Foul hooking fish for sport and food....

[cathalger]

(QUOTE, Donnyboy1) "If a lad goes out to catch 2 mullet for dinner for his family, I really cannot see any problem with him using ANY legal method as long as it does not damage the marine environment. If I was to catch mullet I would prob use a cast net before using foul hooking, but there is the possibility of catching more than you want..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cast_net

Absolutely Donny, if you could trust all people to take 1 or 2 fish, then in a lot of fish populations that would be acceptible and sustainable. The reality is however, very many people wont stop at 1 or 2 and the 'technique' they employ gives the potential to take, in some circumstances, as many fish as they can get into the boot of the car. This is where the merits of sporting angling soar and the flaws of unsporting methods are made obvious. Even a greedy sporting angler can take more fish than is acceptible OR necessary for him to take on certain fishing days. These days are so few they are rarely going to have a serious impact on a particular fish stock, the vast majority of the time. In any case, people thoughtfully and carefully set down bag limits in situations where even the over exploitation of stocks by fair fishing is a danger.

On the other hand, as I have witnessed myself in the past, unsporting methods allow for greed and over expoitation by people who funnily enough, repeatedly claim that they havent been near the river in years. BS. Snatching belongs to a brand of fish acquiring that shouldnt be allowed or accepted FULL STOP because people can very easily and do abuse the method to over exploit a resource. This is the reality.

Fair fishing is a challenge. If you catch a fish fair then in many circumstances you have earned the right to enjoy eating the fruits of your efforts. As I said in a former post, snatchers by and large, are not out to get 1 or 2 fish, not if there is more room in the car. THEREFORE the method cannot be allowed or accepted. Laws are designed in the light of the fact that people cannot be trusted to behave as the majority would like them to. THIS IS THE REALITY OF THE WORLD WE LIVE IN.

Donny no matter how nicely you word your sentiments that it doesnt matter how a gentleman gets a fish for his kids to eat etc, snatching shouldnt be permitted for the same reason driving without a licence shouldnt be permitted. Its totally uncivilized and it allows for people to excersize a wanton greed. If people could be trusted to show restraint and not abuse things such as this then there would be no need for a police force OR a justice system, get real.

Thats like saying well sure if a thief goes into a bank with a gun but only asks for £1 most of the times he does it then sure its fine and people should leave him alone and stop bitching.

Cathal.

Last edited by cathalger on Wed Jul 20, 2011 12:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

Fair points Cathal when I catch enough fish for me and my family I stop fishing simple as that.
But I do try to balance it out as much as possible. Shore fishing, boat fishing, kayak fishing, boat diving, shore diving and lately, the odd few crabs (+ fingers crossed) lobster,
I used go freshwater fishing with my uncle when I was young, but living so close to the ocean I have never really bothered with it. That said I am really looking into getting a salmonoid liscense atm. I have plenty of experience but I don't need to C+R to get it...

Despite all that I just don't like the idea of playing with fish and dragging them all the way accross a bay for the craic and then letting them go again only to repeat the process (as you describe).
For certain species I understand that compulsary C+R is the best way forward espcially with min sizes (incidentally I would like to see C+R introduced for Max sizes also so I'm not in complete disagreement with C+R).

But what I implied was it is worse than 'ANGLERS' realise... not worse than not returning... obviously you are correct dead fish do not breed.

Consider a sports angler catching 17 bass in one session.
If I go for bass I'll take the first 2 legal fish I find and go home. The other 15 may swim completly undisturbed by humans in their natural environment...
Couple that to a lure angler who catches all 17fish, dragging them kicking and screaming from their natural environment and keeping the 2 biggest and releasing the others. Now they may very claim the high ground for practicing c+r and criticise me for killing the first 2 I saw but I think in my senario I actually made the smallest impact on the fish.
Even if all 17 go back there is still some affect on the species and the habitat... thats all I was saying... C+R anglers should be aware of this and not take the high ground is all...

The Paper on the situation in Germany was actually brand new to me and makes facinating reading... where C+R is a crime in certain senarios' there is obviously a lot more there than I ever considered...

Anyway, like I say I love the ocean, in the past few months I got plenty of Cod, Whiting, Pollock, Bass, Mackerel, Sole, Flounder, scallops, oysters, mussels, and crabs... I treat the ocean with respect and spread my visits around with geographic locations and species to make the least impact!

