UNDERSIZED FISH:RIGHTOR WRONG?

[TC]

So are you saying, Ell, that it is \"unjust\" in NOT being able to keep legally defined \"undersized\" fish, and that if you have your own reasons for flouting the law, then it\'s acceptable to do so?

Micky, in answer to your peeler question, my answer would be as you stated....\"no thanks mate\". And I CAN say that \"TRUTHFULLY\"

As for deeply hooked immature fish (we\'ve discussed this several times on NESA), I would agree that returning them to their natural environment IS the thing to do. Whether they are so deeply hooked that they need to be humanely despatched 1st, or unhooked and still seem to have fighting chance of surviving, they still play an active role in the ecology of the sea and its own resident predators.

The consensus opinion seems plainly to be that the taking of undersized fish is wrong - whatever the so called \"reason\" may be, (and so it should be really, as it is also illegal).

 

[TC]

POSTED BY Ell:

sorry for any confusion Tony I personally agree that deliberatley taking undersize fish is not on and the law regarding it is probably too lenient.

As for having a personal reason for flouting the law then that\'s a bit different. Maybe I shouldn\'t have posted that comment here but I was alluding to things like interacial marriage in SA being unlawful at one time, Homosexuality laws here in the past, that type of thing.

At the moment Tony I think the debate is interesting and being conducted with a certain amount of restraint and respect.

The questions asked in my last post re: alternatives, sound like they are supporting this activity, they were not intended that way. I\'m sure there are many alternatives. Maybe not as affective in certain circumstances but if we were after the most effective methods of fishing then our tackle shops would be selling dynamite and gill nets. Just wanted a bit of info from Micky or other Pike specialists.

 

[TC]

Glad you cleared that up, Ell.

I agree with your sentiments - if laws infringe on human rights, then they DO need to be questioned - but that\'s a different kettle of fish (undersized, or not), to what was being discussed - hence my confusion.....lol

 

[TC]

Mark,
There was quite a bit of discussion on NESA last year (possibly, the year before) about the use of edible crabs as bait.
If I remember rightly, it was sparked off by an angler being \"done\" for using them.

As far as the tackle shop bait goes......maybe they breed a special \"Bonsai\" variety which are bred for the purpose......lol
(Sorry, but I\'ve made my point on this matter and had enough of being serious..... )

 

[TC]

POSTED BY Daveyred:

Sorry Mickey, thats not an argument. Thats what if...what we\'re talking about is happening now. Keeping undersize fish is the one thing thats guaranteed to get experienced anglers backs up.

Personally, if I catch undersize fish and they\'re gut hooked, I kill them straight away, then throw them back once I\'ve got the hook out - why make the fish suffer more than it should.

One thing about your point though.... would it be illegal to use the crab, as you didn\'t collect it?

 

[TC]

Micky,

Just a note for clarification.......

All the \"edits\" I\'ve made on your posts are only because I\'d missed the \"y\" out of your surname. I\'ve not changed anything in the text.

 

[mark]

quote:
POSTED BY Doc:
......
Byelaw XX (20) states it is illegal to use edible crab (Cancer pagurus) as bait, soft-shelled or berried. .......


This I didn\'t know! So I take it that there is a legal standpoint over edible peelers. I think I can see a logic behind it but curious that defra might impose such a rule on sea anglers but the environment agency don\'t ive a damn over what is a \'legal\' bait in fresh water.

considering the potential disaster for the coarse fish population that suprises me. The sea is full of all sorts of nasties and has no boundaries, so who knows what pathogens and parasites could be lurking inside a wee coalie. It would be interesting to see what would happen should some alien virus suddenly appear in the fens/lakes that wiped out enormous numbers of species.

One question that has often puzzled me on the Minimum size rule. I know and understand what the sizes are for certain species, so where do all the herring and mackeral come from that can be bought frozen in tackle shops?? I\'ve yet to see any frozen that is in size, or am I missing some crucial little caveat in the rules here?

