a coarse angler so my natural mind set is to return fish. I will take the odd fish if I'm lucky enough to get one but I have a real issue about taking fish for the table simply because I can. In my experience the mind set of predominantly game anglers is different.where salmon/sea trout are seen as a legitimate "crop" .....and I know people who will take every fish they catch and get really quite vociferous at any suggestion of a bag limit. I just don't get this at all..

I don't salmon fish but again in my experience albeit limited the thought of returning a salmon is a concept some people just don't seem to get. I might feel differently if I've paid a load of money to catch said fish but I will be damned if I'll kill any fish just to show it off....and there is a bit of that going on too.

Sea trout are not quite the same but even so I'd have a major problem killing a big one even though I am told the real lumps are not viable breeders so you're not really damaging future breeding stock by taking one. I landed then dropped straight back in a very big sea trout during the summer and had my own basic numptiness not made the decision to return it for me I'd have had a major dilemma over whether to take that fish or not. I think I probably would have but then felt bloody awful for doing so. For me its not about stock levels or brood stock....its the actual act of killing a magnificent fish which just seems inherently wrong ( or if not wrong at least not right) to someone brought up as a coarse angler.

It's not a big moral issue for me but one of the reasons I only fish c&r trout waters now is because I became quite fed up killing trout that I knew I didn't want. Again...it may not be wrong as such but it didn't feel right to me.

A no take limit for a few years would dono one any harm at all .

If someone really feels they jhave to kill to clas it as a catch then there are plenty of force stocked trout water around where you can bag a few fish a session (if you must) ....

Personally catch & return is the only way to go ..


PG ...

It's an interesting one this, Most of the salmon anglers in the club I'm a member of would be to old or dead in ten years time.
Including me, Thing is the river I fish for salmon,The ribble has only fished badly for salmon in the last three years.
And most of that has been down to dry summers, ie no rain the fish can't run up the river.
Has it stands now all salmon caught before sixteenth of June have to be returned to the river.
Even if they have been deeply hooked and bleeding,And you know there probably going to die.
So I don't fish for them before this date,The season finishes end of October but I don't fish for them after September. They are past there best and getting ready to spawn.
Just my opinion I hasten to add, But it's what I'm happy with.
We've been restricted to taking one salmon last year.And had a limit of two for a good few years.
There's talk that the ea want all north west rivers to be 100% catch and release for salmon from next year.
I've talked to a good few salmon anglers who are seriously thinking of leaving salmon fishing, And either going abroad on holiday to catch them.Or even taking up coarse fishing.
It's our AGM tonight,Should be interesting.
I'm just glad I took up coarse fishing again some ten years ago.That is down to best mate Andy Robbins who sadly died a few years ago at the age of forty six.
Andy loved his fishing,Game or coarse it didn't matter he was a real all rounder.just wish he was still alive ,He would have loved this fishery I go to now.

Out of my area this but some mixed thoughts came to mind. Salmon are cheap enough to buy these days if you really want a salmon to eat and I imagine the people that can afford a salmon beat could afford a salmon.
However, having caught sea fish, I appreciate the pleasure of catching your own fish and taking them home, the flavor is always better and then there's something spiritual about it that I could not really explain.
I also wondered if a two fish limit for a whole season; would that make much difference to fish stocks even if they are low. A suppose that depends on how low they are, how many anglers are fishing and how many would even catch two fish? But I cannot imagine it would be many and would it really make a dent in the decline of stocks?

There is no logic in bemoaning the lack of fish in the river while at the same time being part of the problem, a problem that is probably caused by lots of things, some of these things in isolation the river/fish might be able to cope with but put them all together and what chance do they have?

There is a high degree of similarity between this Phil and the recent suggestions regarding Bass fishing, and how many, if any, recreational anglers can take.

Personally my view is that; compared to the massive floating fish factories plying their trade offshore then Salmon anglers take a tiny drop in a bath-full in all honesty.

On my local salmon beats on the Itchen we took a new record of 286 fish this season which again pales into insignificance compared to the damage done by the fish factories offshore.