C+R is fine when done for the sake of the species, C+R for fun is not something I am interested in. Same way I am not interested in bloodsports such as fox hunting etc. But people do it... for fun...


EDIT: you got in another post

"Absoluetly Donny, if you could trust all people to take 1 or 2 fish, then in a lot of fish populations that would be acceptible and sustainable. "

Thats kinda what I was getting at, the method is not really important (although I was wrong and foul hooking is illegal so I would report them now) if it is legal and the individuals are responsible.
I just wouldnt be quick to say this method is fair and that method is not... its more about the person using the method rather than the method itself... that is more what I want to discuss in this thread not to dwell on C+R too much.

I'm not terribly sure what you mean by snatching, sport fishing or fair fishing... I think I am getting confused by the terms... maybe I'm just simple but I only know fishing... fishing as I know it is capturing fish... there are lots of different methods...
Some methods may not be friendly to the environemnt or the fishes welfare or the future of the species and I would suggest these need to be banned... NO arguement here!!! but everything else (legal) I feel is fair game?

We are humans, a superior predator in all aspects... there is nothing fair about 'sports angling'. why do you get a lure that costs €20 over one that costs €1... because by all reports its far more effective... same with a rod that costs €300 over one that costs €20.... in our fishing we use all our technological advancements to capture our quarry...
That is hardly fair.... With the greatest respect, I think you are confusing difficulty with fairness... Just because sports angling may be more difficult than other methods... that doesn't make it fair... I'm sure the fish agree with me

Based on the notion of fairness above I really fail to see a difference between snatching and fair fishing... (Maybe I'm missing what you mean by snatching) they are just 2 different methods of fishing... you like one method... someone else likes another (maybe its even a traditional form in their area???) I would not say one is above the other...

Forget about the methods... its the fishermen themselves that I am concerned about...

[cathalger]

I aint takin any high ground Donny, I know some anglers who have gone from being kill every single fish big enough to impress others with, regardless of what is done with the carcass, to unbearable rule changing, row starting, highly strung pains in the arse, just because they finally started the 'saintly' practice of catch and release.

Your sentiments about catch and release are very similar to one of my closest fishing friends. I also want to add, that the salmon stocks have become so pitifully low in one river I used to fish, that I ceased to fish it with any pleasure or drive whatsoever (and stopped going to it) 5 years ago, despite the mandatory catch and release situation. I havent the heart to play those oul stragglers that are left on a line, but this is mainly due to the fact that I dont want to denude a fish of valuable energy, that doesnt have the opportunity to replenish its energy levels by feeding because it is a salmon in freshwater.

So please do not direct that high ground assumption at me because I do not subscribe to it. My interest in catch and release is a logistaical one where fish stocks are affected by fish killing.

Your perogative is your perogative and I could just as easily refer to high ground being taken in relation to your thoughtfulness and consideration for the duress a returned fish 'unnecessarily' endures, but I aint interested in doing that because I feel you are sincere.

As I stated above you seem principled to a degree that is quite rare among people in general. The other point I'd like to make which would point to a level of impracticality in your approach of 'take the first 2 you catch and dont hook any more for fear of distressing them unecessarily 'is this:

Put simply, most people have to invest a great deal of time, money and effort, often travelling a great distance to find some sport. Many blanks often have to be endured before a good session is encountered. To expect a sporting angler, who has earned and earned very hard the opportunity to take advantage of a bit of good fishing, whether that fishing entails fish killing or releasing, to expect that angler to cut short a session after 20 mins because he has caught 2 takable fish in those 20 mins is asking too much and is not remotely acceptible for anyone to do.

Playing fish and releasing them alive is part of the reality of our sport. We justify any possible distress to the animal because we feel the joy we get from the activity out weighs the negative aspect of any discomfort which might be experienced by the quarry.

Donny more power to you for your approach to fishing but more specifically that you behave according to your personal beliefs and values. Admirable. I am sure you realize that the vast majority of anglers will probably not think so deeply about the ethics of the sport and surely to God you realize it is folly to expect them to. You did say something in this thread already about presumming other peoples mentality. Then you surely appreciate already that you cannot expect a lot of anglers to think as you do because you do?

Cheers again, Cathal.

Last edited by cathalger on Tue Jul 19, 2011 3:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

foul hooking is for people that have either no brains, patients, morals or conscience.
True anglers use the traditional method of rod and line.

