Which fish can I eat?

[Athy]

12 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

That would be the same sort of sporting chance a fox gets?

No, quite different.

It is very British though, is it not? 

[BWM]

25 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

That would be the same sort of sporting chance a fox gets?

I fail to see a parallel between being chased by a pack of dogs and crimson inbreds, and the delicate presentation of a replica insect?

[Machpoint005]

33 minutes ago, BWM said:

I fail to see a parallel between being chased by a pack of dogs and crimson inbreds, and the delicate presentation of a replica insect?

In which case, perhaps I should point out that both are artifacts resulting in the death of a creature by so-called "sporting" means?

Or that both pursuits are indulged in by affluent people with time on their hands?

[Athy]

4 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

In which case, perhaps I should point out that both are artifacts resulting in the death of a creature by so-called "sporting" means?

Or that both pursuits are indulged in by affluent people with time on their hands?

Not, I'm afraid, a valid comparison.

[BWM]

7 minutes ago, Athy said:

Not, I'm afraid, a valid comparison.

I'd concur with that. Fly fishing is in no way the preserve of the rich, not since Victorian times anyway. There is nothing fatal in this form of angling either, many now catch and release, and taking enough home to eat, generally humanely despatched, is not comparable to the savage destruction of the fox which has no value as a meal.

[Athy]

10 minutes ago, BWM said:

I'd concur with that. Fly fishing is in no way the preserve of the rich, not since Victorian times anyway. There is nothing fatal in this form of angling either, many now catch and release, and taking enough home to eat, generally humanely despatched, is not comparable to the savage destruction of the fox which has no value as a meal.

That was my main point - that a salmon is caught for food, whereas a fox is not. A well-worn Oscar Wilde bon mot springs to mind.

Edited June 29, 2018 by Athy

[LadyG]

As it happens, in my younger days I had a hunter, and went out a few times. The countryside was managed for the fox, with coverts where they could lie up and breed, there was some measure of control. Farmers and large landowners are traditionally involved in the hunt, it seems logical since they are the most affected. They also know where foxes are, and will ask the hunt to control them if they are a problem.

The most efficient method is shooting with a rifle, though most farmers use a twelve bore to control  vermin, sorry unprotected species. 

There were, and perhaps still are, hunts which do not use horses, they go on foot, and followers are no more inbred than any other rural community.

PS I am not rich, or inbred and I never wore hunting pink.

PPS I won't tell you what the RSPCA are reputed to do with the mangey urban foxes they capture, but it's not humane.

PPPS as far as I know most prime poached salmon ends up at the back door of a swish hotel, we are not talking pocket money, and certainly not fish caught on a lure or maggot. 

 

Edited June 29, 2018 by LadyG

[Machpoint005]

2 hours ago, Athy said:

That was my main point - that a salmon is caught for food, whereas a fox is not. A well-worn Oscar Wilde bon mot springs to mind.

It was the alleged "sport" aspect I was getting at. I have no objection to the killing of any animal for food, and it would be perfectly acceptable to hoick a salmon out with a maggot (or a trout in a net, for that matter).  Trouble is, somebody "owns" it.

1 hour ago, LadyG said:

The countryside was managed for the fox, with coverts where they could lie up and breed

...so that they could be killed later for "sport"?

 

I have no objection to fox population management per se, and I have lost chickens to a fox in the past, but I couldn't blame a fox for vulpine behaviour.

As for traditions, bear baiting used to be very popular too.

[Jerra]

16 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

As for traditions, bear baiting used to be very popular too.

As did gladiatorial combat and public hanging.

[LadyG]

I don't need to defend fox hunting, but there are pros s well as cons, you just need to look at the modern  "intensively farmed countryside" which is run for pure profit,, all hedges removed, coverts removed, rivers "straightened", huge machinery using fossil fuels to "panbust" where the soil has been damaged by years and years of mismanagement.  Alrdrin and Dieldrin [persistent pesticides] to kill anything that moved, banned in the UK for a few decades, but the damage had been done.  Wildlife decimated.

 

The wealthy landowner may generate envy, but thank goodness there are still a few of them around who can afford to keep things rural rather than turning every field in to a housing estate. Not that some of them don't think that their inheritance is purely for their indulgence. https://www.racingpost.com/news/blow-for-lord-derby-as-government-minister-reopens-hatchfield-farm-inquiry/336397

Edited June 29, 2018 by LadyG

[Machpoint005]

39 minutes ago, LadyG said:

who can afford to keep things rural rather than turning every field in to a housing estate

A not-too-subtle change of direction here!

[LadyG]

3 hours ago, Machpoint005 said:

A not-too-subtle change of direction here!

What?

Not all the British upper classes are large landowners or vice versa, a few immigrants bring money in to the UK, not all are Russian oligarths.

I am trying to indicate that one cannot label all football fans as hooligans, not all youths are vandals, not all farmers are meat eaters, not all hunt followers are rich sons of the uber rich. 

Edited June 29, 2018 by LadyG

[Sea Dog]

Halibut? 

