How do you treat your catch

[no-one in particular]

I find the difference in culture that exist between sea and freshwater anglers interesting.

When I go sea fishing I always take a landing
net and an unhooking mat, always use barbless hooks, which often brings a comment or two from others. Fish caught from the sea often end up on the plate, their retrieval not so important but many are released but only after being dragged over rocks, shingle etc, not to mention that many are deep hooked, it does put me off at times.

I have never liked the way that fish for the pot are just shoved into a bag and left to suffocate or sometimes just left flapping around on the beach. I kill the fish straight away and clean them if possible ready for the pan. I cant do that on the pier so I kill them straight away and stop on the beach on the way home to clean and fillet if appropriate. A sharp knife and a pair of kitchen scissors for the tail and fins and the job is done. Saves all that mess and smell in the kitchen sink and in the dustbin and the sea gulls clean up any mess soon enough, and the fish are fresher as the guts have not had the time to putrefy and kinder to the fish. It is cruel to just leave them to suffocate, I have had a thing about that for years. When I was a kid and went out in the boat the skipper used to just chuck them into a bin and leave them to die slowly and I always felt sorry for them.
Your right about it in general as well, Sea anglers do not treat their fish with any kindness even the ones they put back, if I have to drop them from a height I always try and make sure they enter the water head first, I don't know if it makes much difference but it looks to me like they don't suffer so much as when going in smack on their side, most just chuck them in without any thought as to how they go in; often enough they deliberately lob them in the air.
It is an area that could improve, I think it is a bit of a macho thing with some sea anglers and that's always daft in my opinion.

 

[theartist]

Trouble is Mark nearly all the fish that we eat from the supermarket suffocate so it's horses for courses on that, also as you probably know if you are somewhere public like a pier or busy walkway dispatching a fish humanely can be counter productive as most of the uneducated Disney loving public aren't used to it.

 

[no-one in particular]

Trouble is Mark nearly all the fish that we eat from the supermarket suffocate so it's horses for courses on that, also as you probably know if you are somewhere public like a pier or busy walkway dispatching a fish humanely can be counter productive as most of the uneducated Disney loving public aren't used to it.

Good points, the public don't see the thousands that die like this except in films but even on a commercial boat they do kill and clean them quite quickly for freezing. I am usual far away from crowds if I am on the beach fishing and on the pier I put them in a bag first and then give them a clout as discreet as possible. I am more worried about being humane to the fish than what the public see though. I do think sea anglers could consider that more and some just stamp on the fish with their boot in full public view but usually they just leave them to suffocate, it can all be done with a bit more thought for the fish first and second for what the public see.

 

[theartist]

Good points, the public don't see the thousands that die like this except in films but even on a commercial boat they do kill and clean them quite quickly for freezing. I am usual far away from crowds if I am on the beach fishing and on the pier I put them in a bag first and then give them a clout as discreet as possible. I am more worried about being humane to the fish than what the public see though. I do think sea anglers could consider that more and some just stamp on the fish with their boot in full public view but usually they just leave them to suffocate, it can all be done with a bit more thought for the fish first and second for what the public see.

By the time they are cleaned on a factory boat most have suffocated but yeah stamping on them or leaving them to die in full view doesn't look good to passers by on the prom. I rarely take a sea fish but it is a different mindset on the coast, look at how crabs and lobsters are taken for the pot, as much as we like to care for our catch I think taking for food is so different to any catch and release and is unlikely to change.

 

[rayner]

The fishery I use (when match fishing was not allowed) had loads of anglers wanting to use keepnets. I have several thoughts on why.
The owner of the fishery relented and did allow the use of keepnets for pleasure anglers. I don't know if the keepnet rule for pleasure anglers has been rescinded or not, I still have not used a keepnet neither do I intend to use a net, they are too much of a pain to dry, not in this weather but normally they are.
I also never use an unhooking mat. By the way, Mike fish kept in a keepnet in matches are limited by the time the fish are kept in a keepnet. The duration of typical matches is 5 hours. Not the best part of a day, that privilege is saved for pleasure anglers.
I still believe the sole problem with fish care is taking photographs not keeping the fish in a net.
The taking of photographs promotes keeping the fish out of water for too long.
The only reason to take photos is for gratification from others who see them. Catching fish is our main target, is not that important to me. I can remember my fish without needing a picture.

 

[nottskev]

It's nice to show your pictures to others, and yes, it entails a bit of pride in your success, but I wouldn't say that's the only motivation. Until I got a phone with a camera and a pc to store pic's on, my life, fishing included, went pretty well undocumented and unrecorded. I always take a few pics these days, and together with a few thoughts and details they add up to a fishing diary I enjoy having for several reasons. All my Irish trips, for instance, pre-camera phone, are reduced to some sharp memories, some blurred ones and a bunch of rather hit and miss photos. A better visual record would have been nice. One reason I started to take pics was getting fed up with the anglers whose claims to have caught THIS many of THAT size often sounded dubious. If anyone wants to know what I caught, I'll show them the pics.