Donny fair fishing is an old fashioned term for luring a fish onto your hook by accepting it in the mouth as opposed to just taking the fish by whichever means you have at your disposal, WITHOUT any interaction on the fishes part. There is a very very big difference. The fish can ignore your efforts when you are fishing fairly/sportingly and very often do, this is the challenge. They cannot when you snatch (wait on a fish to swim into a position between you and your hook and then pull hard on the line to bring the hook into the fishes flesh, any where on the body).

This is the basic ethics of angling. Angling is legal as it is seen as a challenge and the fish has a part to play in the becoming attached to the line. It has a choice and often it takes great skill to achieve that connection to a fish. This is the distinction. I know you already know this stuff. Please do not suggest that snatching takes great skill also. Only snatchers choose to think that as a means of justifying what they do. To a man they know the crack. I GOT THE TERM FAIR FISHING FROM A SNATCHER/GAFFER.

Fair points Cathal, thanks!

different levels of ethics in the fishing for them end of the day i dont think the mullet would pick any method over another we all have blood on our hands

I haven`t killed a fish for food or bait for well over 2 years!!!
The last fish that died on me was my 100th mullet
I spent 25 mins trying to get it to go back but sadly it wasn`t to be (That fish was eaten by a good friend.I hate wastage!!!!)

I`ve caught over 130 mullet since August 2006 when i first started fishing for them..All barr that one have lived to fight another day!!!
I`ll spend as long as it takes for a fish to swim away strongly before i let it go,and before i start fishing again...
Anyone who knows me will vouch for that..

Im a bit shocked that more people haven`t got any opinions on this subject

@Cathal:- I couldn`t have said it better(no really!! i couldn`t )
Im glad there`s someone who`s good with words on my side

All current research (and I am a scientist) points to the fact that C+R may possibly be doing far greater damage to fish than most people realise... The fish develop more anxiety, don't grow as large and can influence the shoal in terms of breeding and feeding habits, so over a few generations the fish may get smaller and be harder to catch....

How do you explain,with all your scientific knowledge,how fish like carp,tench and barble can grow to huge sizes on English waterways and be caught dozens of times during their life????

I`ve had plenty of re-captures during my 25years fishing.All in the sea and include wrasse and congers..
I`ve seen dogs and huss grab an anglers bait again,after being unhooked,before its even hit the botton
Skate and tope which have been tagged will often get caught again!!!


The bottom line is that this method of catching fish is unacceptable and shouldn`t be looked at with such complacency(i think thats the word im looking for )
It is a destructive method that could do serious damage to fish stocks on fish like the slow growing mullet...
They are the easiest species to target with this 'method' and the bigger fish are in real danger of vanishing from some of the marks around this country
I know this will not happen overnight but if it continues,the next 10 years might see no sizeable mullet for anglers such as myself to catch when we visit some of our fav fishing marks.....

That means no holidays to areas that regulary make a few quid from the guys with mullet fever!!

Any serious C&R angler treats his prize catch with the greatest respect and will gently hold that fish until it swims off none the worse for ware.....

Davy your revulsion at people setting out to purposefully foul hook mullet either for a bit of fun or for a cheap source of food is perfectly understandable. Its a serious matter and well done for getting it out in the open. I suppose its fairly clear how strongly I feel about the subject. There is a valid backround and I'm sure I'm not alone in this.

Ive seen salmon swimming in the river with giant cod pirk sized treble hooks embedded in their flanks after being snatched at by fishermen who didnt have line on their reel up to the task of getting the fish to the bank.

I once watched a man who is an proper angler when he decides to be, sink a huge treble into the side of a salmon in low water, in broad daylight in the middle of a town. His ancient line broke. He attached another big treble and once again sunk it into the side of the fish. Once again his old weak line broke. The fish was there in the water with 2 big trebles in it and 2 horrible wounds. The man went away. I was later told he returned with a third treble and succesfully foul hooked the fish a third time and got it to the bank. I do not know if he changed his line to fresher, stronger nylon.

Another man I know accidentally hooked the eye of a pirk sized treble while worming, during a spate in my local river. The treble happened to be sunk into the side of a 2lb sea trout. Another snatcher had attempted to haul a lively fish from the water in the recent past with line of insufficient strength and the line parted.

