Use your Camera not A Priest

hydropsyched

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 21, 2013
Messages
2,523
Ok I start by making an assumption here that the fish in the photo is a wild fish. If it's a stockie then it's not a big issue for me. Doesn't look like any stockie I have seen and my understanding is that the biggest stocked fish in this section of river are around the 3lb mark and then very few and far between. Anyway this 5 1/2lb brownie was caught and killed on the River Wharfe at Bolton Abbey yesterday. If it wasn't a stockie then why would you do such a thing? It must take years for fish to get to that size in rivers like thje Wharfe. It's a sad photo in imho. How fantastic it would have looked if it had been photographed alive and returned.
 

hydropsyched

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 21, 2013
Messages
2,523

richardw

Trade Member
Joined
May 18, 2006
Messages
10,571
Location
On the banks of the Derbyshire Wye
Ok I start by making an assumption here that the fish in the photo is a wild fish. If it's a stockie then it's not a big issue for me. Doesn't look like any stockie I have seen and my understanding is that the biggest stocked fish in this section of river are around the 3lb mark and then very few and far between. Anyway this 5 1/2lb brownie was caught and killed on the River Wharfe at Bolton Abbey yesterday. If it wasn't a stockie then why would you do such a thing? It must take years for fish to get to that size in rivers like thje Wharfe. It's a sad photo in imho. How fantastic it would have looked if it had been photographed alive and returned.

We should also choose carefully when to use our cameras...

Tuesday evening last week, having returned two brown trout, each of which I estimated at around five pounds, plus five trout more over two pounds and many other smaller trout and grayling, I was strolling home, filled with delight as you'd expect, and realised that I'd not made a photograph of any of them. In fact now I hardly ever photograph a trout or grayling. It takes too long and, at the moment, it is too damned hot, even in the dark. Very occasionally there may be something that is worth recording on a fish, such as some distinctive markings that could be recognised again in a few years' time when the fish has grown on (or not), then everything needs to be done as quickly as possible. They aren't like carp. They need to be in the water asap. If a picture is required then the fish is kept in the net in the water, the camera made ready, the fish lifted and laid down, the exposure made, the net lifted and the fish is straight back in the water, ten seconds out of the water maximum.

richard
 

brian_mcg

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
895
Richard,Totally agree with you.
At the start of this season I decided to take some Photos of Fish,mainly for my website.
I quickly realised that at times it wasn't practical nor good for the Fish,don't take pictures anymore and I know that the people who know me,know that If I said I caught whatever they will believe me.
I sometimes think that it is the person holding the fish that want their picture taken:)

Brian
 

hydropsyched

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 21, 2013
Messages
2,523
I agree wholeheartedly. But a photo taken using a bit of sense and consideration is always going to be the better option.
We should also choose carefully when to use our cameras...

Tuesday evening last week, having returned two brown trout, each of which I estimated at around five pounds, plus five trout more over two pounds and many other smaller trout and grayling, I was strolling home, filled with delight as you'd expect, and realised that I'd not made a photograph of any of them. In fact now I hardly ever photograph a trout or grayling. It takes too long and, at the moment, it is too damned hot, even in the dark. Very occasionally there may be something that is worth recording on a fish, such as some distinctive markings that could be recognised again in a few years' time when the fish has grown on (or not), then everything needs to be done as quickly as possible. They aren't like carp. They need to be in the water asap. If a picture is required then the fish is kept in the net in the water, the camera made ready, the fish lifted and laid down, the exposure made, the net lifted and the fish is straight back in the water, ten seconds out of the water maximum.

richard


---------- Post added at 11:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:22 AM ----------

Unfortunately yes. There is a limit to the numbers that can be taken in a day. Fish that are allowed to be taken should be applied to stock fish only IMO.
Are you even allowed to kill fish at Bolton Abbey?
 

wobbly face

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
22,262
Location
Not So Greater Manchester.
They did use to stock brownies in the Bolton Abbey stretch. I stopped going years ago, too many sh!t head dog owners and it's a lot of money to fish now :mad:

I always carry a camera with me, just forget to use the thing. :eek:mg:
 

hydropsyched

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 21, 2013
Messages
2,523
Or anywhere else for that matter:) As for the Derbyshire Wye I have not yet had the pleasure. Hopefully some day soon
It is certainly a better option than a clonk on the head!

richard


---------- Post added at 11:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:30 AM ----------

They still do and there are still plenty of sh!t head dog owners too. There is still some great fishing if you go at the right times and avoid the crowds. Also some fantastic fish in there and there would be even more if brainless idiots would stop killing them.
They did use to stock brownies in the Bolton Abbey stretch. I stopped going years ago, too many sh!t head dog owners and it's a lot of money to fish now :mad:

I always carry a camera with me, just forget to use the thing. :eek:mg:
 
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
6,957
Location
Scotland
We should also choose carefully when to use our cameras...

