Crumbs. That's really worrying. Should we just leave the poor buggers alone then?
It does seem to me that this is yet another reason to make this government crack down more on what happens out at see and in estuaries and in rivers which is the cause of the decline in the first place. In the meantime, heaven knows..

 

The usual chestnut is "dead fish don't spawn" Matt. Though it is painting the picture with a particularly broad brush I'm afraid it's just a case of the lesser of two evils. Chapped fish will not spawn, returned fish 'may' spawn, the only other option is to not fish for them at all, how unpalatable would that be to a devoted salmon angler.

 

There are always going to be some casualties in C&R for salmon.but I'm convinced that It works perfectly well In most instances.
My coinscence is clear on this matter.
If you use the Priest,then there is no chance of it spawning.

Jim

 

This is an interedting thread which will raise a few eyebrows.
I personaly find it interesting,amazing and fascinating at the catch report for last seasons salmon returns for the Tweed.
I find it amazing that so many fish are being cought from one river,april alone saw 276 salmon.may saw 78 for the first week.

imho we need to look at what the tweed river management and surrounding environment are offering for such a large no of fish to be cought when were told that they're on the decline,there must be something else going on and the bigger picture needs to be looked at.

nca makes a fair point,catching a fish expelling its energy reserves which it needs to spawn,returning it for the greater good only to find out coincidentally the stored energy used to fight the angler is used to keep it alive and it cant make the travel.

FishPal - Scotland - Tweed - Reports

 

The counter argument is that many beats are under pressure to reduce prices as so many of the salmon are repeatedly caught artificially inflating the beats catch statistics as salmon anglers re returning the fish, then being penalised for doing so with higher rents.

Can't be both, and as the tagged fish are being caught repeatedly, the evidence is plainly there, I'd conlcude that most salmon are released OK.

That said my mate caught a salmon and released it after a heroic fight, spent ages nursing it, and I found it dead downstream shortly afterwards. I kicked it back downstream to avoid upsetting him as he would have been devestated, he went to great lengths to do everything right, always does.

 

The counter argument is that many beats are under pressure to reduce prices as so many of the salmon are repeatedly caught artificially inflating the beats catch statistics as salmon anglers re returning the fish, then being penalised for doing so with higher rents.

I think it's beyond argument that there are some seriously dodgy practices going on re inflation of catch stats - a sad reflection on the market?

I'm interested to hear everyone's thoughts on this thread. It's not a new debate, far from it. And there certainly isn't a satisfactory answer. I'm not generally an angler bothered by conscience (anyone who is should consult Catlow's fine book 'Confessions of a shooting fishing man'), but the nearest I ever came was when I walked away from salmon fishing after watching those fish on the Lune.

 

Hi All,
Interesting indeed .....
Salmon feed during their migration,right up until they reach the estuarine waters of their birth river.
Sustenance from there in is drawn from energy reserves stored within the fish's body..ie:natural body oils stored in the tissue and calcium absorbed from the scale layer.

Obviously the trials and tribulations of running a river heavy with falls and white water can only rapidly deplete energy levels !
When you consider the forces of nature that are against a salmon's advancement upstream the distances travelled and the sheer effort and determination required to conquer these natural obstacles...
Does playing a fish on rod and line endanger their energy levels to the point of endangering life itself ?
Exhaustion can be a killer and all fish stress out remarkably quickly this too can kill.
Playing a fish 'by the book' until it rolls onto it's side exhausted prior to being drawn over the net is acceptable.
Aiding the fish in it's release by holding it's head into the current to allow it to 'get it's breath back' is acceptable.
We have all felt that Strong Kick as the fish shoots from our hands disappearing into the depths.

I firmly believe that a well played salmon returned with care in the prescribed manner will survive and go forth to procreate.

It is not uncommon for salmon to rest up in an individual pool for days lf not weeks on end..Undoubtedly a prime reason for this behaviour is to re-cooperate and sustain as much energy as possible...These resident stale fish are often found mid stream occupying the best lyes and in well oxygenated water with adequate cover.
{read more about holding/resting pools at....OF HILL AND LOCH
Irrelevant of whether or not they have been caught and released.

