Not for the first time, I recently aired my views on catch and release on this forum. And it got me thinking about our moral duty to the undeveloped countries we visit on fishing trips.
Over the last 40 years, pleasure fishing has generally moved from a slash and burn mentality to a more-informed conservation-based attitude. Those of us who have been around long enough have seen massive declines in fish stocks around our coasts populations that, once destroyed, never seem to regenerate. I have a book where a scot talks about a bay he knew where 12lb plaice were commonplace around the turn of the 20th C until the big boats came in, raped the place, and those biggies have never been seen since. Many Scots will tell you of their youth when any cast off the shore would yield a cuddy. These days most of the inshore Scottish waters can be fished all day with no result. The cod fishery of the Clyde went the same way once those big breeding fish were destroyed, the population never recovered. And its happening the world over.
I have had the privilege of fishing in Africa for 25 years, and have seen so many previously- bountiful fisheries fished dry. These days we have to seek ever-more remote places to try and find relatively unspoilt fishing. Often it is a case of waiting for a country to come out of civil war, develop a minor infrastructure, and get in and fish there quick. Soon the improved infrastructure will allow freight of fish out, and the usual fate of fisheries awaits. No doubt the north Kenyan coast will fish well as soon as the pirate threat ceases.
I visited Ascension this year where the fishing has been preserved due to the impossibility of freighting fish out due to the remoteness of the place. However, I gather tuna licences have recently been issued to foreign fleets, though my info is sketchy.
So when we visit these far flung places such as Mozambique, Guinea Bissau, and the like, we target areas with low fishing pressure, and a residue of biggies. Do we then have a right to damage the fish population we have travelled so far to target?
The impact of our fishing depends hugely upon our quarry. Pelagics such as tuna are part of a global population, and moderate cropping becomes part of an ocean-wide food resource. However, reef and wreck fish suffer serious and long-lasting impact from over-fishing. Discovering new wrecks may be a great way to find big fish to plaster over ones marketing brochures - but if every caught is killed, the glory will be short-lived. That boat of heaving carcases may never be achieved again at the site.
When I fished Guinea Bissau the second time, the scarcity of any snapper near the camps was quite startling, with distant forays required to hit them with any regularity (talking of which, it looks like G B may sadly be heading back to a culture of violence as discussed above) < http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-20022211 >
I too often hear the pleas there are thousands of them and all fish go to the local population, nothing is wasted. But of course the big mature fish are wasted, as they are removed from the breeding pool. Sooner or later it ends up as it is with cod nothing lives long enough to get big, so the only fish that breed are the early maturers. Over a period of time, overfishing selects specifically for fish that mature and breed at lighter weights hence the reason those biggies never return they had evolved to their previous massive sizes over centuries.
With our sea fish the UK, it (quite rightly) has become politically incorrect to kill huge hauls of fish, and to post photos of their decimation in the angling press. And yet, in certain quarters, these glory photos are still de rigeur for foreign travel. Is it OK then to crap in someone elses backyard?
I would like to see both the mass slaughter, (and photography there-of), of non-pelagics to be as unacceptable as pictures of 50 dead bass/conger have become in the UK, with equal derision heaped on those who persist in the practice. With our modern technology, powerful boats, GPS, 3D sounders and the like, it is quite easy to destroy, in weeks or days, a localised site that would have been sustainable long-term with traditional fishing methods
Surely we should be the enlightened ambassadors of catch and release, setting a good example to third world countries, helping them to preserve their fish stocks.
I do understand that the fish catch is often used to help defray the cost of boat hire, but is this acceptable? Should we not be demanding that none-pelagics are returned and pay more for the charter for the privilege? or alternatively negociate cheaper hire on the basis one pays for the catch to be returned?
So much of this is predetermined by the time we arrive at our destination, depending upon whether we are travelling independently or through an agent.
If independent, we can determine the C & R policy before booking, choosing operators who adopt a sensible attitude. If using an agent, they should be able to advise on their company policy, or the policy applying at the destination. Again that gives us, as consumers, the power to pressurise trigger-happy operators to act in the interest of the local community, even if has a negative impact on either the operators profit/glory, or the short-term profit of the boat owners.
With the universal availability of cameras at every turn, gro-pro's, phonecams, videocams etc, isnt it time we glories in our liver returns, filmed/snapped and remembered, rather than the the dried skin and faded colours of sun-dried carcases.
And we have all done things in the past we would never do now, so this is no 'holier than though' sermon. I do rememebr so clearly my first big (to me at least) black marlin at 330lb coming on deck in a non-release tournie, and watch it flush with the most vivid blue as it was hit on the head - and then fade to a dull gey. Never again!