The day after I had to stand and watch a band of teenagers rip and slash at a shoal of sea trout with treble hooks in the upper reaches of an estuary with a gravel bottom, and kill over 70 of them, I was in the middle of the town and I happened to observe one of the boys walking home from the river, fishing rod in hand with a white plastic bag which contained anything up to 10 more sea trout, the bag dripping blood and water. This was in a busy town in the middle of the summer. The image is etched on my mind, pure greed.

Another local gentleman (who is now dead and gone) is to this day still criticized even by his snatching peers for his infamous behaviour. Even they were appalled by his capers. To pass the evening he would snatch sea trout with a large treble hook on his spinning rod and try to amass as big a pile as he possibly could manage, to demonstrate his ability and pass the time. When tired of the fun, he'd take a few of the fish and walk home leaving the rest lying on the ground for anyone who wanted to come and pick them up.

It wasnt uncommon for quite a number of fish to be left in the pool with fatal tearing, gaping wounds. There is no place for this kind of practice in a civilized country.

This is what happens when there is no deterent to the practice, you can rest assured there are mullet in the process of dying at this point in time around the Irish coast as a result of wounding by this irresponsible type of fishing and there are fish adorned with large treble hooks or spinners hanging out of gaping wounds in their flesh.

How do you explain,with all your scientific knowledge,how fish like carp,tench and barble can grow to huge sizes on English waterways and be caught dozens of times during their life????

Fish live and fish eat. This will make them big and make them take bait. Not really rocket science...or marine science for that matter
I think what the writers postulate is that they would be healthier if they were never caught in the first place, and therefore larger and a more natural behaviour.
I'm not sure if you read the articles, but Catch and kill is legal in Germany and unless a protected species Catch and release is illegal in Germany... Interesting reversal.

The wrasse and conger arguement are different as they are usually a solitary fish. Behaviour changes, I imagine, is more obvious in a shoaling fish (I don't think Carp shoal either...do they?).
Bass are the prime example, the majority of bigger fish just don't get caught as easily as they learn about human interaction...and learn to avoid it... (Some details here in reference to trout and pike http://csusap.csu.edu.au/~pdavie/pdf/Da ... elfare.pdf ) I see this for a fact as I dive or snorkle with bass and the average size I see if far bigger than the average size that is caught... (average not all the time, obviously the odd big fella is caught).
Fish definately get wise to the c+r angler. This implies that fish are sentient and I can see future welfare issues popping up... will this affect c+r...I think so... I know you wont agree and thats fine, but in the future I can see 'sport' angling being eliminated altogether or heavily restricted. My opinion is Fish (and the environment in general) are there to be left alone or eaten... not played with...YMMV

But one thing we agree on Davey... I'm also a little surprised more people haven't replied!

Good morning Donny (its well seen I'm off work at the mo with a wrecked shoulder!!)

I can vouch for the fact that some fish do become even more difficult to catch than they previously were before they were caught and released by an angler. I agree with you there in relation to some fish species. Brown trout (larger older ones) are a wary fish that dont give themselves up easily. You are right, they do become infuriatingly difficult having been caught before. Its not that they become impossible to catch, they werent easy to begin with, but they do become very wary and will either stop feeding altogether when cast to, or will go to take a fly and turn away at the last second because they have noticed something not right about what they are approaching, eg the line.

But I would argue that these fish are still of an awful lot more value to the fish stocks (and to the anglers who fish there) in the body of water they live in if they are still alive and well, because they are the brood stock. Bigger hens produce bigger loads of eggs. If she is a difficult fish to catch then there is a good chance she will not end up in a frying pan or freezer any time soon and she will get to reproduce. I'd rather she was in the lake making a fool out of me and my futile attempts to catch her, than sitting in my mates freezer because she will have bother reproducing while in there.

I wonder could you please spell out for me, seriously though, I would like to hear the argument, how a fish is more valuable to the population if it is dead, than if it is alive and able to spawn again?

Cheers, Cathal.

different levels of ethics in the fishing for them end of the day i dont think the mullet would pick any method over another we all have blood on our hands

I haven`t killed a fish for food or bait for well over 2 years!!!
The last fish that died on me was my 100th mullet
I spent 25 mins trying to get it to go back but sadly it wasn`t to be (That fish was eaten by a good friend.I hate wastage!!!!)