As responsible anglers returning fish must be beneficial to the species in general..Most will survive the fight on rod and line-a few will perish through the consequences of such action.
At the end of the day Nature's way can only be summed by that old cliche

''Survival Of The Fittest''

 

that there are some seriously dodgy practices going on re inflation of catch stats -

Sorry,but as far as the Anglers are concerned,there is no chance of Anglers inflating their catch returns in Scotland .we have to pay a levy per fish caught
Whether killed or C&R(how's that for an own goal )
And were not talking about 10p a fish.(I wish)So it is not in out interest to inflate numbers (far from it)So your premise is a no go.

Jim

 

I wasn't referring to Scotland Jim

 

OK.but the Tweed is regulated in Scotland.

Jim

 

Having fished for Salmon for many years with some decent success, ( must admit in the early days used the priest regularly) I would now be a firm supporter of Catch and Release. Having caught and released a large amount of Salmon (Numbers not importent) I have yet to experience one, that played right will not return to the water with a very firm flick of the tail. I have had the pleasure of catching and releasing a fish in the region of 20lb+ and a few days later seeing it almost landing at my feet such was its enthusiasm coming out of the water. In short, I would be on the side of a dead fish will not spawn, a released fish, treated right, has a great chance. Thats my tuppence worth.

 

If I may add this,I regularly see stillwater trout fishers faff about trying to land a 2lb rainbow,I then see many Salmon anglers.who really make the fight last too long. Education Education.up to us to Educate.

Jim

 

Pick up a free copy of the film made by the atlantic salmon reserve.

The Northern Rivers Company - Salmon and Trout Fishing in the Kola Peninsula

They have a 100% C&R policy, including tagging and tracking of caught fish and have a very high spawning rate for caught fish. The film itself is well worth watching, showing just what can be achieved in an a managed environment.

 

Do they actually use up that much of their reserves during the few minutes of the fight? They must use up far more when battling up falls and poorly designed weirs and fish passes. It is not unusual to see fish trying all day at some of these obstacles. I don't believe the bulk of the fish enter with only just enough in reserve to get the job done and don't have anything left over for an extra few minutes being lead around the pool by an angler.
I thought the reason they give up at the end of the fight was that they were, to use iffy terminology, simply out of breath.


Andy

 

Certain beats I have fished on the Tweed (both banks Scottish and English) have turned a blind eye to the numbers of fish caught and not recorded them. It happens on other rivers too. There may be instances on some rivers of beats inflating the catch. Catch returns can be a very innacurate way of guaging how a river is fishing. The downside of giving accurate returns as Jim says is the increased levy asked for by the crown which rises in proportion to the numbers caught. In truth word soon gets round just what rivers are fishing well irrespective of what the catch book says.

There is and always will be, a vastly higher mortality rate for the salmon due to natural causes than any created by anglers. The returning of fish is a moral dilemma for some anglers it seems. My own feeling is that if these anglers are so concerned about the welfare of the fish at this level, then they should really not be fishing.

For the most part c & r works - provided the fish is landed quickly and not played to exhaustion in the process - they survive. The secret is to use tackle that is up to the job, don't pussyfoot about playing with them -get them to the bank quickly and release them quickly.

It is fairly common that anglers on c&r waters have caught the same fish more than once in the same day. It has happened to me on two occasions with distinctively marked easily identifiable fish that I could be sure about There is ample proof that it works by the tag count of fish caught more than once.


David.

 

The returning of fish is a moral dilemma for some anglers it seems. My own feeling is that if these anglers are so concerned about the welfare of the fish at this level, then they should really not be fishing.

Hello David,
funny you bring this up, i have no intention at all to hijack this interesting thread. But i think many of us (if not all) have encountered moments when moral dilemmas regarding angling started popping up...when they do i use a simple mantra to overcome them :

Angling is a religion
We all go to the same church
Our saviour is a fish
Then why do I continue to fish for it?
As a rational thinking being I have to keep on questioning my religion
I can only hope my saviour forgives me for doing so...

Johan

How would you say? "For god's sake, keep on fishing" ?

 

Hello everybody,
if you want to read some (more or less) scientific research and results on the matter : effects of catch and release on atlantic salmon - Google zoeken

Never caught one, but i know now that my first one (and all that might follow,for that matter) will definitely go back! I owe it to the salmon gods...
Will try to play it firm and release it quickly, though, no picture for me thanks! It'll be in my memory until the day i die...