Regarding the costs, well, we pay just over two grand for 18 days fishing for 2 rods on those beats so if we wanted "cheap" salmon then fishing for them is not the answer . . . . . .

Peter Jacobs said:

There is a high degree of similarity between this Phil and the recent suggestions regarding Bass fishing, and how many, if any, recreational anglers can take.

Click to expand...

When I lived in Lincolnshire I did some beach fishing, at times there were lots of small Bass about (8 to 9 inches) almost without exception these fish were taken by both regular beach anglers and holiday makers alike, no doubt these would be some of the anglers that will complain about Bass stocks being low.

As Peter said, there are some very real parallels with what's going on in bass fishing at the moment..

http://www.fishingmagic.com/forums/sea-fishing/357121-2016-bass-regulations.html

Emergency measures being reeled out to try and avoid stock collapse, but at the same time pandering to large commercial fishing businesses who have caused the problem.

I think the commercials use recreational and sport fishing, and it's disorganisation and unknown catch figures, as a diversionary tactic to try and raise doubt about the root cause... and policy makers seem to listen (Hmmm, I wonder why?).

As Mr. Crow points out though, we all have to take responsibility for what we take as all the pressures add up.. and we can already see where that's headed.

S-Kippy is clearly an instinctive conservationist, returning fish before brain is engaged. Killing fish, and even spiders, is something most grow out of early in our years. Selecting a creature captured deliberately for the table is a moral judgement I feel should be a personal choice. It should be an informed one.
I have frequently pondered whether the most effective contribution we as anglers could make would be to not buy processed fish in the form of pellets. The decimation of mackerel and herring stocks led to sandeels being hammered in our waters, and now even Krill are targeted to use as fish bait. We are undoubtedly part of the problem, but not I feel in the way that commercial fishing interests like to present us. Very few of those 8-9 inch bass will get to breed anyway. Personally I think there is a case for keeping small bass and returning the bigger ones over 40cm.

rubio said:

.... Very few of those 8-9 inch bass will get to breed anyway. Personally I think there is a case for keeping small bass and returning the bigger ones over 40cm.

Click to expand...

Perhaps we should follow the example of some of the Oz states - which have a minimum and maximum size for keeping fish.
This enables fish to grow to a breeding size - and ensures the 'biggest & best' survive - helping out Darwin's theories!

I would be interested in comments from Chevin on this from a WA perspective - is it effective? - particularly when compared to Victoria which had a reputation for 'no limits' fishing and suffered the consequences! mg:

I'm with S-Kip on this. I could never bring myself to kill a fish. It might sound naive and silly but if I lose a fish whilst playing it, nobody takes a mallet to me.

I tried my hand at trout fishing for a wee while and caught a few but always returned them, I could not see myself lowering my thumb like some latter day Nero and deciding on life or death for them.

Ally used to laugh herself silly at me stopping off at Sainsbury's on the way home and buying a couple of rainbows having returned the same.

I do not profess to tell any other angler how to handle this issue but my personal take is that, as someone once said, I've found a lot of causes I would die for but very few I would kill for.

Good thread, good question Phil.

rubio said:

Very few of those 8-9 inch bass will get to breed anyway. Personally I think there is a case for keeping small bass and returning the bigger ones over 40cm

Click to expand...

One things for sure if all the small Bass are kept there will be even less chance of a reasonable amount surviving to breeding age, agree about putting larger ones back though, the biggest I had was over 8lbs and that went back along with everything else I caught, got me some funny looks I can tell you and I am sure I was known in the village as "he who puts them back"

I've never thought of myself as an "instinctive conservationist"....but if that means my natural lean is towards conservation then I suppose I am. I'm not totally averse to taking a fish for the table....nor do I have a mental limiter that stops me knocking one on the head. What I need to satisfy my own conscience is a good reason for doing so allied to a belief that I'm doing no significant harm to overall stocks [species or otherwise] by doing so. I'll happily kill fish for bait and take the odd one for the table without waking up wracked with guilt.