I`ve caught over 130 mullet since August 2006 when i first started fishing for them..All barr that one have lived to fight another day!!!
I`ll spend as long as it takes for a fish to swim away strongly before i let it go,and before i start fishing again...
Anyone who knows me will vouch for that..

fair play to you davy your ethos is of the highest standard as regards catch and release, and you give as much care to your captured fish as possible so it must be very annoying when others display almost savageness towards their fish, but the facts remain that even this high level of care you give to the captured fish doesn't excuse you from being one or part of the general term "angler" and all anglers are in the same boat maybe different class tickets but still there with the savages, me thinks these different levels of angling ethics will always exist where a guy like you will be carefully putting a hopefully 10lb thick lipped mullet back where it belongs and around the corner the stereotypical fish killers will be doing their stuff all you can hope is someday they will hit a learning curve or large fine

I personally, seriously, genuinely seriously do not think it is even valid to suggest that there is any danger or any need to suggest to other anglers that their sport is ever ever going to be 'eliminated', banned, heavily restricted or otherwise. Might sound bold, but I'm deadly serious. This stance isnt deluded or biast or self interested. Its based in common sense and realism.

People have fished for food as a necessity since time began, people enjoy fishing for recreation more and more, they have the time and the money to do so, more and more as time goes on. It would not be practicle, acceptible, feasible or workable to prohibit rod angling, it wouldnt be tolerated by the population.

A fine example from this country we live in, which backs up what I am saying, is the situation which took place in relation to the attempted imposing of a rod licence for brown trout in the Republic of Ireland in the 1980's, by the government of the time. Up until that time brown trout fishing was a free privelage the Irish person enjoyed, salmon and sea trout fishing came at a price and people accepted that. The government tried to bring in licence for the brown trout. The people didnt have it and brown trout fishing in the Republic remains free to this day. Local and visiting anglers alike were prohibited from fishing for brown trout, by a decision made by the anglers themselves, in protest to the proposals. The visitors stopped coming to the country and the money they brought to the areas the trout fishing was in was very badly missed.
One Irish man in the west thought he would go fishing anyway during the ban. The next morning his boat was sawn in 2 bits with a chainsaw.

It aint gonna happen, it couldnt work, you do not have to worry people with unrealistic suggestions. It will never come to pass in our lifetime, our childrens lifetime, or their childrens lifetime because common sense will still be common sense, even in 500 years time.

I wonder could you please spell out for me, seriously though, I would like to hear the argument, how a fish is more valuable to the population if it is dead, than if it is alive and able to spawn again?

Good morning, I'm at work, but its a funny kind of work

Bottom line on the above is a fish is 100% less valuable than one alive and spawning.
My point is not to compare C+K to C+R... thats daft. All I am saying is if you want a fish to eat for you or your family kill it. If you only want 'sport' to play with another sentient creature... get a dog... or an aquairium

I am comparing C+R to leaving the population alone completely... in that regard C+R is damaging.

However to a population as a whole one fish extracted from a population quickly will have far less of an impact on then a few fish caught and released.
But lets say for every 1 fish kept for the pot there are 10 C+R.
Overtime lets say one year (not getting into species specifics - but generally for a slow growing fish) 20 fish removed are removed from a local population of 100 and killed. This is sustainable for most populations assuming a 4 year breeding cycle. The fear and subjective behavioural implications of catching this fish is not spread to the shoal at all as the dead fish cannot return to influence the population.
However if you catch and release 200 fish from a population of 100 (over time i.e. recaptures) with a pareto type distribution of catching 80% of naive fish and the other 20% (more clever - alfa class) don't get caught you would see 160 out of a possible 200 catches of a similiar fish... Now there are only 100 fish in the population so using the same standard distribution you could imply that out of the population of 100, 80 fish were caught twice (maybe less if you consider the rare third time catches).
This is 80% of the total population... this would catagorically effect the behaviour of that population...
But it would not be as fast as above would seem as there are also natural predator's and evnironment reasons that more fish behaviour would be affected and the population thinned out

Catching and killing from a shoal is a perfectly natural method of ensuring that the best genes go forward to breed. As you rightfully suggest the more cautious fish makes for the most successful fish to breed from. So again releasing the daft ones back into the gene pool is possibly not that sensible.

Again using the analagy of a seal... he doesnt play the daft fish, he eats them outright as he cannot catch the more clever class fish.