Johan

 

I used to be in the fortunate position of fishing the Wye when it was the best salmon river in Wales and England and am ashamed to say that any fresh fish was knocked on the head and taken up to the local hotel to receive £2.50 per lb as weighed in the kitchen.

This was in 1970s/80s and I had already been returning a lot of my brown trout for some time but there was a mind set about knocking salmon. If returned they were going to go further up river and then die and what we were doing was cashing in on a transient resource. We paid a big rod licence and far more for a rod on a decent beat and fish that were sold offset a fair bit of the expense, especially for us working lads who were stretching budgets to fish anywhere on the Wye at that time, and quite frankly salmon fishing would not have been viable without killing and selling our fish.

We learnt to return our brown trout and there has been a sea change in attitudes to killing wild trout. Twenty years ago many trout would have been taken for the pot but now on some catchments almost no wild brown trout are killed and the benefits are there for all to see; more wild fish and bigger wild fish. I know that when you return a trout you have in your mind that the fish will be there for you later in the season and that's not the case with salmon.

We are getting there with salmon, return rates overall have risen over the past decade from about 30% to about 70% and will not get much higher unless significant numbers of anglers catching just one fish start returning them. As a general principle I don't think that anyone should be knocking any salmon on the head from rivers where they are struggling and this would include the Wye, Severn and probably Usk in my part of the World. A dead salmon definitely can't spawn but a returned fish might and that's good enough.

On rivers where there are more salmon I think that maybe a couple of fish a season is enough and even on rivers not at risk there is little justification for more than say half a dozen fish per season per angler, especially as wild salmon cannot be sold. There are clubs in North Wales that still have a return rate of about 30% and individual anglers in parts of Wales who killed more than 30 salmon in 2010 and this is a total disgrace in my view, totally unjustifiable and the type of behaviour that is going to encourage the EA to push for mandatory catch limits, tags and all the other consequences.

I'm going to be contentious and say that I think that some anglers are far too precious about handling and returning fish to the extent that they really should ask themselves whether they should be fishing at all. If you watch fish leaping at waterfalls they do themselves far more damage than even the roughest C&R technique and yet many obviously survive to spawn, not that this means that fish shouldn't be treated with anything other than total respect but a reasonable proportion of fish returned should make the spawning beds and in my view totally justifies the policy of C&R. Anglers intending to return fish should use heavy gear, play the fish hard and use barbless hooks in order to maximise the fish's survival chances.

I do however strongly feel that C&R is something for fishery owners, club rules, peer pressure, press coverage etc., and not legislation.

 

I'm going to be contentious and say that I think that some anglers are far too precious about handling and returning fish to the extent that they really should ask themselves whether they should be fishing at all. If you watch fish leaping at waterfalls they do themselves far more damage than even the roughest C&R technique and yet many obviously survive to spawn, not that this means that fish shouldn't be treated with anything other than total respect but a reasonable proportion of fish returned should make the spawning beds and in my view totally justifies the policy of C&R. Anglers intending to return fish should use heavy gear, play the fish hard and use barbless hooks in order to maximise the fish's survival chances.

Good comment.

 

There seems to be two points here NCA. Firstly, the effect on the fish of catch and release and secondly a moral question.

The first seems to be the welfare of the salmon - shouldn't other game fish be included? There are two things I think about here gettiing them in quick and releasing them quickly too. If possible without even removing them from the water. Barbless hooks and a Ketchem release work well here for small fish up to about 10lbs and the other key factor is getting them in quickly. I watched an experienced angler just last year take nearly 10 minutes getting a 6lb grilse in I couldn't help thinking he was toying with it, the rod was only half bent. There's no excuse for that.

Looking at the second issue: Hugh Falkus famously detested catch and release as he saw that as using a living creature as a toy for man's amusement. I know a couple of others who think in the same way, neither of them will go fishing unless they keep at least some of their catch.

 

Looking at the second issue: Hugh Falkus famously detested catch and release as he saw that as using a living creature as a toy for man's amusement. I know a couple of others who think in the same way, neither of them will go fishing unless they keep at least some of their catch.

