Taking pictures and then returning fish

JohnH

Well-known member
Joined
May 18, 2006
Messages
4,416
Location
Near Southampton
I think anzac is right about C'n'R for game fish starting in North America, viz Lee Wulff's famous saying. But the principle was originated by English coarse match fishermen in the first half of the 20th century...at least that's my reading of angling history.
 
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
6,627
Location
Scotland
A chap I was with last Friday wanted a photo of a particularly nice brown but didn't want it killed. I kept it in the net in the water while he got his camera ready, placed net on the ground and put his reel alongside. He took the photo and i returned the trout in the net into the water where it rapidly recovered and swam off when it was ready. No harm, no foul.

If they want the classic "hero" shot then the fish is killed first and they can have all the photos they want.

I do hope morayfisher doesn't eat chicken. Pheasants on a shoot live wild for about 4 months before the season starts and then they have around a 50% chance of survival. Contrast that with a truck load of chickens arriving at the processing plant. 100% are dead within 2 hours.
I do but I dont see many wild chickens.At least they are eaten and not man handled and damaged in some cases and then put back.Not good seeing fish badly marked with fungi growing all over them.
 

PaulD

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2020
Messages
1,265
Location
South Northants
Whilst we acknowledge that fish can be tough creatures, continuing to feed after damage by pike or cormorants, trout surviving periods of floods, salmon able to negotiate waterfalls and migrate many hundreds of miles, coarse fish able to withstand broad ranges of temperature and oxygen levels . . . we need to understand that they are only 'tough' in their own environment. They are cold blooded creatures and susceptible to considerable shock when their muscle structure is full of lactic acid after being landed and laid on, what to them, is 'hot' grass, stones or boat boards or held / gripped with little support with pressure on vital organs. The least handling the better, and if a photo is wanted, in the net at water level.
 

speytime

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2009
Messages
6,404
Location
West Lothian Scotland
I think fish handling and welfare is down to age or experience, i don't like to take fish out of the water now, I've learnt if you unhook them in the water they recover much quicker.
_20200721_111537.JPGScreenshot_20200721-111443.png_20200721_111617.JPG
But you have allow for others learning, I've got my share of photos of fish out of the water.

For the uninitiated they are NOT heroe photos they're memories of the day ffs 🙄

Al
 

BobP

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
8,481
Location
Wiltshire
I do but I dont see many wild chickens.At least they are eaten and not man handled and damaged in some cases and then put back.Not good seeing fish badly marked with fungi growing all over them.
You were complaining about pheasant shoots, or perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough. And as for them not being manhandled or damaged can I suggest you ask for a tour of a chicken processing plant. Your request will not be granted, but try it anyway.

I had that experience many years ago so, hopefully, standards have improved since, but seeing as the consumer demands white meat from the chicken on the plate the only way that will to achieve that is to hang the bird by the feet on a moving conveyor where two or three people sit and slit the birds' throats as they go past upside down. Blood everywhere. After that the birds are plucked and dressed. Can anyone imagine an 8 hour shift slitting chickens' throats at the rate of one every ten seconds?

Anyone seeing that is going to remove all objection to pheasant shooting instantly because factory processing is inhumane in the extreme and on that account is never shown on TV.
 

Cap'n Fishy

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
25,278
Location
Embra
I think trout are a little hardier than some might give them credit for...
I agree. We have been catching rainbows on Menteith that you can count up the number of scars around their mouths to tell you how many times they have been caught before - some 3s and 4s in there! Plus the ones that have been mauled by pike, attacked by cormorants, etc, and seem to have recovered OK. Had this one recently that we reckon was grabbed by and got away from an osprey...



No pike in the water, but ospreys nest at the water's edge....

Col
 

mrnotherone

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
3,702
Location
Monmouthshire
Col, do you not think that a trout will be better 'equipped' to survive more naturally occurring challenges, like predators, than getting exhausted on a line, starved of oxygen and losing slim to poor handling?

I suspect it's harder to survive poor handling than a failed osprey attack. Not that I have any evidence.
 

thetrouttickler

Well-known member
Joined
May 15, 2009
Messages
2,161
Location
West Sussex
×
Col, do you not think that a trout will be better 'equipped' to survive more naturally occurring challenges, like predators, than getting exhausted on a line, starved of oxygen...
Where do you draw the line between questioning fish handling once caught and the fish catching which comes immediately before the handling?
 

Cap'n Fishy

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
25,278
Location
Embra
Col, do you not think that a trout will be better 'equipped' to survive more naturally occurring challenges, like predators, than getting exhausted on a line, starved of oxygen and losing slim to poor handling?

