UKC

Anyone know of any fishing venues where you are permitted to retain your catch for consumption?

In reply to mypyrex:

when is a coarse fish not a coarse fish?

In reply to malk:


Fish that are not considered to be game fish(salmon and trout) Pike, perch, roach, carp, tench etc are coarse fish.

In reply to mypyrex:


No.


Why would you. ??

In reply to arch:


Why wouldn't I? People DO eat coarse fish.

In reply to mypyrex:

Yes they do, but mostly farmed fish, rather than out your local fishery. Unless you are from Eastern Europe, then you just help yourself.


I would imagine Coarse fish to be muddy tasting.

In reply to arch:


Depends on how they're prepared and cooked. Years ago(when I was a lad) I caught and ate a pike. It was, if I remember, quite tasty.

In reply to mypyrex:

I remember watching Hugh Fearnly Whathisface catch a Grass carp for the table many moons ago. He put it in a bathtub, and ran clear river water through the bathtub for a week to "Purge" the fish of cr@p.

Go and have a look at your local Commercial fishery and see if you fancy anything from the menu.

In reply to mypyrex:

Pike and larger Perch are both quite tasty (smaller ones are too fiddly getting the bones out of), and the Eastern Europeans have quite a liking for Carp.

Roach are indeed a bit muddy tasting.

In reply to mypyrex:

is it because you don't want to pay for the catch? why not upland tarns or sea fishing?

In reply to malk:

No.

In reply to mypyrex:

Haddock?

In reply to Indy:

freshwater haddock?

In reply to mypyrex:

The only possible that I can think of would be where there is fishing that is not controlled by a club or commercial.

Best I can come up with are Environment Agency stretches of river, such as some of these on the Severn: http://www.wheretofish.co.uk/pages/fishing-on-the-river-severn.html

I expect they have similar on other catchments over the country, so maybe internet search?
I've eaten tench, carp, perch, pike, eels, grayling and probably others - so I think yours a perfectly good question.

In reply to Moley:
Thanks.
As I think I've said on other threads I just cannot see the point of catching a perfectly edible fish, only to return it to the water. After all the original reason behind fishing was as a source of food.

In reply to mypyrex:


Best of luck chapping a big Barbel over the head. Make sure you're on you your own when you do, or you could be swimming home........

In reply to mypyrex:
I might add that as a 19 year old (early 70s) I went to Bavaria for a 2 year apprenticeship on a fish farm, breeding carp, tench,zander,pike for the table. So that is where some of my eating has come from and I did regularly enjoy carp.

But I wouldn't want to knock one on the head at my angling club and try to explain it!!!
But I have nothing against the principal of eating your catch, whatever it is.

In reply to Moley:



But if you're fishing a water at which the rules allow catches to be retained then there should be no problem.

In reply to mypyrex:



With the passage of time, original reasons aren't always honoured; indeed they often become obscure. Look at many sports: javelin, discus, archery. Why, who would even think of throwing a spear without trying to impale someone, or shooting off an arrow and not taking Harold in the eye?

In reply to mypyrex: as a kid a proportion of our catch went to feed Anthonybnosworthy's father. He didn't like silver bream too much, but everything else was ok

In reply to mypyrex:


First check the rules, regs and any bye laws and you should be OK.
But if another (British) angler sees you killing a decent fish, he may not take too kindly to your act. Be discreet.

In reply to mypyrex:

All the coarse anglers I know return all their catch to keep stocks as high as possible.

If you fancy your hand at removing fish you may wish to read this https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/local-fishing-byelaws

Davey

In reply to mypyrex:

Not trying to pick a fight here. But you still haven't answered the question as to why ??

In reply to arch:


Neither have you.
I enjoy eating fish, I enjoy fishing and see my 17:22 post above.
Now that I have answered your question, you might like to answer mine - "why not?"

In reply to Moley:





But if the fishery rules allow it then there should be no argument. Again, as I've said before, I do not believe that catch and release is any less of a torment to the fish than a catch followed by a quick despatch which, in turn, imposes less suffering on the fish than that involved in commercially netted fish being left to suffocate.

In reply to mypyrex:


Neither have I ?? But you asked the first question, did you not ??

Coarse fishing is catch and release. Always has been. It relies on natural restocking by way of yearly spawning.