I have heard this from other game anglers on several occasions and can see their point of view however to sustain that argument every legal fish caught would have to be killed and once enough fish had been caught for their meal fishing would have to cease. Keeping "some of their catch" is hypocritical and a fairly poor attempt to justify not practising or supporting increased C&R, if they feel this way they should either kill all fish or not fish at all and in my view this makes that argument essentially unsustainable.

This is supported by the fact that the vast majority of anglers in the UK (the several million coarse anglers) have no issues at all with returning 100% of their catch and the new EA rules now actually make it illegal not to do so (with a very few exceptions).

I have no problem with anyone needing to take fish for food doing so within reason, I shoot game and deer and it's essentially the same thing without the option for C&R and there's nothing wrong with harvesting from a sustainable resource. Falkus lived a lifestyle that was essentially "hunter/gatherer" and I am sure that he would only fish for and take what was needed for the pot but, if we're honest, for most of us fishing is just a recreation and plays little part in fulfilling our need for food, nobody would starve if we went 100% C&R.

 

I think it is very simple if a population is in danger to such extent, that taking a fish for pot would be dangerous to it, it should not be allowed to fish for those fish at all.

I used to be a C&R angler and no longer am becouse C&R is way too often used as an excuse for very strange things.

For example, hucho, which is sometimes called danube salmon, although, it has very diffret life habits, is protected amog other with allowed number of fish to be taken per fishings eason. For example, club sets a limit on 5 fish, and when 5 fish are taken out of water, the season ends.

Ok, sounds like a great conservation tool, but as people like to fish for it and guides like to earn their money and clubs like to sell tickets, there is a way around it. C&R. So you have for example 3 times more expensive license for a day of fishing which allows you to take fish, and a C&R ticket for a fraction of this. Sou you have large quantities fo fish cought and release on lures whihc can have up to 3 trebbles and you cna play mr. clean C&R angler, hundreds of fish are thrown back, of course they swim away and "are OK".

B.... In reality, C&R withouth a doubt claims more hucho per season, as there are legally taken. But of course you will not find a single C&R angler who will admit this. And they will be more than glad to call those, who take a hucho "butchers". Somehow i think, that a guy who takes a hucho (in most clubs he is not allowed to fish for it again in same season) is responsible for much less killed fish than some C&R hotshot, who releases tens of "undamaged" fish per season.

http://www.carleton.ca/fecpl/pdfs/fateoffishchapter.pdf

BlueOne

 

Re-Falkus, he expressed those views more than a generation ago and times have changed although I recall it was those sentiments exactly that persuaded me to switch from coarse fishing to game fishing a long time ago.

Since then I've gone from Spring salmon fishing on the Tay (all knocked on the head and look what happened to the Tay) to late summer fishing on the Dee when we kept the clean ones and put the coloured ones back, to catch and release on the Dee that seemed odd at first but we soon got used to it.

It's been a bit of a relief to do some fishing where you can still kill a fish or two, such as on the Oykel where fish populations are healthy. No, I don't have a problem with that or subscribe to Sewinbasher's "all or nothing" argument. I've been uneasy at the way catch and release has become almost a cult where you're judged constantly on the way you handle the fish.

Salmon are tough animals and fishing is hunting. I'm sure they would rather not be caught and I'm sure the fight is tiring but I don't play them until they're flat on their sides and try to get them in the net as soon as I can. They usually go back without much fuss. I'm interested to learn about the best techniques for fish handling and release but I hate to be lectured by anyone in a holier-than-thou way. That can sometimes happen when discussing catch and release.

One day there may be legislation that forces us to walk away. If so, that will be the beginning of the end for our wild fish, because no-one cares more about their quarry than anglers.

As a bearded liberal apologist who happens to like fishing and occasionally eating the fish I catch, I'm not too worried about defending my ethic to anyone.

We must all develop our own ethics and learn to respect those of others and, sure, its right to educate but some of this so-called education is questionable such as the oft repeated assertion that released fish are often caught again. I'm sure some are but the scientists say it doesn't happen very often as WillieGunn noted earlier.