I'm still a keepnet user, and for certain types of fishing - there are a number of occasions when I don't use one- I feel undressed without one. Anyone is entitled to question my desire to collect fish in a long net. Provided they also question our collective desire to bother the poor fish in the first place. They are, as has been said, a necessity for match anglers but not for pleasure anglers, and allowed or not by commercial pragmatism. I don't, though, take my guidance from commercial pragmatism, and whilst nets are a necessity for match anglers and commercial fishery revenue, who's to say that those last two are a necessity? If nets are really so bad, competing for money and making profit don't make them any better. In some ways, net use by pleasure anglers, since we have discretion to use or not, and are highly unlikely to collect through the hottest part of the day, catches on the scale and individual fish size common in commercial match fishing, is likely to impose less damaging conditions on fish kept.

Using a keepnet is another of those things in fishing that can be done well or badly, alongside landing, handling, unhooking, weighing, recording and returning fish, and paying attention so that fish aren't deep hooked or buried in a snag before we notice a bite or wake up. Because of my taste in fisheries, I'm most often on waters where a net is optional. I can't say that the fish I| catch and see caught look any more affected by being caught than those I catch or see caught on waters where they are not allowed. I've seen waters deteriorate from any number of causes: cormorant predation, pollution, abstraction, nettings and re-stockings, environmental degradation...... I've yet to meet the water spoiled by keepnets or transformed for the better by banning them. Actually, I might have, but disease transfer via nets is a separate aspect.

 

[theartist]

The only reason to take photos is for gratification from others who see them.

Whoah hold on bud this is not true on so many counts.


1) Most photos are kept private, I don't know about the guys on here but any that reach the public domain from me are a tiny percentage.

2) I don't care who sees my photos, personally most the self take ones I hate (cos I'm an ugly bstard) but I feel it presents the fish better at times. incidently this type of picture takes less time and the fish touch less surfaces than most fish photos.

3) I take hundreds of photos a year of fish on many angles, just for drawings, I'm currently working on two roach I have caught turning it into a drawing, many other angling artists do this, so if taking pics goes in room 101 so should angling art really.

4) Also taking photos when I can of barbel with blackspot for future reference if needed.

5) Got 100's of photos this year alone and the fish go back ok, it takes less time than weighing

6) Lost a lot of photos in the past so if they are online they are backed up too, another reason, I could probably list more.

It's mistake to think it's all about the angler as we could easily flood the HYDGO thread with photos of similar fish, true there are some anglers trying to make a name for themselves online but there's some beautiful fish on there and I don't think many have suffered as a result of photography.

 

[108831]

Taking photos is for the record,plus showing mates an interesting capture or a good fish,these days I take few pictures of fish,compared to those that are caught,double figure carp rarely get a look,5lb tench7lb bream,1.8 roach,perch,rudd,still great fish to me,just not worth keeping them out of the water to do it,my fish captures are memories,many of which,if not all will go with me to the grave.....

 

[rayner]

Like it or not I am still against the photographing of fish. Take umbrage if you like, it is a feeling I have had for years I can't see that a few or a lot of folk making me change my mind. I do not expect my view regarding photographs will prevent anglers from carrying on with what they like.
For years, I have used a net and have no qualms with anglers using nets. I have decided they are not worth the effort of drying them before they go away.
I only mentioned nets to point out to Mike that keepnets in matches were only in the water for 5 hours after he remarked that match nets were in the water for most of the day. 5 hours is not most of the day by any stretch of the imagination.
I can appreciate photos of anglers fishing stations, pics of fish just don't float my boat.
Whatever reasons anglers have for their photos I doubt I will lose any sleep over it.

 

[108831]

Having fish in keepnets for five hours is irresponsible imo with low oxygen,water levels and temperatures are high,especially as todays nets have fine mesh,easily getting clogged with sediment,add to this that on commercials where the majority of matches are fished these days several nets are lined side by side with(if the fish are lucky)50lb limits in each,the inner nets are being started of water flow by the surrounding nets,im sorry but that is sh1te....a bit like being forced to wear a covid mask for five hours in this heat....taking a quick photo is small fry in comparison,then comes the weigh in which on many commercials is now done in large plastic buckets,which is a bloody disgrace,and if I still match fished today I would never fish a water using these and I would give them a piece of my mind,a-holes...

 

[rayner]

Come on Alan they are only fish, any that die can just be replaced by fresh replacement

 

[108831]

Yeah right,I just wonder if I can fit my wok and barbie in my carryall...

To add,fishing a match on the canal,where 2-6lb are in the nets in the main,the risks are low,300lb weights are a bit different imv...

 

[rayner]

That would be against the law, depending on local bylaws. smacks of Eastern thingies.