Trout fishing is catch and take. The whole principle is to put back what has been taken out by way of the Returns ticket. Coarse fishing doesn't run like that, it can't, because it isn't policed the same way. If people took out what they caught, nature wouldn't cope. Lots of examples on the net where our overseas friends are helping themselves to fish and then it leaves the venues barren of fish.


.........But I'm pretty sure you know/knew all this already.

In reply to arch:



So how are trout stocks replenished? If trout fishing is "catch and take" then surely their numbers will deplete since it also relies on natural restocking "by way of yearly spawning".

You say that "coarse fishing is catch and release. Always has been". I doubt that Izaac Walton would agree with you.

In reply to mypyrex:

........By way of the Returns ticket. You conveniently deleted the line. You catch 2 fish and take them away with you. You fill in the returns ticket telling so. 2 Trout get restocked to replace the 2 you took.


No, you are right, I am wrong. I'm out. Goodnight.



Edit: For clarification.

In reply to mypyrex:


I agree with what you say, in principal, but my angling club and none that I know allow the removal of coarse fish. So there would be no argument because I couldn't do it legally.

The removal of coarse fish, if practised by many, would not be sustainable without artificial restocking. Certainly not if you wanted a few otters, herons, kingfishers to have the occasional meal as well. My angling club alone has over 9500 members fishing their waters, the impact of fish removal by those would be immense and unsustainable.

I am not against eating fish you catch, today I caught 3 wild brown trout from a reservoir and we have just eaten them - I returned 4 smaller fish - but hardly anyone else fishes the 500 acres so I know I have virtually no impact through the year.

Put and take trout fisheries rely on regular stockings from fish farms and are tightly controlled on a commercial basis, it isn't my cup of tea as I worked in the trade for many years both supplying trout and managing many fisheries. Coarse fisheries could go the same way - as currently in Germany:

In Switzerland and Germany, catch and release fishing is considered inhumane and is now banned.[5] In Germany, the Animal Welfare Act states that "no-one may cause an animal pain, suffering or harm without good reason".[6] This leaves no legal basis for catch and release due to its argued inherent lack of "good reason", and thus personal fishing is solely allowed for immediate food consumption. Additionally, it is against the law to release fish back into the water if they are above minimum size requirements and aren't a protected species or in closed season.

I think this would probably be your ideal? But they rely on fish farms to restock their waters, just like trout fishing in UK.

In reply to Moley:





But you and I both know that not all trout fishing takes place in restocked waters ie rivers and wild lakes.

In reply to mypyrex:


Not all, but the majority of trout waters are restocked or rely on anglers practising catch and release. Probably Scotland has the most truly wild waters, but I'm not that familiar with the north!

Most rivers and lakes I would never, ever kill a wild brown trout from, luckily I have a very few "secret" waters where I am happy to crop a few fish for the pot, secure that I am making little impact. Long may they remain.

In reply to mypyrex:
Bioaccumulation in coarse fish may be worth a look at, my local river probably has historical pollution of electroplating metals including chromium, dye factorys, an entire bank of the canal made of leather scrap for which you may also find some rather unpleasant and carcinogenic compounds of chromium, organochlorine pesticides, persistent organic pollutants, heavy metals . Because of the lipophilic nature, environmental persistence and bioaccumulation potential they all, represent a threat to organisms in general, but especially to those occupying the top of the food web.

sections of our local canal and river may well contain pollution from the last 200 years. As an adult it may be fine but not healthy choice for children with cns development. No washing in the bath is going to remove it.

Also complex heavy metals contained in street detritus combined with altered physical water conditions and natural ligands enable the extended suspension and speciation of metal complexes that may also inhibit the biological degradation of other problematical persistent PAH.

I could be wrong and please feel free to shoot me down if i am.

Bon appetite

In reply to jnymitch:

You may well be but unless you have just copy/pasted from Wiki, Im not equipped with the knowledge to determine whether you are.