It must have been soul-destroying to see a 40-pounder die. It reminds me of Hemingway's Old Man and the Sea, another one of those "what's it all about" morality tales. In today's forum tribute to Lesley Crawford she describes fishers as "still the biggest bunch of over-enthusiastic kids I know." She added: "fishing brings an unfussy relief because of its simplicity. It’s just pure fun and long may we enjoy it…”

We know a lot more about our fishing and the fish we catch today than we did when I started and I worry we're in danger of replacing that sense of fun with a sense of angst. My advice is shrug your shoulders, pull on your waders and get in to that stream. Life's too short.

 

We must all develop our own ethics and learn to respect those of others

Fishing is like christianity, first there was catholicism and then all hell broke loose, seriously though, there are not that many permutations and it ought to be possible to develop three or four identifiable threads (I hesitate to say schools) of coherent thought and debate these through rather than each defending his own patch of turf.

 

Your post was quite clear. It said what I quoted. What you said and what I quoted was nonsense. You make the claim that to sustain their argument they would have to kill all their fish. Nonsense, they would kill the prize or sought-after fish they felt met their criteria for keeping a fish. Nothing hypocritical about that. You built a straw man argument to justify your view of their actions.

However the initial position you ascribe to them is incorrect.
Faulkus viewed what he did as hunting and believed he would be acting incorrectly if he was hunting just for the pleasure and not for the prize. This does not mean he would have to keep every fish he caught, there's no connection between the two, as shown by the example criteria I gave which I happen to use. Faulkus would have had his own criteria for keeping a fish too.

There is no logical correlation between believing it is unethical to fish solely for the pleasure of the activity and the need to kill everything you catch. Why would the pursuit of food of a sought after standard necessitate the needless waste consequent to your false argument? Those who see angling as a form of hunting believe it is worth the discomfort caused to those fish released while pursuing the fish sought. Hunters with guns do the same, but they choose the quarry before they pull the trigger; anglers have not got that option, we release the fish not sought. To believe that it is wrong to cause the discomfort without the possibility of the prize, or that this is to treat the quarry as a play-thing, is neither hypocritical nor a lesser position than those who believe it is only right to release their fish once they have had the pleasure they sought. One side sees the pleasure as sufficient justification for the activity, the other does not.

 

they would kill the prize or sought-after fish they felt met their criteria for keeping a fish. Nothing hypocritical about that.

No Beanzy, perhaps not hypocritical but still an anthropocentric way of acting. Either you eat the fish you catch or you stop fishing. Food is food, if it's small fish you catch and keep a few, if you're lucky to catch a big one, you go home. Catching and releasing fish until your "prize" comes along looks to me like being too picky to choose .

Hunters with guns do the same, but they choose the quarry before they pull the trigger

They do, but mainly because they get fined heavily when they shoot game they weren't supposed to shoot or when they see it concerns pregnant animals or mothers with young (etc.)

anglers have not got that option

Yes they do, either they only fish on sight or they content themselves with the smaller (younger) fish and leave the mature brood fish alone as you supposedly do (but mostly it's the other way around isn't it?) I guess keeping the biggest is inherent in our anthropocentric way of thinking.

One side sees the pleasure as sufficient justification for the activity, the other does not.

There is no black and white, only grey...if a hunter wouldn't find some pleasure in hunting he'd go to the butcher same for the "angler" fishing for food...

Don't get me wrong, like yours mine is just a point of view

Best regards,
Johan

PS IMO it all boils down to the restraint : a "wise" angler should know where and when to fish for what and equally when to stop.

 

Keep them.The Seals dont worry!!!Few boiled potatos and asparagas and a nice cutlet!!!
Heaven!!

 

I'll reply in general to both posts as they both cover the same ground.

From your posts I can see you both agree that it is not in fact hypocritical to fish for food keeping some of the catch. I have also illustrated that it is not just an excuse for not supporting increased c&r. That was my argument with sewinbasher's post. However I always thought Hugh Faulkus' view was about c&r being wrong if that's all you did and you weren't prepared to keep and use the catch, as it reduced the fish to nothing more than the source of the pleasure you derive and failed to treat it with the respect due to a quarry. Sewinbasher you seem to think he meant releasing a fish which was within the legal limits was wrong if it was caught. I never got that from reading his book it's not what he seems to have written, but you bring the benefit of first hand clarification to that. I agree that's something that most anglers would find strange. I tend to view the legal limits as being a starting point for choosing the fish which should be kept so it would be strange to keep it just because it was 'legal'. However there is no correlation between disagreeing with c&r only and having to kill all the fish you catch which fall within what is legal. If you fish for only the best then you've got to rummage through the rest (as carefully as you can of course) and it would be wasteful to keep the others just because they are legal.