I think more and more science is investigating fish behaviour primarily to better understand the effectiveness and efficiency of fish farming. Huge amount of research here. And its fairly obvious that the more is known about fish the more it will spill over to fishing.
All animals must be shown humane treatment by several laws at local, national, eu and world level. As fish are better understood in these research studies I think you can 100% see changes to the treatment of fishing now just here but world wide. Already they are attributed to have the same intelligience as chickens and look at what is going on in the world of chicken farming, battery hens etc. People are being prosecuted for the foul (pardon the poor pun ) treatment of these aminals... It aint that big a jump.

But despite that you still have cultural and heritage associations to fishing so it may be quite difficult to outright ban (like modern day bloodsports) but definately there will be some serious societal shifts to fishing and C+R in my opinion, things like Hugh's Fish fight have started things down that slippery slope.

Edit: meant to say... well balanced post seanie!

Edit, Edit: Cathal, if you admit that fish have higher cognitive abilities such as learning then you also admit that they are sentient and so deserve so protection. If that is the case C+R for personal human pleasure, in your eyes, must be wrong as the fish is an intelligent animal? Also if they are capable of cognitive abilities such as learning then they most likely are capable of other primitive cognitive tasks such as emotion i.e. fear and interpretation of pain.

My point is not to compare C+K to C+R... thats daft. All I am saying is if you want a fish to eat for you or your family kill it. If you only want 'sport' to play with another sentient creature... get a dog... or an aquairium

Hi Donny,
I think there is clearly a big disparity in how we as individuals perceive and experience fishing. I would go so far as to suggest that the scenario, the type of approach to fishing with rod and line that you are suggesting might be feasible for the broader population to adopt on the merits of it being more humane, considered, evolved, advanced, I cant get the right word, but I think you know what I mean (progressive?), I really wonder as to the applicability of it to reality.
Unless of course we are just having a hypothetical debate?


It is very clear you are considering the validity and acceptibility of angling as a pleasure activity, based on the impact it may have on fish populations and the welfare of individual fish on compassionate grounds. What I am gathering from you is this. You have a personal and valid question over the appropriateness of fishing for fun and for fun only. Furthermore you seem to be making an implication that the only justification for hooking and playing a fish on a line is that your intention is to humanely dispatch that animal when you land it and make use of it as food, therefore justifying what you have just done. I dont think that I am being in anyway manipulative in also taking from what you say, that you might suggest that anyone who goes fishing for any reason other than to kill any legally keepable fish he catches and then cease fishing, that they are possibly behaving in an unacceptible manner, displaying an ignorance, partaking of an indulgence that they maybe should not have the freedom to do.

Re the disparity I mentioned above. I suppose the fact of the matter is I like to fish a lot, an awful lot. To suggest that I and people like me might be acting in a questionable manner, because we do not deny ourselves good fishing when that rare thing is presented to us, because we have already caught (and you as would have it, killed) what is in our personal judgement, to be an acceptible no. of fish, is not feasible, its over critical, unfair, totally unjustifiable. Its completely OTT, airy fairy, holier than thou. Its bordering on the oppressive. It initially made me think this guy is suggesting a situation whereby I wouldnt be able to go fishing as much as I please but in reality I wouldnt do any less fishing if I adopted the stop fishing when youve caught a couple of takeable sized fish, because it takes me to do all the fishing I do to catch any fish of note. I'd say this is true of most anglers.

Now I do not know how good the fishing is where you are, but the only 2 places in my vicinity, where I could go and kill the first 2 fish I catch are the rainbow trout farm up the back here or the salmon farm out in the bay. Wild fishing isnt like that.

I will not make any apology for how much I enjoy fishing Donny, it enriches my life like nothing else. I wouldnt be a happy person if I had to substitute fishing with a dog or an aquarium. The only suggestion you could have made there that I would have taken seriously was to stop fishing and give the heroin a try. I hear its a blast in the beginning.

Once again, I can make an equally poor and Im sorry to have to say it, insulting (I really do not wish to insult you, just illustrating the point) suggestion back. If you only want to eat a fish and and share the experience with your family, go to the shops and buy it. Then you dont even have to interfere with the fish on your shoreline in any fashion. Why kill more beautiful wild creatures when there are perfectly fresh ones already dead that you cant bring back to life lying on ice at the back iof Tesco's? You have no need to fish at all with fishmongers about the place.

Cheers Donny,

Cathal.

I dont think that I am being in anyway manipulative in also taking from what you say, that you might suggest that anyone who goes fishing for any reason other than to kill any legally keepable fish he catches and then cease fishing, that they are possibly behaving in an unacceptible manner, displaying an ignorance, partaking of an indulgence that they maybe should not have the freedom to do.