Tuesday evening last week, having returned two brown trout, each of which I estimated at around five pounds, plus five trout more over two pounds and many other smaller trout and grayling, I was strolling home, filled with delight as you'd expect, and realised that I'd not made a photograph of any of them. In fact now I hardly ever photograph a trout or grayling. It takes too long and, at the moment, it is too damned hot, even in the dark. Very occasionally there may be something that is worth recording on a fish, such as some distinctive markings that could be recognised again in a few years' time when the fish has grown on (or not), then everything needs to be done as quickly as possible. They aren't like carp. They need to be in the water asap. If a picture is required then the fish is kept in the net in the water, the camera made ready, the fish lifted and laid down, the exposure made, the net lifted and the fish is straight back in the water, ten seconds out of the water maximum.

richard

I agree with all of this .Especially in the heat we have been exposed to of late.Our candr rules are simple and common sense and applied in all cases.



Many who talk good candr often don't apply the rules they so often diligently accuse others of.
 

fatty

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2012
Messages
111
Location
blyth
Surely if someone wants to keep a fish and take it home and this is not against any rules then there is no harm in takeing a picture of a catch he will be proud of. As long as its all legal I see no problem. If it was going back then thats completely different. I like to take home at least 1 fish every other month for the table.
Sean
 

BroAngler

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2011
Messages
1,051
Surely if someone wants to keep a fish and take it home and this is not against any rules then there is no harm in takeing a picture of a catch he will be proud of. As long as its all legal I see no problem. If it was going back then thats completely different. I like to take home at least 1 fish every other month for the table.
Sean

I wouldn't think twice about taking a couple of smallish fish out of a loch that's stuffed. But taking the biggest fish in the pool home? Well that's just a bit sh•t isn't it?
 

Mark Morton

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
Messages
1,240
My brain is still happy to remember almost all of the fish of note I catch(no further comment required ), although I admit to taking a few pictures on holiday trips.
Most of my eating fish now come from stillwaters, so no requirement to take a wild fish to eat from our river, but the Pikeys and cormorants have free reign !!
 

Dingbat

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
5,686
Location
Switzerland
My brain is still happy to remember almost all of the fish of note I catch(no further comment required ), although I admit to taking a few pictures on holiday trips.
Most of my eating fish now come from stillwaters, so no requirement to take a wild fish to eat from our river, but the Pikeys and cormorants have free reign !!

One should only eat provenanced organic food and since I don't know what wild fish have been eating - could be the remains of a drug addict for all I know - and since they don t come with a best by date, the lack of paperwork is distressing, its simply too dangerous to eat wild fish.
 

Reg Wyatt

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
1,161
Ok I start by making an assumption here that the fish in the photo is a wild fish. If it's a stockie then it's not a big issue for me. Doesn't look like any stockie I have seen and my understanding is that the biggest stocked fish in this section of river are around the 3lb mark and then very few and far between. Anyway this 5 1/2lb brownie was caught and killed on the River Wharfe at Bolton Abbey yesterday. If it wasn't a stockie then why would you do such a thing? It must take years for fish to get to that size in rivers like thje Wharfe. It's a sad photo in imho. How fantastic it would have looked if it had been photographed alive and returned.

Might be slightly off topic but I'd have said it looks more like a stocked fish - a very nice stocked fish at that. Thought the dorsal looks a bit stunted, slightly flabby and tail fin not as sharp as a wildie.
Once again I might add - Reg could be missing something here.
I do agree with the points made in this thread with reference wild fish.

Reg Wyatt
 

3lbgrayling

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2006
Messages
31,945
Location
Central Scotland
Might be slightly off topic but I'd have said it looks more like a stocked fish - a very nice stocked fish at that. Thought the dorsal looks a bit stunted, slightly flabby and tail fin not as sharp as a wildie.
Once again I might add - Reg could be missing something here.
I do agree with the points made in this thread with reference wild fish.

Reg Wyatt

I'm with you Reg.

Jim
 

harveyangling

Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2011
Messages
2,280
Location
South Wales
Might be slightly off topic but I'd have said it looks more like a stocked fish - a very nice stocked fish at that. Thought the dorsal looks a bit stunted, slightly flabby and tail fin not as sharp as a wildie.
Once again I might add - Reg could be missing something here.
I do agree with the points made in this thread with reference wild fish.

Reg Wyatt

Agree, I wouldn't have thought that a wild fish, certainly looks like a stocked brown, and a scabby one at that.

We have fish in the Taff that were stocked 6 years ago and grown on to between 6lb and 7lb

These are triploid fish and do the wild stock no good at all. When these fish are pulled out they look magnificent, their fins have had years to develop from the stumps they one were.

Would anglers be concerned seeing these killed, as I personally believe we would be better off without them.
 

hydropsyched

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 21, 2013
Messages
2,523
Could be but I'm pretty sure they don't stock them that big. There are bigger Stockies further up river in the next club section so could of ended up downstream. Any doubt would make a clear case for marking of stocked fish beforehand. I regularly see people taking fish giving no consideration to wether they are wild or stocked which is unfortunate to say the least.
Might be slightly off topic but I'd have said it looks more like a stocked fish - a very nice stocked fish at that. Thought the dorsal looks a bit stunted, slightly flabby and tail fin not as sharp as a wildie.
Once again I might add - Reg could be missing something here.
I do agree with the points made in this thread with reference wild fish.

Reg Wyatt
 
Top