 

[Ell]

One of my with respect posts, usually means I\'m about to disagree with someone or nit - pick. A nit pick here I think. Tony, I think it\'s a good idea to shift this thread into an area of it\'s own. I do think the title of it is a bit misleading though. The debate was a bit wider and not many people would argue in general with the point of the post. Mickeys position was not quite so straight forward and did raise some interesting issues. After all Fishing involves KILLING or at least seriously assaulting the fellas, kidnap etc. (EC dir. 45674) . mainly through choice and not necessity. Animal welfare / rights etc. are a big issue in this country, rightly so, and many people would say what we do is wrong full stop. I personally see their point but disagree strongly. This clouds the debate somewhat. I do think it means anglers should conduct themselves in an exemplary(?) manner
1. as a matter of course
2. So as not to give an aberration like PETA fuel for their fire.

There have always been NESA contributors divided on many issues. Fox Hunting being the classic. The range of opinions expressed in debates about that in the past have been interesting and surprising and often contradictory but accepted.

This situation is one that as far as I can remember has not been raised before i.e. Using undersized fish as bait. And one that is really interesting for me as a poster (No I don\'t want a picture of it blu-tacked to me wall) but probably a nightmare for Tony to watch unfold. In the past NESA has had a lot of open debate nee abuse gracing it\'s doors (never me like ) but I will say that I use a few message boards and NESA is a dream. No Spamming, no trolls, few if any bans, basically no problem. Long may it live.

 

[micky-quayle]

i seem to have stirred a hornets nest here, i thought my views might. it would have been much easier to ignore the comment that instigated my first reply, however i always speak my mind and like to think i air my views in a restrained way, even if as in this case i\'m in the minority by a long way.
i will try to answer a couple of points raised by mark.

mark,
you wrote \"environment agency don\'t ive a damn over what is a \'legal\' bait in fresh water.
considering the potential disaster for the coarse fish population that suprises me. The sea is full of all sorts of nasties and has no boundaries, so who knows what pathogens and parasites could be lurking inside a wee coalie. It would be interesting to see what would happen should some alien virus suddenly appear in the fens/lakes that wiped out enormous numbers of species.

actually mark its the other way round on many waters all fresh water dead and livebaits are banned and only sea baits allowed (this is the case on many waters in the lake district now) this is stop the translocation of species and to stop the threat of transfering diseases between waters, sea deads are harmless in fresh water apparently and cannot spread disease( its got something to do with harmfull organisms from the sea not being able to survive fresh water because of osmosis, don\'t know the exact science of it though)

another point you raised mark was
If I fished a well known lake and took half a dozen jack pike to use as bait for bass/ling/conger etc would that be ok??
Is it fair to target a species (pike) with a bait (coalfish/herring/mackeral) that is completley alien to its environment in order to catch more - why not gill net the fens to get that fish of a lifetime??

it depends upon the lake in question mark. some lakes are absolutely overun with small jacks and if the fishery alows it the pike maybe taken and used as bait, personally i choose not to do this, its just a personal thing but i certainly wouldn\'t condem anyone for doing so.(as long as it was only jacks under around a pound in weight as removing large pike can destroy a fishery very quickly) it depends upon the ecosystem of the specific water. i know several pikers who catch jacks to use to catch large pike, they\'re quite canabalistic at times.
as to using alien species, see answer to your first point.

 

[peter.m]

In reply to the last post where they are over-run with jack pike, are you talking about managed waters or open waters?

At the end of the day right or wrong there is a law covering this. Can pike anglers not use freshwater fish to tackle pike? If not and they need to take seafish then there are plenty species with no legal minimum size such as mackerel, dabs etc so why then take undersize coalies? If no leagl size limit no arguement other than a moral one.

If the same arguement was used to defend the taking of undersized bass or cod in todays climate there would be a huge backlash.

The point is Micky it\'s wrong.

 

[mark]

good on yer mickey!

Mostly I\'m trying to play devils advocate. Didn\'t know (not being a coarse angler) about the dead bait ban/salt only - so thats me told! did suprise me tho.

