Trophy Fish or Sustainable Hunt?

Den · Jun 29, 2009

I've been pondering this issue lately and I thought I'd solicit the views of the rest of you.
I saw the biggest mullet I've ever seen the other day, I already had one of about 3 pound on my stringer along with a nice Bass, I was looking for another Bass when I looked in a hole to find it filled by a huge Mullet. It would have been an easy shot, a great photo to show the boys but.... I couldn't pull the trigger. There's a nice mullet in the freezer never mind the one on my stringer and this fish, probably as old as me, would have been taken to feed my ego more than my stomach.
I felt quite smug afterwards and someone said, "would you have taken it if it was a Bass?" Well that got me thinking.
Is a big fish best left to breed being of stronger stock or will two smaller ones breed more?
Is a big fish more likely to have parasites.?
Am I no better than a vegetarian?

We all know that issues of spearing one fish over another pale into insignificance against the huge impact of the commercials so let's leave them out of this arguement.
Sure you've all got some views on this. Let's hear them

Fondueset · Jun 29, 2009

"Am I no better than a vegetarian." rofl Brilliant.

Likely I'd have done the same.

mishu1984 · Jun 29, 2009

Den said:
Is a big fish best left to breed being of stronger stock or will two smaller ones breed more?
Is a big fish more likely to have parasites.?

In all honesty i think it differs from one species than another. For example you could argue that removing the biggest groupers wont affect local populations because the largest specimen becomes a male while the rest remain female. (or maybe it is the other way around). and that removing the smaller fish would have a stronger impact on local populations.

In terms of parasites, it depends on that particular species vonuerability to parasites. However, lead and mercury levels are greater for bigger fish.

sunfish · Jun 29, 2009

Thanks for starting this thread. I was thinking of it myself.
My own policy is that if a fish is slow growing, like mullet or bass, I don't like killing really big ones but I do it occasionally. I have a 9lb bass on F.O.M at the moment but last time I Killed a fish that size was two years ago. I saw several fish that size last year but unless I'm lined up perfectly, and definately going to kill it, I won't pull the trigger and even then I'm often inclined to leave it. When I do take one I always feel a little guilty and regretful.
With the faster growing fish, like pollack, I've no such worries and I prefer the thick fillets from a bigger fish.
4 to 5 pounds is a good size for a bass for the table and the meat is probably healthier to eat but I still enjoy the slightly tougher meat from a bigger bass.
Mixed feelings then I suppose.

spaghetti · Jun 29, 2009

So many times I let splendid fishes go, just because they were too beautiful to die (the last time this happened to me it was a mullet: mullets are not commonly rated as noble fish, but that one was a king among mullets!).
I think there is no easy rule: for me it's mostly the emotion of a moment. Every fish and creature is beautiful if you think about it, but sometimes beauty comes to you with a special aura of magic that hits your heart more than anything else. And so when I saw that mullet I thought "ooh, how beautiful". My first isntinct was to shoot him (I was there to hunt) but then finally I felt so happy in the heart when I let it go. I'm sorry, I can't explain any better.

I'm a "one fish for dinner" sort of hunter, not a trophy hunter, but I understand, let's be honest here, that sometimes a person might be in the need of feeding his ego too. What's better than hunting a big wild animal to restore your self confidence, your self preception of strength? I think this is acceptable sometimes (as long as you don't kill endangered species or pregnant animals). But I said sometimes. If we feel this need too often, we'd better quit looking for fish and start looking for a good psychanalist.

Now leaving emotions out of the discussion (but why, then?), trophy fish/hunt for food, spareing young fish/spareing adult fish. It's complex.
It is normally acknowledged that it's a sin to kill undersized animals, not yet sexually ready, who haven't yet spreaded their genetic material, while it's considered OK to hunt adult animals, who havealready done many reproduction cycles in their lives.
But wait a minute: if you kill all the sexually fit individuals of a population, you may do some serious damage. A clear example is for groupers, sexually mutant: they're all born female, can't reproduce unitil thet 3 years old (as females), than they cange sex and turn to males when they're 5 years old, and become sexually efficient males at 8 years old.
So what size of grouper is it good to hunt? If you hunt the small ones, you take them of the life cycle before they become able to reproduction...If you hunt the medium sized groupers, you kill all the sexually efficient females. If you shoot the big ones, you kill all the sexually efficient males....and so WTF????

Bill McIntyre · Jun 29, 2009

Den said:
There's a nice mullet in the freezer never mind the one on my stringer and this fish, probably as old as me, would have been taken to feed my ego more than my stomach.