The remaining post is merely illustration and I was indicating stalking when I said hunter. lhomme your description of only fishing by sight does not work, not all river systems or species of fish allow this, not even our little one with it's great salmon and seatrout. I take it you refer to trout or other species which will rise or reveal themselves in waters which are shallow enough and clear enough to do so? If so you'd severely limit the scope of much angling with your statement.

As for the rest of the posts, don't mistake my posts outlining why I consider the original statement nonsense, for being an expression of my position regarding c&r or killing a fish. I presented the reasons to illustrate the flaw and the lack of a logical connection between killing some fish and having to kill all the fish you catch.

To go back to the original thread topic I fish primarily for pleasure, and when I feel it is appropriate I keep fish. But don't see it as an either or situation as it is so often presented. This is a well known tendency in debate to dichotomize world views, so if you discredit one position the observer is forced to accept the other. The facts do not support this in angling, they do not force us to always choose between one situation and the other across all situations and river systems. Certainly individual rivers or populations of fish may not be capable of supporting a harvest, in which case there are choices to be made between fishing and releasing the quarry or deciding we should not fish. The only other alternative there seems to be to ignore the data which says that system or population can not support a harvest of a certain level, which would be irresponsible. Luckily in most situations we are not forced to confront this issue as there are considerable areas across the country which can sustain a level of harvest.

All too often there are situations where this harvest level is not supported by those charged with custodianship of the system. We have clubs and riparians on wild rivers setting bag limits which are too high for any system, but either through economic or social pressures or just greed they do not lower these to reflect the actual harvest sustainable in any given year. There may be places where these limits should be set at zero until stocks return and that throws up issues of how you maintain those systems and the associated economy during that period of total restraint. However once set at a zero harvest level it is seems to be just as irresponsible not to increase it again once the population can once again support a harvest.

This is taking the tool of c&r and turning it into a belief no longer supported by the data. We have such a system nationally for salmon up to June 15th. In my case I chose not to fish for salmon then, unless it is to take a friend fishing and show them the river or how or fish and maybe have the chance to show them what our salmon are like here. However it is risky and I have had that lesson driven home when I lost a cock fish I intended to release one August morning. As he was in so early he had too much energy left, he launched himself into gyrations while in the net and twisted the barb-less single fly around severing something below his tongue. I didn't notice the blood streaming below his body as I had him in the water and it was only as he was not recovering I looked back below his tail and saw it.

I gain a great pleasure from the whole activity and will fish just for that pleasure. Like sewinbasher I haven't seen any credible data showing that fish are sentient enough to suffer unduly while being caught so don't see that as an issue. However I could not subscribe to a general position where c&r were the only option, as the population data does not support this position on the rivers I fish. I would find it difficult to derive as much pleasure from my fishing if I were only fishing for the pleasure of the catch and were obliged to release everything. I want the other pleasures and rewards to be there too or it would be a much lesser experience.

Generally I will still fish if there is a fish in the freezer, but I won't keep another until that one's gone. I also realise the river needs to return a good percentage of the fish and so only allow myself to keep a maximum of 1 out of every 5 salmon caught. For me that normally means I catch the first really good one I will keep it that year, after which it's the tenth if I should be so lucky. If not I consider my self on a deficit and need to return the required number the next season before keeping any more.

As outlined above we are not in a position where it is either c&r or c&k on most systems.

 

To go back to the original thread topic I fish primarily for pleasure, and when I feel it is appropriate I keep fish. But don't see it as an either or situation as it is so often presented. This is a well known tendency in debate to dichotomize world views, so if you discredit one position the observer is forced to accept the other. The facts do not support this in angling, they do not force us to always choose between one situation and the other across all situations and river systems. Certainly individual rivers or populations of fish may not be capable of supporting a harvest, in which case there are choices to be made between fishing and releasing the quarry or deciding we should not fish. The only other alternative there seems to be to ignore the data which says that system or population can not support a harvest of a certain level, which would be irresponsible. Luckily in most situations we are not forced to confront this issue as there are considerable areas across the country which can sustain a level of harvest.