 

[sam vimes]

I could well understand someone that was fiercely negative about the use of keepnets being equally negative about photographing fish. However, to use a keepnet, whilst suggesting that photographing a fish is wrong on ethical grounds, makes absolutely no sense at all. Despite not being against the use of keepnets, I'm pretty certain which will do more harm to the fish.

 

[108831]

I am not against the use of keepnets for all,though I dont use them,but the hypocrisy of using them in these conditions,in matches,which they have one on Tuesday and Sunday on one of the clubs lakes,whilst closing a stretch of river for the reasons given,with the chance of 100lb plus catches on said lake does not ring well to me,I do however agree with the protection of all fish on all venues,again people deciding that barbel on one venue need protecting,when the same species a mile upstream do not,absurdity in the extreme....

 

[theartist]

I'm not sure there's any umbrage in the posts following your statement Rayner and no one really cares if you change you views or not, but you made a point that will get the alternate view from those who do what you are lambasting. We have the right to like photographing fish and express the many reasons why just as much as you have to dislike it.

 

[nottskev]

I think we all do what we're comfortable with regarding nets, photo's etc, and I'm not interested in quibbling with a decent bunch of people who think about their fishing and have reasons for what they do or don't do.

Where I live, the City Council has banned fishing on three old and well established lakes in the area. They have designated them Conservation Areas, and their model of protection and conservation excludes fishing, which is seen as inimical. The former fisheries are visibly silting up with encroaching marginal plants, fallen trees and branches left in margins, growth of light-excluding foliage, erosion of bank areas.... all the stuff that goes on when maintenance by angling clubs etc ceases and neglect takes over.

In a city 20 miles away, the Council allows a local angling club to manage its park lakes and other water amenities. With a mix of old-fashioned voluntary hard work, planned programmes of maintenance and ambitious habitat improvement informed by experts, they have transformed the waters and fishing, making themselves a byword for a positive community and environmental stance along the way. Nets, by the way, are allowed, subject to conditions which make sense.

My point? There are several, I think, in that comparison. One would be that policies that purport to be good for the environment and friendly to fish by stifling angling to avoid its ethical issues, can throw the baby out with the bathwater with neither environment, nor fish nor community benefitting. I like the fact that angling allows personal initiative and discretion, and I'm not keen to see those legislated out of existence by creeping regulation.

 

[seth49]

A quick photo takes seconds, and when I’m to old or infirm to go fishing, they will add a great deal to my memories, so despite what anyone says I will keep on taking them, and if you don’t like it tough.

 

[103841]

Like it or not I am still against the photographing of fish. Take umbrage if you like, it is a feeling I have had for years I can't see that a few or a lot of folk making me change my mind. I do not expect my view regarding photographs will prevent anglers from carrying on with what they like.
For years, I have used a net and have no qualms with anglers using nets. I have decided they are not worth the effort of drying them before they go away.
I only mentioned nets to point out to Mike that keepnets in matches were only in the water for 5 hours after he remarked that match nets were in the water for most of the day. 5 hours is not most of the day by any stretch of the imagination.
I can appreciate photos of anglers fishing stations, pics of fish just don't float my boat.
Whatever reasons anglers have for their photos I doubt I will lose any sleep over it.

ah, so that's why you don't put a "like" on my posts in the HDYGO thread, I won't take umbrage, you're not the only one Gary.?

 

[bullet]

I have never liked the way that fish for the pot are just shoved into a bag and left to suffocate or sometimes just left flapping around on the beach. I kill the fish straight away and clean them if possible ready for the pan. I cant do that on the pier so I kill them straight away and stop on the beach on the way home to clean and fillet if appropriate. A sharp knife and a pair of kitchen scissors for the tail and fins and the job is done. Saves all that mess and smell in the kitchen sink and in the dustbin and the sea gulls clean up any mess soon enough, and the fish are fresher as the guts have not had the time to putrefy and kinder to the fish. It is cruel to just leave them to suffocate, I have had a thing about that for years. When I was a kid and went out in the boat the skipper used to just chuck them into a bin and leave them to die slowly and I always felt sorry for them.
Your right about it in general as well, Sea anglers do not treat their fish with any kindness even the ones they put back, if I have to drop them from a height I always try and make sure they enter the water head first, I don't know if it makes much difference but it looks to me like they don't suffer so much as when going in smack on their side, most just chuck them in without any thought as to how they go in; often enough they deliberately lob them in the air.
It is an area that could improve, I think it is a bit of a macho thing with some sea anglers and that's always daft in my opinion.

Couldn't agree more, unfortunately there is a very large Numpty contingency in Sea Angling, much more so in my opinion than other branches of the sport.
Poor catch handling, taking far too many fish, leaving fish to be kept flapping about in the Sun, leaving tackle and litter all over the place......the list could go on.