What do you shoot and why...

[Broseidon]

Re congers, one of my friends who had a doctorate in marine biology did part of his thesis on them. He told me that despite common belief, there was no conclusive evidence on their breeding cycle; the initial idea that congers die after breeding come from a study from the 1890's which was based on congers kept in aquariums. It may be correct but it has never been proven.

 

[speerolee]

My pennies worth in my own opinion would be:

That most edible UK marine fishes would be sustainable "IF" we are just talking spearfishing! and seems as this is a spearfishing forum I'll stick with that.

The impact that spearos have on marine fishes and shellfish etc... is very minimal and as we all know very well; spearfishing IS and thus should be portrayed as the most sustainable and environmentally friendly way of gathering/hunting food to eat.

I love the sea, I love watching wildlife, I enjoy hunting/gathering for my family, I love eating fish and I benefit in the ring (MMA before the rude jokes start) from the stamina training when on long dives.

Mullet and bass are my usually quarry, I will take bigger pollack sometimes. flatfish for me need to be a substantial size for me to bother with them now. Ray's; well iv'e taken one and it was pretty good, however unless it's a real monster I'll leave them alone. All bream and cod a big yes as for scallops, crabs and lobsters of a good well in size.

Conger,,,,,,mmmmmmm maybe, not sure. Left them alone so far.

Wrasse - no taste bad

Dogfish - maybe a very large bullhuss

Pout - no

A tropical visitor - now that's a very difficult one to answer (well it is on an open forum)

 

[Padaxes]

So it is possible (re Conger breeding only once). Also everyone I have spoken to says their numbers are much lower than they were even 20 years ago. they are another slow growing territorial fish that is vulnerable to over-fishing.

 

[Broseidon]

So it is possible (re Conger breeding only once).

One should never present mere supposition as fact.

 

[Padaxes]

Well without sidetracking the discussion too much, there is only one study that's been done and that hasn't been disproved if I understand you correctly. The very fact that their breeding habits in the wild are still a mystery suggests it's not a common occurrence ?

If you say they don't breed only once not only is that supposition but it's also contradicting the only available evidence?

 

[Jonny250]

The very fact that their breeding habits in the wild are still a mystery suggests it's not a common occurrence ?QUOTE]

A good point well made

What about rays? as i understand it they are also slow growing & dont breed till older & not that often?
However they are popular in guernsey and we see loads of them at night [and some in the day].
Waitrose sells local ray wings and there were about 10 in there last night when i took a look.
[Interestingly, the 'air miles' on many other fish in the supermarket was huge - including icelandic plaice & spanish bass fillets which seems pretty daft to me when the local fleet is struggling!]

If i saw a large ray, i think i would be happy to take it home - they taste fantastic, right up there with turbot. my impression is that there are plenty of these and they are not a threatened species here [i might be wrong of course...].

Next on the list is Porbeagle; would you shoot a porgie? If geared up right?

 

[Broseidon]

A good point well made

Actually, it's not a good point and it's not well made as Padaxes has clearly mis-read what I wrote.

To be clear, I at no point said that they breed more than once; I just stated that it is incorrect to purport as fact something which is only supposed.

I am not disregarding the evidence as actually, there have been quite a number of studies on Conger reproduction. I was simply referencing the initial study, done ~120 years ago as the starting point for the (mis)conception that reproduction in Congers ended in death. You can read it here:

http://sabella.mba.ac.uk/58/01/On_the_reproduction_and_development_of_the_conger.pdf

If you can be bothered to read the hole thing, you will note on page 31 a very large hole in the 'death post-breeding hypothesis', whereby the author points to the size / age range of breeding-related mortality which appears to be utterly inconsistent. i.e. at some point in captivity, all female eels become 'gravid' and whither away, to the point of death - without correlation of size (which would point to age) (I find the author's assertion that a 16lb female could be the same age as 120lb female as utterly implausible).

It would appear to me that the conditions in an aquarium (possibly depth / pressure, as congers are rumoured to spawn at many thousands of feet) mean that female congers produce more and more eggs until the point of death. i.e. without the 'release' of spawning, the eels continue to focus their energies on egg / sperm production to the point of death.

Earlier in the article you will read that neither males nor females were able to release either sperm nor eggs within the aquarium condtions, despite their obvious attempts.

What is most overwhelmingly obvious is that ALL of the dead male and female congers HAD NOT bred, and that death was as a result of a massive excess of gonad mass. The study cites one 16lb female: the ovaries weighed 3.5lbs while sum mass of all of her remaining organs was only 8oz.

Also, you will also note that many of the females, before death, floated on the surface for up to three days. I think someone might have noticed hundred of floating, dying eels at some point in history.

 

[Padaxes]

Well he was talking about this point when he said good point well made

"The very fact that their breeding habits in the wild are still a mystery suggests it's not a common occurrence ?"

