Fly Fishing Forum banner

Use your Camera not A Priest

6K views 67 replies 35 participants last post by  hydropsyched 
#1 ·
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.
 
See less See more
1
#3 ·
Thanks Jim I have already read that post. However the photo is a very graphic illustration IMO of when fish should be released. These aren't over populated waters where an odd fish or two for the pan is of little significance and there is certainly no abundance of fish like this.
Hydro
 
#4 ·
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
 
#7 ·
I agree wholeheartedly. But a photo taken using a bit of sense and consideration is always going to be the better option.


---------- 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?
 
#5 ·
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
 
#9 ·
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:
 
#12 ·
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
 
#14 ·
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 !!
 
#15 ·
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.
 
#16 ·
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
 
#24 ·
im a big fan of the American style of size limits which allows all of the larger breeding stock to be put back and the younger more plentiful fish to be knocked on the head :thumbs: but all that is down to education of anglers who think the rivers have a never ending supply of fish

that being said when there are plentiful stocked stillwaters I cant see the need for taking fish from running water :(

and on a personal note I wouldn't eat fish from our rivers due to the **** that is sprayed on crops and then washed down the rivers :eek:mg:
 
#26 ·
I do agree that some anglers when taking pics/photo's have their fish out of the water for too long.

I have an olympus tough (underwater camera) and release my fish in the water.
This does not involve removing the fish from the water in any way. However, it does take a bit of practice to take a good pic whilst holding the camera underwater.

This method, in my opinion, is the way forward. The fish always seem very keen to swim away!!


Douglas
 
#27 ·
If you care about wild fish, then removing a single large fish will free up enough space and food in the ecosystem for several smaller fish to survive and thrive. So in fact, it can be argued that you should always remove large fish.

Not that this looks like a wild fish, but...

Do people think fish just get bigger and better forever. This one looks like it's losing condition, it may not have even survived the winter, so taking it out of the water was the right thing to do.

If it's not against the rules, and it's from a sustainable source, then I'm sorry, but people should stop judging others for keeping fish.
 
#39 ·
If you care about wild fish, then removing a single large fish will free up enough space and food in the ecosystem for several smaller fish to survive and thrive. So in fact, it can be argued that you should always remove large fish.

Not that this looks like a wild fish, but...

Do people think fish just get bigger and better forever. This one looks like it's losing condition, it may not have even survived the winter, so taking it out of the water was the right thing to do.

If it's not against the rules, and it's from a sustainable source, then I'm sorry, but people should stop judging others for keeping fish.
Most sensible post on the whole thread :thumbs:

Best regards
Jim
 
#28 ·
k 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.
HMMMM,
If it is a stockie you dont care?
If is a wildie you do?
Is a trout.
Was a living trout till it was captured and killed.
Stocked, or wild, was still a living being.
If it was 1lb, wild or stocked, was still the same living being.
When we make the decision to take the life, does it actually matter if is wild or reared?
a life is a life.
your decision.
but I wont pillory you for taking that decision, either way.
regards
bert
 
#32 ·
Here goes the panic when someone takes a fish for the table :rolleyes: Mind your own business and let anglers alone to do what they choose , If your ticket allows a trout for the table then by all means take one , The big browns are not great eating thats another reason I return them , Trout around 3/4 to 2 lb are super eating.

99.9 % of my trout go back most of the good ones get photographed and back they go and as for taking them out of the water....Trout can be taken out for 30 seconds to a minute with no ill effects to have a photo taken so stop all the panic FFS:whistle:

Col
 
G
#33 ·
Not read all the thread but to me that fish looks like a stockie thats been in a while. To my eyes not a very nice looking fish at that.

Most but not all of the rivers I fish have ltd stocking . I will sometimes take a stocked trout for the table no matter how long its been in. The evidence would seem to be that stocked fish do nothing for the river other than eat and massage anglers egos.

Although I have to say that I am philosophical about sensible stocking as I know just how much most river anglers seem to want to stocking and most clubs would not survive without it.

Truth is if its legal and you want to take a fish then you should go with your own judgement.