Of course I'm doing harm to the individual fish but that's not the issue for me. Same way as I don't have a problem with shooting per se. What I'm agin is anything done indiscriminately or without any real need...particularly if there is a greater issue at stake, like eg wild salmon stocks. I'm not sure about a total ban but a limit...yes.

Stocked rainbows are different but I don't like killing them because [by my own rules] I have no need and therefore no justification for doing so. The rules may say I have to and for a few years I did but ultimately I voted with my feet and stopped fishing waters that required me to kill all trout I caught. They were ending up dumped in a bin and that, morally, I could not justify to myself.

And I found a better water that was nearer & fully C&R anyway. Win-win for me AND the trite.

Bass I know very little about but it seems to me that a bit of restraint there would not go amiss either.

I sincerely believe many sea anglers handle and return fish to the water with reasonable care. I wouldn't wade chest deep in surf to revive a whiting but most get a sporting chance to swim away. I am a 'spearer' of tired fish since witnessing it's effectiveness in Australia. Along the lines of the comments on a grayling thread here recently.

Well I look at it in this way.

If the Salmon anglers want to carry on taking fish when stocks are at an all time low, then clearly they are not doing themselves, or fish stocks any good.

I don't take any fish, and trout I think, taste like sweaty old socks dried out, in other words uke:uke:uke:

As for sea fishing, the machines that are at sea now netting is beyond a joke.

Its not just fishing that us Humans are killing off, its the whole planet. We take from nature if we need it or not.

There are still Tribes living in our vast forests that take only what they need. Sadly man is taking the forests and the way of live for those tribes.

We need to learn from them, as we are clearly killing the Planet, where as they are trying to maintain it.

So much for progress.

Back in the sixties when I started fishing,Evey salmon was killed.
This season in our club over ninety per cent of salmon were returned.i haven't killed one in the last three seasons, When I did before this I only took the odd one and all under ten pounds in weight.
The thing is when I started you went game fishing to keep some fish to eat.
And very welcome they were,with the low wages that my father and I was earning.
Certainly don't consider myself as a rich man.
Back then rabbit fish hares and the odd pheasant were all part of our diet. And very welcome too.certanly would not buy farmed salmon, it's a big part of the problem, with the sea lice that are killing the young salmon at sea.
And all the fish being caught to feed these salmon in the cages.
A lot of puffins and other sea birds aren't breeding because there's nothing to feed there chicks on.

seth49 said:

And very welcome too.certanly would not buy farmed salmon, it's a big part of the problem, with the sea lice that are killing the young salmon at sea.
And all the fish being caught to feed these salmon in the cages.
.

Click to expand...

Something on the TV last week, they are putting Ballen Wrasse in the Salmon cages that feed of the lice, experimental stage but it looked promising.

markg said:

Something on the TV last week, they are putting Ballen Wrasse in the Salmon cages that feed of the lice, experimental stage but it looked promising.

Click to expand...

I saw that, apparently it's a Norwegian (I think) method that they've been using for a long time...

Beggars the question as to why our fish farmers haven't known about it or tried it? Surely they would have looked at the more succesful programmes to help their understanding?

Or does that show that they aren't all as committed to addressing the problems that intense fish farming produces as they make out?

pointngo said:

I saw that, apparently it's a Norwegian (I think) method that they've been using for a long time...

Beggars the question as to why our fish farmers haven't known about it or tried it? Surely they would have looked at the more succesful programmes to help their understanding?

Or does that show that they aren't all as committed to addressing the problems that intense fish farming produces as they make out?

Click to expand...

I think your right about it being a Norwegian thing and your probably right in the second part as well. You would have thought this would have caught on quicker. Still something promising.
Fish-farming has improved and will improve given time. We cannot just stop something every time we hit a problem. All types of farming has created different problems in its history and its there for us to solve; hopefully fish farming will be no different.
Also hopefully, the same will apply to fish stocks, there are some promising developments, haven areas is still a fairly new development that seems to be getting results. I hope this leads to larger areas in the future.