 

[Broseidon]

If something is a mystery, it can't 'suggest' anything.

Your point has all the merit of flipping a coin.

 

[Padaxes]

Interesting info.

I'm quite happy to say it's an unknown quantity. My basic point that they are slow growing and their numbers are in decline stands.

My belief that they are slow to reproduce is supposition but I wont be taking any until I know the facts and they are more plentiful.

As an aside, probably best not to start a debate with a post that says "Wrong, wrong , wrong, dubious , wrong" quite categorically, when its actually "right, right, right, dubious?, possibly".

Your point has all the merit of flipping a coin.

At least I have a 50% chance of being right, beating your ratio so far But seriously, it does have some merit, as if they bred often it would be much more likely the behavior would have been observed.

 

[Broseidon]

At least I have a 50% chance of being right, beating your ratio so far

Wrong again I'm afraid that you also have a 50% chance of being wrong so unfortunately, we're even rofl

 

[Jonny250]

Actually, it's not a good point and it's not well made

I think it is.

 

[Broseidon]

Oh yes it is

Have you noticed the remarkable absence of pink cars on the roads?
It probably relates to the fact that people dont want to buy them... it certainly suggests that to me.

Statements like that are why people looked out to sea and thought the earth was flat.

Deductive reasoning does not produce empirical results. Period.

In an academic discussion of fact (which this has become), holding a supposition as a truth, as I have already explained, is wrong. Further defending that position with deductions based on suppositions Jonny, I'm afraid, is still wrong. But nice try

 

[Padaxes]

I don't see any academic discussion, I see points being missed, semantics being argued all mixed up with a dashing of contradiction.

More importantly I see an interesting thread being derailed.

 

[Jonny250]

So what about Porbeagles??

 

[bobdonny]

ye all risk a severe deleting from me... this had the bearings of a really good thread and it better start going back that way!!

In science it is fundamentally impossible to prove anything... FACT.

The best we can do is develop alternative or null hypotheses and attempt to disprove them.

I.e. I cannot "prove" that there is not a clone of me in the galaxy somewhere...
I can only test to a stastically significant result that it is unlikely that there is a clone within a given set of criteria e.g. in my university for example.

In this case it is impossible to determine if congers die after breeding. You would need to monitor every single conger that ever lived and will live.
The best we can do is form a Null hypotheses that "a singular" conger will reproduce many times. Until we can observe this action (just the once is enough) then we need to accept the previous position.

So unless anyone can post "here" some empirical evidence that congers have been proven to reproduce more than once, grab your handbags and move off to another thread

Lets get back on track!

 

[bobdonny]

Conger eel

Bear this in mind if you target them... nuff said... move along

 

[foxfish]

well done Bros, good answer mate. But i still think Padaxes made a good point, academic or not , I just liked his [il]logic

So what about Porbeagles??

I dont think it would go down very well with some, if you remember the young chap who rod caught one a few years back by the Hanois lighthouse (guernsey) he was ridiculed for killing what a lot of folk considered an endangered species!

I kow at one time, my brother OMD would not of hesitated to shoot a shark as we discussed it loads of times.

He had a plan about shooting a blue shark from the boat, we figured we could chum up a few on the south coast as the water is very deep, very close in (300' at 3 miles out)
Dave wanted to do a video but, I was not so keen as he was & it never happened.

Dave was always hopping to see a porgy in La Ancresse bay while night diving but I think in recent years because of the decline in sharks it would not go down well to kill one around here.

I would think some underwater footage of a predatory shark would be impressive enough?

 

[Dave L]

[QUOTE= death was as a result of a massive excess of gonad mass.

What a way to go... I'd be happy if that were etched on my headstone

Good debate chaps :ko

 

[sarnian85]

I'm hoping not to see a porgy in L'Ancresse...

Bass - I'll take one for the table
Rockfish - nope, don't like the taste. And to expand on what someone was saying, I wouldn't want to kill one - they seem 'trusting' in the old-fashioned sense - IE a bit simple. It would be like shooting a fishy Forrest Gump. But they are nice to watch.
Pollack - Not really. Don't taste of anything without a whole sh-load of work.
Mullet - oh yes - Lime, ginger and coriander marinade, steak-ed and barbied. Nomnom. Not off the East Coast though... one can take recycling too far.
Sole - yep. Note to self - use spear, not knife. Still feel a bit bad about that.
Longnose- I'll never hit one of the wriggly buggers, but they're cool to watch.

That's all I've seen out and about in my fledgeling spearo-'career'

I don't kill for pot-bait, and winds me up when I see people do it. Shoot a nice bass, eat meat, use giblets in pot, or for stock to freeze. I won't kill anything unless I've already got a recipe in mind....