Andy
 
#34 ·
This quandary would be removed if folk would just give over stocking in rivers. It ought to be illegal!

richard
 
#37 ·
Which brings into question your motto Bruce? "When you leave the river take nothing and leave only footprints" some might find that a tad hypocritical. Not me though I'll just take it as an oversight on your part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coasty

Truth is if its legal and you want to take a fish then you should go with your own judgement.

Andy
 
#38 ·
Like I've already said in another thread, if killing a fish upsets people THAT much then they need to consider that maybe something harmless like marbles might not be a better way of passing their time.

Richard's usual cure-all I see. Not just ban it, but make it illegal! I'd like to see the state of his bank balance after all the fish farmers have sued him for compensation.
 
#40 ·
Just returned from holiday in france around Millau and the Cevennes national park .

Spectacular gorges and fantastic fly rivers

In france you c an use any fishing method short of dynamite , the French don't understand catch and release on catch for the pot . Some rivers however have a 10, yes 10 ! fish limit , minimum size 8 inch !

End result fantastic rivers devoid of fish above 6 inches
 
#46 ·
For stocking of rivers with brown trout, read, ''should not be necessary'' as opposed to ''should be illegal''. It should be illegal if there is no real necessity to stock.
Re killing trout; if the water is not capable of providing the native stock with adequate spawning facilities, which would permit controlled and responsible catch-and-kill, then compulsory CandR becomes a must. It has its drawbacks, also.
If the water won't stand the killing of the odd ''pan-sized'' fish for the table, it is way past the time when some effort to improve the habitat was made.
On Penrith AA waters, we have some compulsory CandR; which applies to all the Go Wild in Eden fishing. And those who throws up there hands in horror at the thought of someone actually eating a wild brown trout needs to think about the roots of their sport; and they might need to re-think about their approach to fishing.
Does anyone honestly think the catching and releasing of a wild trout does the fish any good? How many people think the killing of wild trout in some scenarios actually improves the state of affairs? I do. as I have fished numerous lochans, lochs, loughs and llyns that were over=populated, and not sufficiently fertile.
Trout are a part of the harvest which nature provided in great quantity, before man arrived and messed up life for the monkeys -- and the rest of the animal world. They are still a ''harvestable'', natural and wholesome source of food, treated with studied moderation. jadaTC
 
#49 ·
For stocking of rivers with brown trout, read, ''should not be necessary'' as opposed to ''should be illegal''. It should be illegal if there is no real necessity to stock....
No! No! No!

"Is not necessary", ever! So, "should be illegal" is correct.

Even if a river is polluted to the point of killing thousands of fish. It should not be restocked with any fish at all. The fish that survive and the fish that will migrate there to fill a niche when the water is back to good condition will restock the river naturally. It may take 10 or 20 years but it will happen. No fish to fish for? Tough! Sue the polluter for the full value of all the years lost, but do not stock it artificially at all.

richard
 
#51 ·
also (in my opinion) a long way off 5½lbs too....
 
#50 ·
Looks like a stockie to me as well, Alex.

As some folks know I fish Sutton Bingham reservoir quite a lot each spring. It's a mandatory catch and kill fishery, and I am not about to take the p155 out of Ivan by unilaterally declaring selective catch and release. A few years ago I had to chap a nice looking 3lb male brownie that would have been stocked at around 1lb 4oz. Wet phone book does not do justice to the dismal quality of the flesh when I tried to cook it. If asked, I'd rather have popped it back.
 
#53 ·
Well I fished from the Pavilion up to the Strid that afternoon and never saw another angler. wonder which beat it came from ? Not surprised the thing looked emaciated it was 30 degrees + that day it's a wonder it wasn't par boiled if it had had an hour out of the water !
 
#54 ·
Not sure which beat but its unlikely to have been from the pavilion through the strid. Yes it was very hot that day. Again it begs the question, why would you take a fish of any sort in that weather unless you was culling them for a specific reason or you had some means of cold storing the thing? What the hell would you do with it in that state? Par boiled, poached or whatever I wouldn't of fancied it :)
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top