I think you have interpreted me correctly. The key point in my opinion is "displaying an ignorance". There is nothing wrong with being ignorant... most people are in some form or another and that is why we spend our life learning. Fishing may be one aspect where people may realise and learn Sport angling is not really sporting to the fish... (but perhaps I'll conceed more sporting than other methods such as foul hooking) then again maybe they won't.
I am fully aware that my opinion is in the minority with my views so maybe that makes me less authoritive?

I honestly think that if we didn't have a societal and cultural propensity to fishing it would be stopped. But we do and I agree its airy fairy to consider that fishing would be banned. But fishing will become more and more progressive, governments will bend to the changing will of the people, what people want know may not be what they want in the future...who knows...

With the greatest of respect (and I haven't intend to offend you and I apologise if I have...) its my opinion that what you are doing is pointless and unfair to the welfare of teh fish you catch if you practice 100% C+R. Wether right or wrong that is my opinion. If you were fishing for food and you practiced C+R with undersized or oversized fish than that would be honkey dory. But otherwise I do believe it is unfair to the fish and cruel, but lets say you wanted Bass for dinner and kept catching dogfish... I'm not sure what you should do there? I've no problem eating dogfish but I know they are not to other people's taste? My ideal, is that... only and ideal
I do believe however that you should take from many different species from different area's so I have also no problem with wrasse or other types of fish, other people may...

Fishing is pretty awesome where I am TBH... sorry And I fish from shore, boat, kayak and I also freedive and spear fish (and spearfishing is the more environmentally friendly and sustainable of the lot! Though considerable more challenging!)
Although I have no problem driving 2 hours for bream or scallops when in season, both of which can be hit or miss.

The dog or aquarium joke was a little tounge in cheek, and the problem is that you have been fishing before there was any realisation of animal welfare... back when seals were openly culled and lovely sharks were caught in their hundreds in Irish waters to be openly weighed and "dumped" onshore... (there was a vid posted here about it recently). That was acceptable then and not now. Even before then whaling was fine... How will the next generation percieve us in the future? While it may be fine to you and I I'm not sure how my kids generation will view it, how well will they be influenced by media and the science to come?

Its that I'm getting at.

But I fully understand... I could live without the shore fishing... I'd be annoyed without the boat fishing... I'd be angry if boats were not allowed afloat...and there would be war if I was not allowed swim in the ocean... but at the end of the day, we are only guests in the ocean.. its not really ours... and if you really love fishing and the water I have no doubt you will ultimately do what is in its best interest, even if rather begrudgeingly.

I take your suggestion as fully valid and not insulting at all! I also believe if we are to eat meat we must do our utmost to appreciate and respect that meat. I eat fish and I do not buy fish bar organic salmon. Everything else I source myself even shrimps To that end why would I want to have anything to do with an animal that has been caught in a huge net, that has had many other fish discarded for it, or high graded? Or maybe it came from a horrific farm where 1 kilo of its meat was formed with 4 kilo's of baitfish? Fresh you say? The fish is most likely blast frozen months ago and on the fishmongers ice table for up to 10 days.... I think not Give me a lovely wild fish any day, I can see its heatly and happy. When I catch it I will dispatch it as quick and humanely as possible (ike jimi)... I will then bleed the fish so as to make the most of the flavour and presentation to make sure the kill is wasted in no manner... I will use every part of the fish (my 8yr old daughter demands the eye's!) make stock from discards and put in my veg patch with whatever remains...
To be clear I will try to do as much as this with all my meat, I have a whole pig carcass coming to me next week and I have a lamb on the way for later inthe year. If I have to buy local I make sure I know how the animal was reared...

So I can take your suggestion but can safely say, no thanks

"Edit, Edit: Cathal, if you admit that fish have higher cognitive abilities such as learning then you also admit that they are sentient and so deserve so protection. If that is the case C+R for personal human pleasure, in your eyes, must be wrong as the fish is an intelligent animal? Also if they are capable of cognitive abilities such as learning then they most likely are capable of other primitive cognitive tasks such as emotion i.e. fear and interpretation of pain."

