Pike fishing in the summer?

[Philip]

Final thought. Perhaps, when we discuss the ethics and environmental benefits of angling, we should separate fishing natural waters and commercials, and think of them as two different sports.

I doubt anyone outside angling sees them as different and even anglers cant seem to agree what a "commercial" actually is.

 

[Kevin aka Aethelbald]

I doubt anyone outside angling sees them as different and even anglers cant seem to agree what a "commercial" actually is.

Good point (the first one), but the idea that not all anglers agree on what a commercial fishery is surprises me.

I think the distinction is pretty clear, but if making the environmental argument for angling is clouded by what the non-fisherman knows about stocked lakes, the distinction is an even more important one to make.

But that's me saying that I can't defend commercial fisheries (ethically and environmentally), any more than I can actually defend commercial fishing at sea. Whereas I'm happy to defend recreational fishing on natural waters (for all the reasons previously discussed).
.

 

[John Aston]

Correct, but I did say raising or protecting something with the sole purpose of killing it for sport - and to protect grouse numbers raptors are still illegally persecuted and the land is managed in a way that is ecologically inferior to the alternatives. And there are alternatives - recent tree-planting trials have proved that it's a myth that grouse moor cannot be put to different, and more biodiverse, use.

(I have had this argument before, with Mr, "I have lived next to a grouse moor for 50 years and I can assure you trees don't grow on grouse moor", so if anyone wants to kick off, be my guest, but count me out. )

Final thought. Perhaps, when we discuss the ethics and environmental benefits of angling, we should separate fishing natural waters and commercials, and think of them as two different sports.
.

Oh yes , I don't disagree. I did live for many years next to a grouse moor and while one saw more birds on the moor itself they certainly liked the adjoining mixed woodland too . In my area - North York Moors - the illegal raptor persecution is an utter disgrace , and I'm no fan of much lawful predator control either . Idiot gamekeepers moan and moan about being overrun with crows , foxes and magpies , in blissful or wilful ignorance that the number of predators depends upon the amount of prey . And if you put down 20, 000 pheasants you get spikes in predators - and massive decline in reptiles like adders, slow worms and lizards . Add in the environmental impact of kilos of lead** being dropped every shoot and it doesn't look good .

**lead , oh yes because the oxymoron that is BASC is still resisting a move away from lead, 30 years after its ban for angling use.

 

[steve2]

Over stoked commercial fisheries and natural fishery makes no difference they are both fisheries. They are where we go to catch fish for our pleasure not the fishes. It is when we put rules in place to make us feel better about the sport that the welfare issue problems start to arise.
Should we have any of these rules in place.

 

[Kevin aka Aethelbald]

Over stoked commercial fisheries and natural fishery makes no difference they are both fisheries. They are where we go to catch fish for our pleasure not the fishes. It is when we put rules in place to make us feel better about the sport that the welfare issue problems start to arise.
Should we have any of these rules in place.

Sorry, but natural waterways (and canals) are not fisheries. They are used for other leisure pursuits and are inhabited (naturally) by creatures other than fish - they can't be defined by the activities anglers or simply because they contain fish. Whereas commercial lakes are the very definition of fisheries.

I'd suggest that welfare issues are more relevant in wider society, because there is a segment that doesn't understand, or appreciate, the contribution to the environment and the economy made by anglers. But I must admit I've no idea what the rules are on commercial fisheries (apart from reading snippets on these forums) because I've never fished one and never will. If commie-bashers and owners want to wage war against each other it doesn't bother me.
.

 

[steve2]

They are fisheries if you fish them. Most of us only contribute to the environment through our fishing licence fee because we have to.
By the way this grumpy old angler is moving your way soon so may be you could show me some fishing spots.

 

[John Aston]

Anywhere you catch fish by angling is a fishery, by definition.

 

[Aknib]

Sorry, but natural waterways (and canals) are not fisheries.

I'm trying to get my head around this, I kind of get it but can't subscribe to it.

Just as somewhere where you would shop would be deemed a shop then surely somewhere you would fish would be deemed a fishery regardless of their commercial status, eg. natural waterways and canals or a full blown, cafe on site, commie?

So surely, given that you would likely need to 'buy' a day ticket or permit to fish these natural waterways or canals, it would qualify as a commercial transaction eg. you bought something to have something?

If the fishing was free you would require a rod licence, another commercial transaction which you have freely engaged in.

I truly hate what we generally take as 'commercial fisheries' but when it comes down to classification I think there's very little in it other than our underlying angling spirit.

A generational thing?

Going out and learning to understand it as opposed to having it (like the on site breakfast) served on a plate to anyone who's willing to pay?

Either way we all pay in one way or another.

 

[Kevin aka Aethelbald]

The difference between what I describe as a commercial fishery and other waters that we fish, is that commercial fisheries exist entirely for the purpose of angling and are artificially stocked to satisfy a demand from fishermen.

Rivers might be 'fisheries' in the sense that we fish them and pay for the privilege, but their very existence was not to create an environment for a particular purpose - ie. they neither exist, or are maintained, for the benefit of fishermen alone, but for all recreational water users and society at large, and not least for the multitude of non-fish species that depend upon them. So I don't think you can think of rivers as commercial fisheries, because they are much more than that.

That's all I'm saying. But for the life of me, apart from the semantics, I've lost track of how we even got here!
.

 

[@Clive]

No rivers and canals aren't now commercial fisheries in that sense. But both are fisheries if fished in any way, shape or form. Rivers used to be commercial fisheries as the fish were caught to be sold as food.