I'm not a fisherman myself but I've always wondered, why do fisherman kill the fish rather than throw them back, even when they aren't going to eat them?

I have heard some say that it is because catching a fish is so stressful for the fish that it wouldn't be fair to put it back and risk being caught again. I can see what they are saying, but surely it is less cruel to put a fish back than it is just to kill it?

I think you hit the nail on the head. When a fish is caught it is incredibly stressful for it. Just imagine being hooked and dragged to shore, its not something you would get over quickly! As many fishing spots are heavily fished, the same fish would be caught over and over again if it was thrown back. Especially in a lake or pond. For that reason I think it is wise to put the fish out of its misery.

Sometimes the hook is a factor--if a barbless hook is used, then the fish's mouth is not torn up.
Sometimes handling is a factor--if the fish is handled too much when being removed from the water, the 'slime' gets removed. The 'slime' is a protective coating, which helps repel infections.
Sometimes--the whole point of catching that particular fish is to control a pest population--I don't know about in the UK, but here in the US many fish are non-native, and have overrun a particular fishery.

Actually, certain fish (in the UK in particular, carp) are ALWAYS returned to the water. Carp are long lived, hard fighters when caught, and can handle rough treatment in being returned to the water. Fishers don't eat carp, but they do like a hard fighting fish which can learn from being caught once, and gets wilier the next time around.

Kingfisher

I've done some fishing, fly and spinning for trout, but I've always eaten my catch.

I've never understood these sad people who spend all day on the riverbank looking miserable. What I also don't understand is those who fish on the canals with a long pole with which they try to catch fish right under the opposite bank. I once asked on of them why he simply didn't fish from the other side and just drop his hook over the edge - he was not amused!

What REALLY annoys me about fishing is the way that organisations claim ownership of the water. As a canoeist, I believe in free access to all waters except where conservation is more important, in Sweden canoists have a right of access to water and over land to get to water. Passing by in a canoe does not impact on marine life, certainly much less than anyone fishing!

I've never understood people fishing right across the river either, I think it is just the excitement of casting the line along way to brighten up the rest of they day!

I didn't realise that fishing organisations can claim whole sections of rivers, does that mean that no canoeist or any other river user can enter that stretch at any time?

Yep. On many rivers there is no access to the water at all. A lot of it is the class thing and while the "old boys" network exists, there will be no changes to the law. The "toothless" British Canoe Union just pussy foots around making quiet noises about access, but will not get off their butts to really demonstrate for access. One of the reasons I no longer belong to the BCU.

All waterways should be open to whoever wants to use them in my opinion. There is only a potential problem is if fisherman do cast their line all the way across the river and their is a risk of canoists getting caught in the line, but that could easily be avoided.

Personally, I have never understood the fascination with getting up before dawn on a freezing winter's morning to sit for hours by a river bank, trying to keep warm while nothing happens. I could possibly see the point if they eat what they catch. But to go through all that just to throw it back, or kill it and throw it away...

Birdwatching sometimes fits that description (except the throwing back/killing part)!

But we still love to get out there and look .

Kingfisher

I always think oif bird watching as more....involved. Maybe because I don't know about the intricacies of fishing, but fishing just seems to be sitting there waiting for catch after you select the initial position and bait, whereas when you are bid watching getting to the right spot is just the beginning. I'm sure someone will prove me wrong

I always think oif bird watching as more....involved. Maybe because I don't know about the intricacies of fishing, but fishing just seems to be sitting there waiting for catch after you select the initial position and bait, whereas when you are bid watching getting to the right spot is just the beginning. I'm sure someone will prove me wrong

Every time I am in England I pick up a copy of the latest carp fishing magazine. They are (to me at least) absolutely insane. I mean, magazines about fishing are common enough, but there's apparently enough carp fishers to generate interest in not one, but I believe THREE monthly magazines. On a SINGLE species of fish. Boggles the mind, it does.

Kingfisher

I also find it hard to believe that there is THAT much to say about carp fishing Remind me never to get stuck in a lift with someone who subscribes to all three mags

I also find it hard to believe that there is THAT much to say about carp fishing Remind me never to get stuck in a lift with someone who subscribes to all three mags

There is a lot of blather about the relative merits of 'boilies'.

We need to have Xeract get us a 'snooze/snoring' smiley!

Kingfisher

This post was last modified: 26-07-2007 03:55 PM by Kingfisher.

because there are certain people who eat them

For someone who has never fished in their life and does not get the point (even if you are going to eat it, there's plenty of fish in supermarkets) could anyone explain to me the joy of fishing?