All too often there are situations where this harvest level is not supported by those charged with custodianship of the system. We have clubs and riparians on wild rivers setting bag limits which are too high for any system, but either through economic or social pressures or just greed they do not lower these to reflect the actual harvest sustainable in any given year. There may be places where these limits should be set at zero until stocks return and that throws up issues of how you maintain those systems and the associated economy during that period of total restraint. However once set at a zero harvest level it is seems to be just as irresponsible not to increase it again once the population can once again support a harvest.

This is taking the tool of c&r and turning it into a belief no longer supported by the data. We have such a system nationally for salmon up to June 15th. In my case I chose not to fish for salmon then, unless it is to take a friend fishing and show them the river or how or fish and maybe have the chance to show them what our salmon are like here. However it is risky and I have had that lesson driven home when I lost a cock fish I intended to release one August morning. As he was in so early he had too much energy left, he launched himself into gyrations while in the net and twisted the barb-less single fly around severing something below his tongue. I didn't notice the blood streaming below his body as I had him in the water and it was only as he was not recovering I looked back below his tail and saw it.

I gain a great pleasure from the whole activity and will fish just for that pleasure. Like sewinbasher I haven't seen any credible data showing that fish are sentient enough to suffer unduly while being caught so don't see that as an issue. However I could not subscribe to a general position where c&r were the only option, as the population data does not support this position on the rivers I fish. I would find it difficult to derive as much pleasure from my fishing if I were only fishing for the pleasure of the catch and were obliged to release everything. I want the other pleasures and rewards to be there too or it would be a much lesser experience.

Generally I will still fish if there is a fish in the freezer, but I won't keep another until that one's gone. I also realise the river needs to return a good percentage of the fish and so only allow myself to keep a maximum of 1 out of every 5 salmon caught. For me that normally means I catch the first really good one I will keep it that year, after which it's the tenth if I should be so lucky. If not I consider my self on a deficit and need to return the required number the next season before keeping any more.

As outlined above we are not in a position where it is either c&r or c&k on most systems.

Agreed with one qualification.

As a committee member of thee clubs, two of which fish for migratory fish over a number of catchments, it is the case that no matter what your personal beliefs, or even the beliefs of the committee as a whole, clubs are usually democratic bodies and if you can't carry the majority of the membership then you may not be able to impose the rules, catch limits or return policies that you might want to. Sadly, there are inevitably dinosaurs within the membership and this can inhibit progress.

In the trout fishing club we have got a position where no wild trout have been intentionally killed for 7 seasons and the price of this is that at the moment we have to continue to stock a reducing number of triploid takeable browns for those that wish to keep fish to eat. They are dye marked in order to identify them

In the two migratory fishing clubs, one has a 6 salmon per season limit for each member over three catchments (only 2 of these can be from one more threatened catchment) and in 2010, despite some catching up to 20 salmon, no member retained more than 5. The other club fishes just one catchment has more "old school" members and is finding it harder to get reduced catch limits agreed but has managed to get method restrictions and a 2 fish per week limit. This is not yet acceptable and requires more work.

 

Just to take the thread in a slightly different direction, here's an aspect of salmon fishing ethics that I still don't get...

Why is it that if you take one salmon you get your **** ripped out by the C&R brigade yelling 'dead fish cannae spawn'. Yet many of these same people who believe not only that all salmon should be returned (nothing wrong with that, personal choice) but treat them like sick children and blub if they have to chap one (I mean yes we should respect our quarry.. but come on!) are the same people who often advocate the killing of all brown trout, especially big ones, in order to reduce competition and 'protect salmon parr'. Seems damn stupid to me..

 

Agreed, makes no sense to me either.