What does everyone else think.
Over the last 40 years, pleasure fishing has generally moved from a slash and burn mentality to a more-informed conservation-based attitude. Those of us who have been around long enough have seen massive declines in fish stocks around our coasts populations that, once destroyed, never seem to regenerate. I have a book where a scot talks about a bay he knew where 12lb plaice were commonplace around the turn of the 20th C until the big boats came in, raped the place, and those biggies have never been seen since. Many Scots will tell you of their youth when any cast off the shore would yield a cuddy. These days most of the inshore Scottish waters can be fished all day with no result. The cod fishery of the Clyde went the same way once those big breeding fish were destroyed, the population never recovered. And its happening the world over.
I have had the privilege of fishing in Africa for 25 years, and have seen so many previously- bountiful fisheries fished dry. These days we have to seek ever-more remote places to try and find relatively unspoilt fishing. Often it is a case of waiting for a country to come out of civil war, develop a minor infrastructure, and get in and fish there quick. Soon the improved infrastructure will allow freight of fish out, and the usual fate of fisheries awaits. No doubt the north Kenyan coast will fish well as soon as the pirate threat ceases.
I visited Ascension this year where the fishing has been preserved due to the impossibility of freighting fish out due to the remoteness of the place. However, I gather tuna licences have recently been issued to foreign fleets, though my info is sketchy.
So when we visit these far flung places such as Mozambique, Guinea Bissau, and the like, we target areas with low fishing pressure, and a residue of biggies. Do we then have a right to damage the fish population we have travelled so far to target?
The impact of our fishing depends hugely upon our quarry. Pelagics such as tuna are part of a global population, and moderate cropping becomes part of an ocean-wide food resource. However, reef and wreck fish suffer serious and long-lasting impact from over-fishing. Discovering new wrecks may be a great way to find big fish to plaster over ones marketing brochures - but if every caught is killed, the glory will be short-lived. That boat of heaving carcases may never be achieved again at the site.
When I fished Guinea Bissau the second time, the scarcity of any snapper near the camps was quite startling, with distant forays required to hit them with any regularity (talking of which, it looks like G B may sadly be heading back to a culture of violence as discussed above) < http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-20022211 >
I too often hear the pleas there are thousands of them and all fish go to the local population, nothing is wasted. But of course the big mature fish are wasted, as they are removed from the breeding pool. Sooner or later it ends up as it is with cod nothing lives long enough to get big, so the only fish that breed are the early maturers. Over a period of time, overfishing selects specifically for fish that mature and breed at lighter weights hence the reason those biggies never return they had evolved to their previous massive sizes over centuries.
With our sea fish the UK, it (quite rightly) has become politically incorrect to kill huge hauls of fish, and to post photos of their decimation in the angling press. And yet, in certain quarters, these glory photos are still de rigeur for foreign travel. Is it OK then to crap in someone elses backyard?
I would like to see both the mass slaughter, (and photography there-of), of non-pelagics to be as unacceptable as pictures of 50 dead bass/conger have become in the UK, with equal derision heaped on those who persist in the practice. With our modern technology, powerful boats, GPS, 3D sounders and the like, it is quite easy to destroy, in weeks or days, a localised site that would have been sustainable long-term with traditional fishing methods
Surely we should be the enlightened ambassadors of catch and release, setting a good example to third world countries, helping them to preserve their fish stocks.
I do understand that the fish catch is often used to help defray the cost of boat hire, but is this acceptable? Should we not be demanding that none-pelagics are returned and pay more for the charter for the privilege? or alternatively negociate cheaper hire on the basis one pays for the catch to be returned?
So much of this is predetermined by the time we arrive at our destination, depending upon whether we are travelling independently or through an agent.
If independent, we can determine the C & R policy before booking, choosing operators who adopt a sensible attitude. If using an agent, they should be able to advise on their company policy, or the policy applying at the destination. Again that gives us, as consumers, the power to pressurise trigger-happy operators to act in the interest of the local community, even if has a negative impact on either the operators profit/glory, or the short-term profit of the boat owners.
With the universal availability of cameras at every turn, gro-pro's, phonecams, videocams etc, isnt it time we glories in our liver returns, filmed/snapped and remembered, rather than the the dried skin and faded colours of sun-dried carcases.
And we have all done things in the past we would never do now, so this is no 'holier than though' sermon. I do rememebr so clearly my first big (to me at least) black marlin at 330lb coming on deck in a non-release tournie, and watch it flush with the most vivid blue as it was hit on the head - and then fade to a dull gey. Never again!
What does everyone else think.