 

 

[rusty69]

Jelly

 

[Sea Dog]

1 minute ago, rusty69 said:

Jelly

 

I think we're so "on topic" we're off topic Rusty!

 

(Unless you thought I meant Haribos) 

[rusty69]

Just now, Sea Dog said:

I think we're so "on topic" we're off topic Rusty!

 

(Unless you thought I meant Haribos) 

You're a star! 

[Kevin Stapley]

On 26/09/2014 at 00:52, Jez Walsh said:

Hi there. I started fishing a few months ago. I mainly fish in canals and was wondering if any of the fish I catch are any good for eating? I've heard pike is good.

I am 100% positive that you cannot remove fish from the canal if caught you will be prosecuted with fines that are very high. I believe you can remove non-native fish from the canal ie: Zander but check the canal and river trust website I know it is not allowed to remove Zander from the rivers.

[rusty69]

This thread has been resurrected more times than dads army!

[LadyG]

I've got a an american crayfish trap [alien species] , not sure if I could kill and eat them.

I last had a  present of several lobsters and crabs courtesy of a Scania breakdown, , since when, I have decided a stab in the neck vein is the only way, and that after a few hours in the freezer. 

PS I love Dad's Army, but seems a bit dated?

Edited November 21, 2018 by LadyG

[Mac of Cygnet]

2 hours ago, rusty69 said:

This thread has been resurrected more times than dads army!

 

I think we should all club together and buy Lady G an up-to-date computer.

[rusty69]

1 minute ago, Mac of Cygnet said:

 

I think we should all club together and buy Lady G an up-to-date computer.

To be fair.It wasn't Lady G this time!

[Gareth E]

On ‎30‎/‎06‎/‎2018 at 01:49, LadyG said:

What?

Not all the British upper classes are large landowners or vice versa, a few immigrants bring money in to the UK, not all are Russian oligarths.

I am trying to indicate that one cannot label all football fans as hooligans, not all youths are vandals, not all farmers are meat eaters, not all hunt followers are rich sons of the uber rich. 

I enjoy a weekend fly fishing for brown trout and grayling on the Tweed and Teviot each summer, and usually fluke a splendid sea trout or two. They go back of course. I earn less than the minimum wage. Just goes to show you, it pays not to stereotype.

[Tumshie]

On 29/06/2018 at 10:52, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

ISTR the reason we fly-fish for salmon and trout is to give them a sporting chance.

 

I understand they are greedy bar stewards that will take a worm on a hook in an instant making them dead easy to catch if you set aside the artificial 'rules' of game fishing.

 

On 29/06/2018 at 12:12, Machpoint005 said:

That would be the same sort of sporting chance a fox gets?

Since we're resurrecting old threads 

 

The biggest difference between the fox and the salmon is that the fox has his life cut short but not so the salmon, they're born and grow up in the river then they go out to sea where their bodies change to the point where they can never survive in a river again, yes they do return to the river to spawn but as soon as the reach fresh water they start to die it is a drawn out process but they are dying, they will travel up the river they will spawn and then they will die, there are no exceptions.

 

Even sea trout who are able to return to the sea often don’t make it depending on the weather conditions and therefore the water conditions during their run, some rivers are naturally much harder on the fish than others.

 

As salmon can’t eat once they return to the river the common train of thought is that it’s not greed that drives them to take the bait but temper but who could really know, eh? It still takes a little know how to catch them on a worm but yes in certain circles spinning for salmon is deemed less sporting, though not unacceptable.

 

I'm not suggesting that people should now suddenly change their minds and start to approve of fishing if they don't, I'm just explaining how it is for the salmon and their life cycle.

[Gareth E]

Just now, Tumshie said:

 

Since we're resurrecting old threads 

 

The biggest difference between the fox and the salmon is that the fox has his life cut short but not so the salmon, they're born and grow up in the river then they go out to sea where their bodies change to the point where they can never survive in a river again, yes they do return to the river to spawn but as soon as the reach fresh water they start to die it is a drawn out process but they are dying, they will travel up the river they will spawn and then they will die, there are no exceptions.

 

Even sea trout who are able to return to the sea often don’t make it depending on the weather conditions and therefore the water conditions during their run, some rivers are naturally much harder on the fish than others.

 

As salmon can’t eat once they return to the river the common train of thought is that it’s not greed that drives them to take the bait but temper but who could really know, eh? It still takes a little know how to catch them on a worm but yes in certain circles spinning for salmon is deemed less sporting, though not unacceptable.

 

I'm not suggesting that people should now suddenly change their minds and start to approve of fishing if they don't, I'm just explaining how it is for the salmon and their life cycle.

Actually some clubs or river owners forbid fishing for salmon and/ or sea trout other than on the fly. Others only allow methods other than the fly when the river is above a certain level, when fly fishing can be impossible. Some anglers, myself included, will only fish for game fish on the fly, through choice.   

[Machpoint005]

Do the fish get caught before or after they have spawned, and how can you tell?