I don't know how old you are, and its probably not really relevant to the main point of your post, but I think it was unlikely that the fish was as old as you are.

According to a Google search:

Striped mullet lifespan is seven years for males and eight years for females, with a probable average lifespan of five years. The oldest striped mullet on record is one that lived 13 years.

The White Mullet has a life span of 4 to 16 years and requires 3 years to reach maturity.

Fondueset · Jun 29, 2009

Fast burners. Here our Lake Trout can live into their mid-twenties. Suckers, about 27. God knows how long carp live - rumor has it there are some with ancient hieroglyphics carved on their scales..

Den · Jul 1, 2009

Definately not as old as me then, I thought they were slower growing and longer lived than that, thanks for the info Bill, does anyone know similar stats for Bass (that's the Seabass we get in the UK)

sunfish · Jul 1, 2009

European mullet are longer lived than striped or white mullet. They live into their twenties, as do European bass.
An Irish bass ( or British) of 32 inches is likely to be in it's mid twenties. If a bass reaches that age while living slightly warmer waters, (Mediteranean or sea of Marmara for example), it's likely to be a lot bigger, maybe weighing over twenty pounds.
If you're twenty five or younger, and the mullet over eight pounds, it may well have been older than you.

Old Man Dave · Jul 1, 2009

Many double figure bass and mullet in the UK are over 20 years old. Both species are very slow growing and late maturing (breeding). All large fish are female. Most scientists agree that killing the large female "super" breeders is a bad idea.

Flatfish on the other hand are fast growing. A minimum size plaice is between 1 and 2 years old and breeds by 2 years (unfortunately the small min size for plaice is below first breeding size). Brill and turbot are similarly fast growing and prolific breeders. Turbot along with cod produce some of the largest numbers of eggs per individual.

Unfortunately the current position in the UK (the world?) is that overfishing is decimating stocks of both fast and slow growing fish species. At the end of the day spearing makes us the good guys and to shoot or not is a personal preference.

Personally if I saw a double bass tomorrow I'd shoot it. Having done that this week I'd probably pass on one any other time later this year. I would probably pass on a double figure mullet , full stop.

Dave.

azapa · Jul 1, 2009

if i'll eat it i shoot bigger fish rather than small. I often point at, and don't shoot 10 fish only to see a big one and bag it.

I'm no "veggy" but I would definitely say I'm a softy for not taking too much fish. Same can't be said for most here in Chile though who seem to clean out areas.

I compete at a local and national level, and do so because its a great soap box. my buddies understand me, spearos I newly meet are wary. Look at the crap i give over-shooters here:
Larompiente.com: Fotos de capturas - Fotografía go back though the history (if you are bored and understand spanish).

way I see it is you can do so much more at a grass roots level influencing and convincing from within the sport, than any raging peta-veggy type outside. Tastes better too

nigelr · Jul 1, 2009

Great thread Den, and some wonderful replies as well.
I consider myself to be a conservative hunter, I'm only interested in shooting what I'm going to eat. And I have to be certain I will be able to effectively capture and kill anything I aim at and pull the trigger on.
Personally I've found nothing worse than shooting a large fish and losing it, knowing it will die later, very depressing and something these days I will do everything to avoid. I have absolutely no trouble passing large fish by and taking smaller specimens for this very reason.
As a fifty-something year-old, having learnt the aforementioned lesson, my personal integrity regarding responsible spearfishing practice within my local fishery is infinitely more important to me than any thoughts of killing a 'trophy' fish.
I've done my best to teach my son this rationale, and thankfully he acknowledges the value of it, and tends to follow it and encourages his buddies to do the same.
Spearfishing is a special and unique pursuit, let's not give in to our baser instincts. Plenty of others do that in other sports. Sure ego is important, but I will argue that practising responsible, thoughtfull fishing is far more laudable than a monument to oneself stuck on the wall. Just my opinion though...........no better or worse than anyone elses'.
Cheers.

Padaxes · Jul 1, 2009

Its an interesting one , I`m def in the shoot it to eat it type, I very rarely take more than two fish a dive and if i do (like today) I gave one to my buddy who had struck out. I hope to avoid buying fish completely due to the problems with commercial fishing. But then im one of those veggy types Pescetarian to be precise.