Would taking the dominat pike out of a water be good thing or a bad thing?? I guess there\'s some kind of a pecking order, so if the head honcho were removed would this not improve things as the next bunch of fish down the ladder would surely have a: to fight more vigourously to become dominant, and b: have increased opportunity (as would similar pike) to feed, adding up to better fishing


or am I talking out of me arse again??

as a final note, if it became illegal to merely catch undersized fish I\'d have to stop fishing and start gun running again - can\'t remember what an \'in-size\' fish looks like

 

[TC]

Ell,

\"I do think the title of it is a bit misleading\" ?????

Don\'t think so, Ell.
That\'s what the discussion boils down to, innit !

 

[micky-quayle]

most of the waters with a high jack population are open waters (at least the few i know are) they are over run with jacks because of both over fishing and bad angling practises in the past, i know it sounds perverse but over fishing of a pike water can lead to an explosion of jacks if the large pike have been killed (no self predation to keep the jack numbers in check, many trout waters have found this when they have tried to rid their waters of pike by using gill nets in the spawning bays. the big girls are killed then the jacks become rampant and eat more trout than if the situation had been left alone) the water ends up full of stunted pike and takes a long time to recover.

[Edited on 11/3/2004 by micky-quayle]

 

[TC]

Just reworked a bit of Shakespeares\' Hamlet - I thought it might go well in here......

Too small or not too small, THAT is the question:
Whether tis nobler in the end to sling the suffering
Coalie back into the troubled sea, or to take it in
Your fish bag to offer up to next seasons Pike?

Apologies to Billy the Bard



[Edited on 11/3/2004 by TC]

 

[willywetegg]

Well said William Cutter.

I have been following this thread from its birth and I must say, from the beginning to the end what ever your opinion it makes fantastic reading. Since I joined N.E.S.A. in september(I think) no other Post has stirred up so much controversy. Bet you didn\"t expect this Paul.

 

[TC]

Jim,
We\'ve had some crackin\' ones over the years, m8 - One or two, I\'ve had to end up pulling as they were either \"becoming personal\" or because NESA itself could\'ve been pulled if I hadn\'t.
I\'ve got no problem at all about openly discussing \"sensitive\" issues on NESA - as long as it doesn\'t develop into
1. \"playground name-calling\"
2. Something which NESA could be held liable for

You\'re right, Jim.....you never know where an initial post is gonna lead - that\'s one of the beauties (and headaches) of running NESA.

 

[willywetegg]

Tony I have just finished reading Ell\"s scamming post which was brilliant (best part of an hour but worth it lol). Just checked back through and saw your post and had to reply. There was times when I thought this was going to explode but I am pleased to see that it did not. Must say again it has been compulsive reading.

I bet it continues to be.

And now to bed.

 

[micky-quayle]

yes must agree turned into a very god thread,knew from my first post i\'d probably be on a hiding to nothing but the post has ticked over very well when it did, due to the subject matter have the potential to boil over and become personal. i\'m not oblivious to others views you know, just believe in speaking my mind, even if it does not go down well with other people, just hope no one on here falls out with me over this topic !

 

[ray]

i for one wont fall out with anyone topics like these tend to get a big response i think its good for the board .

 

[TC]

Jim, \"There was times when I thought this was going to explode.....\"
That\'s what I meant by \"headaches\".......lol

Micky, \"......it did, due to the subject matter have the potential to boil over and become personal.\"
I\'m, errmm \"extremely pleased\" so far, in the way the subject has been discussed. I don\'t know if it\'s because peeps have mellowed with age over the last couple of years, or what - but I\'m glad I\'ve had no reason to hit the \"delete topic\" button

Ray, \" i for one wont fall out with anyone topics like these tend to get a big response i think its good for the board.\"
If we \"fell out\" with someone everytime we disagreed with them we\'d soon find ourselves with nobody else to \"fall out\" with. Totally agree with the last bit too, Ray - if it gets people talking, then it can only be good for the Board.