 

Hi Beanzy,

i fully agree with you that fishing by sight is not always possible and certainly not for salmon, i only wanted to make it clear that any angler exclusively or "partially" fishing for food has the option to choose to do so if he doesn't like or want to return fish. Of course that narrows down the possibilities, but in my mind that would be part of the game to any angler who chooses to fish on the basis of such strict principles. If you want to restrict the reason why you go fishing you begin by restricting the way you do it (otherwise it would be hypocritical!!). And for that matter you imply restrictions on where you do it and for how long you do it...that's the moral obligation i would sense towards my prey, if i would be thinking in such an extreme way. But i'm not, like you i go fishing because i like it and because it offers me a unique way of interacting and even merging with nature and other living things, even if i catch nothing. And like you, i will keep a single fish now and then. When i do, i clean it by the river, leave what's left for other animals to eat and eat it's heart on the spot. It has become a ritual and keeps you from taking too many .
I have installed a program where pupils (yes children from the age of 7!) can catch, kill, clean, cook and eat their own fish (don't worry, they're all stocked rainbows coming from our own fish farm). Surprisingly, teachers choose this program more often now than the "fishing for fun" programs. And i can only be glad for it because i get the chance to show and explain them that angling is more than just pulling a fish out of his element (for pleasure), that it's part of nature's laws because we're part of that nature and part (and even on top) of that food chain and that it's important to deal with that in a conscious and rational way...it works, many don't like killing and eating the fish they catch and will never do it again or even fish again for that matter, some are hooked for life and i can only hope they'll keep remembering the lesson they learned...and become wise and conscious anglers like you.

Kindest regards,
Johan

PS Have you ever tried fishing with cut off hooks (and i mean cut off at the tail of the fly so you don't do any damage to any taking fish)? I do it regularly when i try out new flies on "my" river and when i practice spey casting on the lake in front of my house or simply when i'm in that special mood that comes over me more and more frequently. It's fun, it brings you in a strange but pleasant state of mind and what's more... i seem to get more takes than when i'm actually trying to hook a fish .

 

Hi Beanzy,

PS Have you ever tried fishing with cut off hooks (and i mean cut off at the tail of the fly so you don't do any damage to any taking fish)? I do it regularly when i try out new flies on "my" river and when i practice spey casting on the lake in front of my house or simply when i'm in that special mood that comes over me more and more frequently. It's fun, it brings you in a strange but pleasant state of mind and what's more... i seem to get more takes than when i'm actually trying to hook a fish .

Do you mean have no hook on the 'hook'?. I tend to just use a broken one when I practice casting. Otherwise I've so little time to get out there each trip needs to be the full deal.

 

Sorry guys,
had to walk the dogs before it gets dark . Yes, Beanzy, i mean no hook on the hook. Now don't get me wrong, this is a personal choice and i would never ever expect someone else to even think about doing it. Like yourself many people don't even have sufficient time to fish as much as they would like to and only want to make the most of their trip. Having never caught a salmon i would be stupid to fish the only week in the year that i can without a hook on the fly! More so it's quite an expensive pass-time, as you know...but after catching a few thousand trout and almost half a century of fishing the eagerness sort of wears off. I found this to be the ideal way of staying in touch with it all and to keep on enjoying it. Instead of becoming a grumpy old fart criticizing all and everything that don't fit in "my" picture...
I don't know, but wouldn't it be a good idea to ask Admin to install a permanent thread or forum on angling ethics in the most broadest sense? I read a lot about educating and teaching on this forum (i prefer to call it sharing) and i think lots of people would benefit from what others have to say about it. And when i say "broadest" i mean not only ethics regarding the fish, but also regarding nature, other animals (including other fish than the ones one likes to catch or protect), other anglers, other water users, laws and rules, etc.. Must i go on?
Now lots of valuable thoughts and meanings about ethics and behaviour get lost in the murmur of the beehive. Isn't it time we start agreeing on a basic set of rules, we have to abide by so many installed by others, surely all together we have gathered enough experience to come up with some of our own, don't we? Maybe, just maybe that could be the way to get us organized as one worldwide group (one of the most powerful on the globe, BTW), united under one flag. What a bang that would give when we'd knock on the tables of power,hey? Wouldn't their silver and crystal start rattling as never before? Wouldn't we get things done then? Again don't get me wrong, i will be the last to say what someone can't do, but i'm all for helping to share what (in my opinion) one can do.
If there is one thing i've learned from angling then it's this : there are times it can be more fulfilling to know that you can catch a fish instead of catching it.

Very nice story, Sewinbasher, i think your friend must have laughed his head off!

Johan