Bon appetite indeed.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
would you include a teaspoonful of gully sweepings in your fish stock. feel free to look up the term bioaccumulation and biomagnification and any of the following; Poly aromatic hydrocarbons , Persistent organic pollutants, Organo-chlorine compounds, methyl-murcury, Stockholm convention 1972 (Annex a,b,c), PCBS, Heavy metals. Pick anything, plastics are also an issue for the environment and human health. (you don't have to use wiki, add pdf and date on the end of the search and find yourself some articles)

PCBs and PCTs haven't disappeared because of the legislation. They are persistent long lasting stable compounds and there are 100's of thousands of sites across the uk with contaminated land and water from current and historical pollution of any type.

The UK is not expected to achieve water quality standards for inland waters for the Water Framework directive until 2035 due to the complex nature of dealing with the legacy of our industrial pollution issues.

Some cutting and pasting.

This is quite informative
http://www.pops.int/documents/guidance/beg_guide.pdf (UNEP)
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/reach_en.htm (European Union)


Directive 96/59/EC on the disposal of PCBs and PCTs aims at disposing completely of PCBs and equipment containing PCBs as soon as possible. The PCB Directive further mandates that Member States had to dispose of big equipment (equipment with PCB volumes of more than 5 litres) by the end of 2010 at the latest. The Commission will verify the implementation of this provision.

If they were in the environment 5 years ago they are likely to be there now as there is no viable cost effective methods to clean up abandoned sites, in water or on the land.

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) are among a group of man-made chemicals that are known as Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). PCBs were commercially produced world-wide on a large scale between the 1930s and 1980s. Given their extraordinary chemical stability and heat resistance, they were extensively employed as components in electrical and hydraulic equipment and lubricants. They have been used in two types of applications:
Closed uses: dielectric fluids in electrical equipment such as transformers, capacitors (big industrial capacitors, but also small capacitors in household electrical appliances), heat transfer and hydraulic systems.
Open uses: as pesticide extenders, sealant, carbonless copy paper, industrial oils, paints, adhesives, plastics, flame retardants and to control dust on roads.

sorry i came over like i was ranting at you, that was not my intention

In reply to mypyrex:

The 'free' fishing parts of Coniston and Windermere. Leave pike alone - big concerns over decreasing pike numbers in Windermere. Interestingly, there used to be a perch canning factory on Windermere in WW2 - called them perchines.

In reply to jnymitch:

Our little stream rises from an old mine shaft in the wood (lead mines in the hills), we currently have 3 universities taking samples to look at ways of cleaning it up, there are apparently 1311 abandoned metal mines in Wales, causing 9% of welsh rivers to fail the European water framework directive.

Our meagre flow deposits 7400kg zinc, 66kg lead, 23kg cadmium into the main river per annum. There are 2 other streams in the valley draining off the same old lead mine workings with similar problems.

There is currently an experiment going on in our stream using algae cultivated on bits of recycled plastic bottles to remove the heavy metals, it seems to working and a larger trial should be coming along soon.

Don't ask me anything technical as I haven't a clue of details or understanding, I just see a big bag with algae growing in it and a hose pipe of water going through. But I hope it works!

In reply to Moley:

Cool, sounds good, acidic mine waste is a big problem in wales and cornwall, low ph means metals are very mobile. Ill have a look into that as it sounds like a good plan, algae pick up metals and other compounds very easily and if removed and disposed of properly, without this onwards and upwards it goes to the to top of the food web.

methyl-mercury in particular is a big problem for first nations in the arctic regions as they eat whale cod and other marine mammals where accumulations are severe and come from our and other nations coal power station discharge migrating north. methyl-mercury accumulates in food and has caused some communities to abandon their way of life for reasons that are not their doing. , in arctic ice leads all sorts of strange things happen with frost flowers, speciation of mercury occurs at very low temperatures forming methyl-mercury that can also lead to accumulations in seal that are also compounded by high levels in fish and gulls that are staple foods.

In reply to jnymitch:

Steve Skill is the guy who is running the tests: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steve_Skill

He seems to be all over the world sorting out problems with his algae, so I guess there must be something in it. They also plan to harvest the heavy metals from the algae each year, all sounds great in theory so fingers crossed it works in practice - he said lab results were promising now he has cultivated the right algae.

Slightly off track from coarse fishing, sorry!

In reply to Moley:

Cool Thanks for the link

In reply to jnymitch:

Not at all, and I wasnt trying to be facetious. I'm genuinely impressed by your knowledge.