Ok let me say it in words that doesnt paint the picture (to support you position on C+R) that anglers are as evil for catching fish on a rod and line, as someone who tries to put a nasty hook into a pre- school childs mouth. They can in some cases get warier than they were following being released, thats what I admit, because its undeniably true and to deny it would be silly. No I'm sorry, I do not admit they need protection if that means it wouldnt be permitted to catch and release fish or to catch them at all.
I will also admit that it is perfectly ok, for one to feel that fishing is cruel and to disagree with it. I can live with the possible cruelty that I personally inflict on a fish, because the pursuit has great meaning for me and the challenge of a lot of the angling I do is considerable. Its aint shooting fish in a barrel, that would have no grounds for acceptibility whatsoever.

Please dont tell me what I think. I think this, some of the fishing I do is a giant challenge. It is very very difficult to catch the fish. The point that has been unfortunately missed til now in our discussion is that the challenge inherent in the activity gives it meaning. Yes fish are intelligent, some species display it to a far greater degree than others. These are the species that it means something to catch. It is the overcoming of the difficulties of catching the fish, that results in the satisfaction that we as humans love to experience. An experience I do not see available in cycling, golf, football, drinking (anymore,lol!) or working and thats why I dont waste my time in those pursuits(alas I do have to work). For me personally they are empty experiences.

I do not deny there is a selfish aspect to my pursuit. Why would I and all the thousands of anglers who fish do it and go through the hardship they do in the pursuit of catching fish if they didnt get a substantial reward from the activity, and I do not mean a meal, there is infinitely more to it than acquiring food. That aspect is becoming less relevent as time goes on.

Cheers,

Cathal.

Yes fish are intelligent, some species display it to a far greater degree than others. These are the species that it means something to catch. It is the overcoming of the difficulties of catching the fish, that results in the satisfaction that we as humans love to experience.

Hehe, if C+R anglers get their kicks from outsmarting fish then I might suggest setting your sights a little higher
Kidding!!
Look fish might have some intelligence... but really Man vs Fish!!! If you really want the challenge try to get into their environment, hold your breath...that levels the playing field a bit

I guess at least you are honest enough to admit you are even slightly selfish in your pursuit. +respect for that!
But I think for a generation of anglers (perhaps like your self, certainly myself) I grew up with a kinda catch all you can mentality to fishing. Eventually I saw the waste and it led me to a more conservational approach in the hopes this is the right path. Perhaps you and other anglers left the days of a catch all approach to the current C+R approach... you loved the fishing but not the waste and I get how those people may not want to stop fishing because they want to stop catching.

But what about the 10yr old kid that grew up with a don't waste fish attitude...great... but now they are also growing up with a "toy with the fish" attitude...

Ah well,

PS there was also a time catching pheasant with a hook was accpetable, in a manner at least

Donny, 'toy with the fish attitude' is only a clever and misleading choice of words.

When the priority was getting something to eat what was wrong with catching a pheasant on a hook? Nothing. People did many a thing to get a bite.

Re the Man v Fish scoff. You obviously are not aware of all the types of fishing in this country if you think it laughable.
Im quite serious. I have visited one particular lake this season approx 30 times. On about half of those occasions the trout were feeding on the surface. I caught 3 good trout in roughly 30 visits and 3 undersized, lost 2 good fish also due to vegetation problems while trying to land them. Thats the kind of fishing in which lies the greatest reward. None of the fish are dead. I couldnt kill them,that is not what drives me to fish for them. And its not inexperience which resulted in such a low catch, nor is it a scarcity of fish.

Are there any 'organic' salmon farms that you buy produce from in your immediate waters? It is a fantasy of mine for every salmon farm that exists to have a large explosive placed within them and the things blew into microscopic pieces. I so hate what that industry has done to the environment and wild fish stocks. Dont like battery chickens, supports salmon farming?

Talk soon I hope, I must get at a bit of housework, good man Donny,

Cheers,

Cathal.

ps, Im not 100% CnR and I never will be, just took exception a bit to the insinuation that the fishing I do that involves the releasing of fish was wrong and I shouldnt be at it. Varied fishing, varied behaviour.

I have seen this stroke hauling going on ,it is not a sport its a slaughter .WE used to have one
of the best salmon and sea trout rivers in the country and because of poachers and thats what
these guys are ,they wiped out the fishing on this river .i remember watching lads taking up to
15 or 20 salmon and s/trout on 1 tide .and if they got bored waiting for salmon they would target
the mullet .. this is still going on because i heard that a sea trout was taken only 5 weeks ago
at it weighed 13 lbs fish dont stand a chance