But saying that Im pretty new to this sport and my record so far is only a 4lb+ bass so I would take the shot on a bigger fish without hesitation! Once I've bagged a big one? We`ll see..... (and if anyone wants to tell me where to find one you could speed up the process lol)

kokomo · Jul 2, 2009

to overcome this problem dive I dive with a camera..
I shoot some fish and take photos of others....

its a nice balance

Den · Jul 2, 2009

Nice to be spoken about as if I'm twenty, wish I'd been spearing back then, when I think of the hours I spent at the beach waiting for a swell to arrive. I'm almost 40 now so that was a fair exaggeration to say it could have been as old as me. Still, I didn't say if I'd had shot the fish had it been a Bass.....almost certainly. Haven't had a double figure yet. 6lb my best to date.
Great replies, seems to be a general concensus, and yes OMD to shoot or not to shoot is pretty academic I suppose.

cdavis · Jul 2, 2009

Oh Boy, one tricky and very individual subject. One that is worth some serious thought. How does one suggest to a diver who is capable of taking big fish but hasn't yet, that he shouldn't take that 20 kg grouper if he gets a shot, much less a 35 kg one. How about fill the cooler with smaller fish? Its legal and they will sure get eaten. I don't have a good answer and can just do what I do and try to explain why less really is better. Having spent a lot of years as a modestly successful trophy hunter and a way too successful meat hunter, I've seen all too well how much damage I (and others like me) can do, and have somehow come around to Spagetti's positon, today's dinner is just fine, thank you. Its way more fun to play with a big grouper than shoot him. Ever try to tickle the belly of a spooky 10 kg fish? And you know, I see more when I'm not so intent on sticking something.

Consensus? Maybe on DB, but you might get a slightly different reaction on say, Spearboard.

Connor

Den · Jul 4, 2009

Yes, I was suprised not to hear more of the 'hell no, big fish is the pinnacle of the hunt' kind of arguement, maybe DB people are just a mellower bunch, but then perhaps my main reason for posting this is so I've got enough posts under my belt to be allowed a fish on the Hall of Fame one day!!!
How big a pot do you need for a 20kg fish? I've often fancied trying bluewater fishing sometime and wondered what you do with a fish that's nearly as big as you once you've caught it. Surely there's some South Africans or Aussies out there who can enlighten me.

Bill McIntyre · Jul 4, 2009

Well, I'm afraid I'm out of step. I'll pass up 25 pound white sea bass in hopes of finding a 50 pounder, especially during the three month period when the take limit is one fish.

I don't even feel guilty. When I started doing this 12 years ago, a 50 pound fish was exceptional, but now beginners are getting fish over 50 pounds as their first. Outlawing inshore gill netting is letting the fish grow up, and I don't think my shooting of large ones will put a dent in the population.

BTW, you don't need a big pot for a big fish. That is why we fillet them and make smaller portions.

pauldeclercq · Jul 4, 2009

If you can't eat it, don't shoot it. I have left huge groupers, bigger than me, alive in mozambique. I would not know what to do with that much fish.
That said, if I saw a marlin/tuna or sailfish I would go for the kill without hesitation. Hmmmmm....

spaghetti · Jul 4, 2009

Bill McIntyre said:
I don't even feel guilty.

And of course you don't have to.

Now, before anyone eventually starts feeling guilty, let's state once more the obvious facts about spearfishing, so to keep the discussion on track.
I wouldn't want any PETA f@cker reading this discussion and getting the impression that we, ourselves, blame ourselves for spearing fish.

What we're discussing here is about the sense of a limit, the question here is where to draw the line, which is mostly up to personal choice, or related to specific situations, local issues, subjective judgement.

Generally speaking there's nothing wrong with spearing a sustainable amount of fish.

Then the initial question maybe questioned itself: trophy fish or sustainable hunt. Oh come on, taking some trophy fish sometimes is still sustainable.

Guilty for what, then? For harvesting my own dinner with minimal impact, selective and sustainable means, zero-bycatch, zero pollution, zero collateral damage, zero chemicals/antibiotics/pesticide......

No matter if we spear one fish for dinner (that's my own personal choice) or if we fill up our cooler full, the impact on fish stocks will always be ridiculously low compared to the harvest of any single trawler or single fishery boat of any sort.

Trophy Fish or Sustainable Hunt?

New Member

Carp Whisperer

Halla Waaaaallllaaa

Old Hippy

Campari Survivor

San Clemente, CA

Carp Whisperer

New Member

Old Hippy

Offline

51% freediver 49% spearo

Member

Shadow of his former self

Active Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

San Clemente, CA

Well-Known Member

Campari Survivor

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency