Barries Article

Ron Clay · Jun 5, 2003

Yes I do do this from time to time, especially if the fish involved is good to eat.

In my life I have eaten perch, pike zander, eels, lots and lots of trout (they are very good for you), gudgeon, roach, dace, rudd, tench, both Large Mouth and Small Mouth Black Bass, Tilapa, catfish, carp and several other African species.

Where such species are prolific, I feel that eating the odd fish does no harm whatsoever and takes you back to your roots, and that is one of the reasons why we go fishing.

A small carp can provide an excellent meal. Let's face it there are millions of the darned things in England. They were brought here as a source of food in the first place and it might be a good idea if we ate a few from time to time.

What do you think?

I'm behind Barrie on this one.

Ashe Hurst · Jun 5, 2003

I dont have problems with eating your catch, however it could cause major environment problems on smaller waters.
Also it could encourage non anglers to fish unortordox methods and environmental care and fish care/handleing could go out the window.
Also it could lead to wholsale poaching.

restrictions and regulations would have to be put in place, and whos going to police it?

russ case · Jun 6, 2003

I keep all the eels i catch as my son loves eating them. I remember fishing on a busy part of throop once when this serious looking bloke came round the corner and caught me lopping the head of one, he looked surprised to say the least!.

Richard Drayson · Jun 6, 2003

Reminds me of the time when I took some eels round to a friends house once.

Hot summers day it had been and the eels had been wrapped up in a plastic bag all day.
I called round with the eels later that day, let myself in with the key and placed the eels in the kitchen sink with some water.

Unbeknown to me, the eels revived themselves and were all over the kitchen floor by the time my friends had returned home.

They never asked for eels again after that.

russ case · Jun 6, 2003

Can you imagine the look on a balifs face if he caught you slinging a10lb common on the barbie, mind you i'm not sure i would want to eat one with all the additives, colours.... that goes into our carp baits now.

John McLaren · Jun 6, 2003

I have no problem in principle with taking fish for the pan - Perch are excellent eating - problem is most clubs' rules forbid it.

Scott Keenan · Jun 6, 2003

In Autralia the only restriction is the size of the fish, undersize fish must be thrown back ( each species has a different minimum size) and mud crabs ( your not allowed to keep females). Catch and keep is the most common reason for going fishing in Australia and there is nothing more satisfing then bringing home a good feed after a good days fishing. But, like Ron said about SA, we don't have a problem with natural fish stocks and generally our Angling population level is not high enough to serious damage the environment.

Ron Clay · Jun 6, 2003

Actually Scott I might disagree with your size limit rule. I think that BIG bass, pike, zander, even carp should be returned. These are fish we call "specimens" which provide a great challenge to anglers. They are also lousy to eat.

The best eating fish are the smaller ones e.g. 1 lb perch and trout, 2 lb bass and zander and a carp of about 4 lbs. Tench of about 2lbs are delicious by the way.

In South Africa they also had size limits on various species of freshwater fish. I often wrote articles encouraging anglers to kill as many small carp as possible but to release fish over 10 kg.

Steve King · Jun 8, 2003

If rules permit I'm always happy to eat pike, perch and trout. I haven't tried carp, but understand from a Portuguese friend that if they are cooked properly they are tasty - apparently frying them on a high heat caramelises the small bones... ... ...
Eating the fish we catch is not such a bad idea, however it has got to be sustainable and I wouldn't want to see specimen fish of any species removed from the water.

EsoxBlades · Jun 9, 2003

The Prof speaks wisely, and has generated wisdom through wider consultation with bodies of people he associates with. All of must, and I believe should, dedicate time in the year when we do not go fishing but when we clear up the banks of our regular haunts, update our records of catches, go on a rally, attend a country fair, educate young anglers, give a talk to the W.I. or Inner city group and promote ourselves. Fishing will be next, have no doubts. Returning our fish relatively unharmed to the water, should be something to herald in an otherwise fish-killing Europe.

Be aware of changes to 'centres of power', by that I refer to the regionalisation of environmental control - watch the water bill. Where one rule may help us cull Cormorants another may prevent us from fishing, depending on the intensity of local belief and the psychological effectiveness of 'anti-campaigns'. Not now, not tomorrow but over the next 3 years. Build strong local relationships today and keep on fishing, if you don not know what to say to promote your most precious of past-times - say nothing and seek the guidance of the wise.

Pikelines!

Dave Slater · Jun 9, 2003

I agree with Conrad. We must continue as we are and put fish back. If we adopt the ways of Europe we we eventually end up with no fish. I heard Gordon Brown implying that we should follow the European way on environmental matters. I find this a little bit frightening. I was anti-Europe to start with but this reinforces my views. Keep the German fishing rules in Germany thank you.

Robert Draper · Jun 9, 2003

I can't really see any reason why we shouldn't take fish from stocked waters, I fish put and take Trout waters and keep my catch (after filling in a catch return naturally). I personally would not wish to take fish from a natural fishery though, I never take Trout from the small rivers and streams I fish and I would not take coarse fish from the stillwaters as these fisheries are not stocked on a regular basis. A put and take match carp fishery would be another matter entirely and would help to take some pressure off our dwindling marine stock.

I would never eat anything out of the Trent but that is because I have seen what floats in it...

EsoxBlades · Jun 9, 2003

Rob - understood. I think it may help if I am explicit about what should be put back; all coarse fish. In particular Esox Lucius, our Pike - which would suffer very rapidly from such a policy. We should fully support put and take fisheries for common gourmet fish such as trout etc, stocked waters by their nature are 'recoverable' (shame the North Sea is not!). What we should not support is the disposal of all coarse fish in the same manner as gourmet fish - we will end up with fisheries full of small fish and a plethara of small/medium predators without larger predators to keep them in check.

Fishing is not broke now, there is no need to change that 'that we already do' - we must keep fishing, we must keep enjoying. Widening the education circle and closing the safe handling gap between novice and conservationist sportsman should be the main effort - if we can all act responsibly we have an everlasting past-time to enjoy. An everlasting past-time is an economic as well as a social benefit, fishing manufacturers listen-in, you have the marketing power to influence behaviours - reach out and touch, educate all fishing enthusiasts and the wider public through the promotion of your products and activities.

Pikelines.

Dave Silvers · Jun 9, 2003

Whilst fishing on the Norfolk Broads last year a boat moored just down the bank from me. An Australian family got off the boat and the women came across to where I was fishing. A few pleasantries were exchanged and then the woman asked what I was fishing for. "Pike" I explained, "Good eating fish are they" she asked.
"I don't eat them I fish for pleasure" I said, the look of bewilderment on her face was wonderful, she looked at me as if I should have been in a home.

daren heslop · Jun 9, 2003

Barries comments about the countryside alliance are spot on.Dont take my or Barries word for it , go to one of thier meetings and youl see for yourself its not just about fox hunters and they dont just pay us lip service.DONT BELIEVE THE HYPE!

daren heslop · Jun 9, 2003

As for eating fish, i put everything back.The past was different and i have known people who have used local waters and thier fish to survive and feed thier families.Not only fish but everything the countrside had to offer them.Thankfully times have changed.

Roger Roddis · Aug 7, 2003

I'm a pike angler with nothing like the dedication to the sport that Barrie's shown over the years but I would like to look at a couple of points he made in his article:-
1). Barrie supports our freedom to carry out legal activities such as fox-hunting, but what should our attitude be if fox-hunting is made illegal.
2). I'm a bit of a hypocrit in that my distaste of fox-hunting is tempered by my desire to keep it legal as a rampart behind which what I consider more civilised field sports can shelter. But surely we wouldn't advocate legalising, say, bear-baiting or cock-fighting, would we? If not, we have to agree that the law has a place in moderating the way we treat animals and it's inevitable that there'll be difficulties around agreeing where to draw the boundary between legal and illegal activities. There's obviously an historical factor here whereby this line is repeatedly adjusted by successive generations. Our problem seems to be in dealing with groups who want to short-circuit this process and impose their will on all of us in the short term. I'm convinced by what I've read on this site that we need an organisation like the CA to protect our interests in the face of this threat.

Roger Roddis · Aug 7, 2003

PS. I have to confess that it is a townie's distaste that I have for fox-hunting.

GrahamM · Aug 7, 2003

You're right when you say that the line is prone to being moved as time goes on. But this is why it's important that we no longer give an inch from the position we are now in.

DON'T agree to keepnet bans.

DON'T agree to livebait bans.

DON't agree to any bans.

If we do we're moving the line for them, and they don't need any help from us.

Ron Clay · Aug 7, 2003

On the point of keepnets, they are being banned everywhere.

I certainly do not put barbel in keepnets as their fins can be damaged. Yet there are species which are not damaged at all by keepnets. Tench and roach for example.

The most stupid ban is that on barbed hooks. There is no doubt that barbless hoks in some circumstances can cause more damage to a fish than a barbed hook!

Barries Article

Ron Clay

Guest

Ashe Hurst

Guest

Active member

Richard Drayson

Guest

Active member

John McLaren

Guest

New member

Ron Clay

Guest

Steve King

Guest

Member

Dave Slater

Guest

Robert Draper

Guest

Member

Dave Silvers

Guest

New member

New member

New member

New member

Managing Editor

Ron Clay

Guest