Atlantic salmon video on the Hampshire Avon

Jake,

lucky fish. improving the river and leaving them alone would benefit the fish more i would have thought. (as an unrelated aside - wildlife doesn't get entangled in nor swallow fish - unless it's a really big swan)

"unecessary suffering" is not leaving it alone. it doesn't like it or it wouldn't be so bothered aboiut trying to escape - and possibly being caught more times and possible (probable?) detrimental stress to prevent it breeding which would make it, to me anyway, the biggest own goal you could get as well as another life wasted.

humans need to consume certain vitamins and minerals. some of which are only available from meat. so humans DO have to eat meat.

 "If I killed and ate every fish that I caught" you are confusing need and sport. if you caught fish for food then you would eat every one. catching them for sport doesn't fulfill any need other than fun.

all that aside i neither mind nor care if you fish for sport but i do mind about about the thin justifiactions for it. you do it cos it's fun. ok.

also, i am unable to reconcile the improvement of the environment for fish, especially comparatively rare fish, which are then stressed out of breeding and thus ultimately deny you the sport you crave. but hey. you're having fun. who cares. it would explain why culling seals seems to be the option for increasing fish stcoks rather than merely stop overfishing them. so easy to be the victim. why try to be anything else.

Include a little history in your walks. Pecsaetan - Ancient Derbyshire, Staffordshire and South Yorkshire - http://pecsaetan.weebly.com/

lucky fish. improving the river and leaving them alone would benefit the fish more i would have thought. (as an unrelated aside - wildlife doesn't get entangled in nor swallow fish - unless it's a really big swan)

"unecessary suffering" is not leaving it alone. it doesn't like it or it wouldn't be so bothered aboiut trying to escape - and possibly being caught more times and possible (probable?) detrimental stress to prevent it breeding which would make it, to me anyway, the biggest own goal you could get as well as another life wasted.

Er, so why would I pay what I pay to fish and then not do so?  Humans exploit animals all the time for many reasons. As I've already said, overall fish stocks benefit from angling.  The possible detrimental effect on reproduction is wholly unproven and, in any case, doesn't apply to Trout. 

humans need to consume certain vitamins and minerals. some of which are only available from meat. so humans DO have to eat meat.

Rubbish - if that was true, how can vegetarians survive?

"If I killed and ate every fish that I caught" you are confusing need and <a href="http://www.outdoorsmagic.com/forum/forummessages/mps/dt/1/UTN/53776/last/1/V/8/SP/#" id="itxthook0">sport</a>. if you caught fish for food then you would eat every one. catching them for sport doesn't fulfill any need other than fun.

all that aside i neither mind nor care if you fish for sport but i do mind about about the thin justifiactions for it. you do it cos it's fun. ok.

Well, of course I do because I enjoy it - that's kinda how leisure pursuits work.  I'm not interested in justifying anything to you or anyone else.  I'm simply pointing out that angling makes a net contribution to the upkeep of the environment and to the preservation of fish stocks.

also, i am unable to reconcile the improvement of the environment for fish, especially comparatively rare fish, which are then stressed out of breeding and thus ultimately deny you the sport you crave. but hey. you're having fun. who cares. it would explain why culling seals seems to be the option for increasing fish stcoks rather than merely stop overfishing them. so easy to be the victim. why try to be anything else.

As I've said, the impact on breeding is not proven - I've been fishing for years and never even heard of this argument before.  Culling seals, along with restricting commercial fishing and salmon farming, is mentioned because this is one of the main causes of salmon stocks declining.  Sporting anglers make almost no difference to the salmon population by taking the few fish that they do.  If you want to preserve salmon stocks, you have to consider the things that are causing the decline in numbers.  Not sure what you're on about with 'so easy to be the victim' - have you been drinking?

"Rubbish - if that was true, how can vegetarians survive?"

Look at vital minerals and vitamins (you die without them), their delivery mechanisms and what the body does with them. Then look at foods which contain these minerals and vitamins. This will tell you what we've evolved to eat. There are no vegetarian societies in northern climes for good reason. Do not confuse nutrition and diet with a lifestyle choice.

"Well, of course I do because I enjoy it - that's kinda how leisure pursuits work.  I'm not interested in justifying anything to you or anyone else.  I'm simply pointing out that angling makes a net contribution to the upkeep of the environment and to the preservation of fish stocks." but purely for self interest to pursue your sport. other organisations improve rivers for the sole benefit of wildlife.

"As I've said, the impact on breeding is not proven" the thread is about salmon and the comment you've never heard before is from someone who knows something about it. If i could be bothered i could easily find out more but as I said, I'm not bothered that you wish to do drag fish out of the water, throw them back so that they may enjoy being subjected to the same excitement (perhaps even ripping a few more scales off) with someone else. "not proven" is a  handy escape clause as virtually everything is "not proven" (e.g. passive smoking is "not proven")

provided you maintain a constant view on such things everything is just rosy. my opinion on such things is constant - if you're not going to kill it either to eat or because you wish to dispose of it then leave it alone.

Parky Again wrote (see)

 if you're not going to kill it either to eat or because you wish to dispose of it then leave it alone.

Absolutely.

Congrats to the OP for a great catch but the fish was out of the water for nearly 2 minutes and was handled by dry hands (this burns the fish). It's survival prospects are now lessened despite the apparent recovery.

In fairness to the OP, he has done what many thousands of others do. I am not digging at the OP at all  - But the whole concept of catch and release is not as friendly as it would appear.

A study of survivabilty post catch and release on rainbow trout herewith:

the effects of being out of water

I used to fish regularly, but turned into a big jessie as i got older. I started feeling sorry for the fish. When i did fish, it was to put food on the table, or sell the excess.  Now that i can afford fish 'n chips, i don't bother. Saying that, i've guddled a few fish whilst camping. Makes a change from dehydrated food.

Look at vital minerals and vitamins (you die without them), their delivery mechanisms and what the body does with them. Then look at foods which contain these minerals and vitamins. This will tell you what we've evolved to eat. There are no vegetarian societies in northern climes for good reason. Do not confuse nutrition and diet with a lifestyle choice.

So it's not necessary to eat meat then.  That's what I said.

other organisations improve rivers for the sole benefit of wildlife

Do they?  The first page of a google search on improving river environment turned up the Environment Agency in almost every result for the first 2 pages.  The work that the EA does on rivers is almost wholly funded by the revenue from rod licences - over £25m in 2010/11.  Who else is providing anything like this level of funding?  And that doesn't include all the money that anglers put in in the form of syndicate fees, rental of fishing rights, work parties etc.

I'm not bothered that you wish to do drag fish out of the water, throw them back so that they may enjoy being subjected to the same excitement (perhaps even ripping a few more scales off)

Emotive terms there, Parky but wholly untrue.  Firstly, a good C&R fisherman doesn't remove the fish from the water, secondly I've never seen anyone 'throw' a fish back; you place it gently in the water,  thirdly, by not using a net and always handling a fish with wet hands, protective slime and scales are not removed.

Look, if you're opposed to fishing on principle, just say so.  I'll understand.  But don't make up stuff to strengthen your point of view and misrepresent good C&R practice.