I suspect it's harder to survive poor handling than a failed osprey attack. Not that I have any evidence.
I agree - that was why I was pointing out that we are catching fish that have been caught, 2, 3, 4 times... and are still doing fine. At least one of those times was likely by someone with less than perfect handling skills...

Col
 

mrnotherone

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
3,702
Location
Monmouthshire
Where do you draw the line between questioning fish handling once caught and the fish catching which comes immediately before the handling?
I guess we all draw that line, or we wouldn't fish. By definition, an angler is happy to stress a fish by catching it. That doesn't mean we shouldn't minimise it's stress and maximise it's chance of survival, if we're not going to kill it.
 

thetrouttickler

Well-known member
Joined
May 15, 2009
Messages
2,161
Location
West Sussex
I guess we all draw that line, or we wouldn't fish. By definition, an angler is happy to stress a fish by catching it. That doesn't mean we shouldn't minimise it's stress and maximise it's chance of survival, if we're not going to kill it.
Indeed. But there is a very fine line. I have said previously there will be no recreational fishing at some stage in the future. Twenty years, fifty, who knows, but it will happen.
 

Cap'n Fishy

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
25,278
Location
Embra
I watched a really good programme they put on in place of the cricket highlights the day it was rained-off last week. I found it by accident and missed the start, so I didn't catch the exact details, but is seemed to be about an American guy who had retired and bought a cabin in the woods. He found the area was well-populated by black bears. While brown/grizzly bears are the ones you want to steer clear of, black bears seem to be big-clawed teddy-bears. The guy befriended them... was spending time among them... feeding them by hand, giving them a scratch behind the ear... being allowed by mother bear to play with her cubs... all that stuff.

He took his research further and started fitting them with radio collars to track them. When you see them doing this with African animals, they have to dart them to fit the collars. This guy simply went up to the bears and asked them if they didn't mind having a collar fitted! Most were happy for him to put one on, and those who declined... no problem...

He set up a visitor centre for the public to come and meet his bears. These totally wild bears would come in to the centre to meet the public - obviously as food was being offered - but each party learned from the other and all that...

And after all this, come the autumn, it was bear hunting season, and he had good-old boys with guns coming in to shoot his 'pet' bears. It seemed surreal! He put up notices politely requesting that the hunters spared the bears with the radio collars. He went round all his bears and put big red ribbons round their necks to make them even more obvious to the hunters. He also put on a Hi-Viz vest to avoid being shot himself!

He identified a group of 3 adolescent males that he called the 3 Amigos. Only half-grown. They were favourites with the public at the centre. And on the very first day of the season, one of the '3 Amigos' got popped by the hunters. The hunter even phoned the guy to let him know he had popped him. That was shortly followed by the demise of a second one of the 3 Amigos.

It all seemed absurd! But I bet if you remonstrated with the hunters, they would just say... "Well, you guys go sticking hooks in fish..."
 

speytime

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2009
Messages
6,404
Location
West Lothian Scotland
It is a bit rich to claim you love animals then go sticking a hook in a fish and playing it until it is beat.

As is often the case, I don't you shouldn't but its OK for me to do what I like comes to mind, I include myself in that.

Al
 

tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
4,590
There's really no defence of 'this thing of ours'. We do it because we enjoy it but it involves the suffering of animals...
 

wobbly face

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
20,945
Location
Not So Greater Manchester.
We're barbaric and do it for sport, unless it's a rainbow which I will knock one or two for to eat. :)
Anyway, short quick vid of a brown from the river today:
Quicker and easier than trying to get pohto. This was the only capture that I did video.
 

anzac

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 17, 2012
Messages
1,449
There's really no defence of 'this thing of ours'. We do it because we enjoy it but it involves the suffering of animals...
So, the takeaway from this discussion is fishing and C&R is inhumane, and we should do the ethical thing and end it. Is that right?

Which then leaves us with sustenance fishing, i.e. quota limited catch and kill. I suspect that there will be some objections from sports and competition anglers as well as fishery owners if that's the case.
 

taffy1

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2014
Messages
10,929
Location
Well within my comfort zone
We still have our hunter-gatherer instincts, no getting away from that, be it snaring/ferreting rabbits, fishing, hunting deer or game birds, to picking blackberries & hazel nuts etc. it's there in our genes. It's obviously more pronounced in those that do it but consciences have developed in others that see this as extreme, maybe barbaric with regard to animals. Vegitarians springs to mind.
 

PaulD

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2020
Messages
1,265
Location
South Northants
If people complain to me that the fishing I do is cruel, I ask them to consider the provenance of the fish in their fish and chip supper and suggest they take a trip on a trawler to witness how their food is caught, 'dispatched' and processed.
 

Latest posts

Top