|
Viewing 1 to (12 Total) Is our rule legal? |
Total Posts: 130
Joined: February 26, 2016
|
For something to do I for my sins have been reading the rules and regulations.
The BAA state that all fish should be returned.
Below I have pasted what it says on the Canal and River Trust website.
Can I return a zander to the canal?
As the law stands, it is illegal to return a zander or any other non-native fish species to the canal network. This is set out in the terms and conditions of our KIFR permits.
You are allowed to take zander and other fish species classified by DEFRA as non-native for the pot.
Is the BAA rule legal?
Tags:
Posted on April 2, 2020 at 4:12 PM
|
|
|
Total Posts: 820
Joined: July 4, 2015
|
Re: Is our rule legal?
If the EA forbids the return of non native species, the clearly the BAA ruling needs to be reviewed.
Posted on April 2, 2020 at 7:53 PM
|
Total Posts: 86
Joined: June 8, 2015
|
Re: Is our rule legal?
What purpose does it serve? If any rule needs amending then it's the one at national level. Zander have been here for decades and haven't harmed waterways as was predicted. They will certainly be here for many more so killing a few is hardly going to do anything to change the situation other than encourage poaching and inhumane treatment.
Posted on April 2, 2020 at 10:05 PM
|
|
Total Posts: 820
Joined: July 4, 2015
|
Re: Is our rule legal?
I personally couldn't not return a Zander, or any fish come to that. I think there was some unfounded concerns regarding Zander but they seem to have settled in well, and provide good sport for pred anglers.
They say Zander taste as good as Bass, and is a popular choice in some up market restaurants.
Posted on April 3, 2020 at 8:33 AM
|
Total Posts: 67
Joined: December 6, 2016
|
Re: Is our rule legal?
Zander is lovely to eat, coated in a beer batter it's better than Cod.
Posted on April 3, 2020 at 4:20 PM
|
Total Posts: 13
Joined: September 5, 2015
|
Re: Is our rule legal?
Never thought that I would see recipe tips on this forum. I am quite good at the old cookery lark myself. I find that a 10 pound Barbel makes for a good family meal. I use 4mm halibut pellets for feed and leave them in the fish, and tell the kids that it is caviar, but for a romantic candlelight supper, for just me and the Wife I find that a 2 pound Roach does the trick. When they are over 3 pounds I always put them back, as they can be too tough, too chewy. I always cook them whole and leave the eyes in, to see me through the week.
Posted on April 4, 2020 at 7:33 PM
|
|
Total Posts: 820
Joined: July 4, 2015
|
Re: Is our rule legal?
Never known Barbel to be on any menu, which is just as well, hopefully, we are not that unsophisticated to contemplate dining on the Prince of all fish.
I have however had Pike in Swindon and Perch in Lugano. 
Posted on April 4, 2020 at 10:01 PM
|
Total Posts: 108
Joined: June 23, 2015
|
Re: Is our rule legal?
Having lived on a canal I wouldn't eat anything that has spent any time in it's waters. Or any river with boats, houses or industry upstream for that matter. It would be quicker to eat human excrement followed by a chemical chaser.
Apologies if you are having your lunch
Posted on April 6, 2020 at 10:58 AM
|
Total Posts: 20
Joined: August 4, 2016
|
Re: Is our rule legal?
Re Cooking Barbel. Reason why you wont see any recipes is they taste disgusting, lol. Some old fishing books suggest they are poisonous to eat. Also Roach are not edible due to lots of small bones. Chub also horrible to eat.
Posted on April 24, 2020 at 10:56 AM
|
Total Posts: 45
Joined: April 1, 2020
|
Re: Is our rule legal?
The subject of this post seems to have changed from compatibility of BAA rules and prevailing legislation to the culinary qualities of fish. Well into my 7th decade I must confess to having eaten a variety of freshwater fish in my very early teens, in particular on a summer's day with a friend, a methylated spirit powered primus stove and his father on the Thames in Oxfordshire. We sauted perch (OK), dace (delicate) gudgeon (surprisingly tasty). It was a one off from different times and not something I would ever contemplate now. These were the days when in match fishing the catch was taken to the scales and many fish (goers and no goers) never made it back safely.
I did catch a good perch (around a pound) which I took home for the pot when i was about 12. It was uninteresting and my father called it 'delicate' - a euphemism for tasteless. The dog ate most of it. However perch, pike and zander are staples on restaurant menus in Germany so my experience might be down to the cooking. My paternal grandfather did fish during WW2 and caught roach to supplement the rations. In the early 1960s (when I could recognise freshwater fish) i can recall seeing roach and bream briefly on a wet fish slab in a branch of Macfisheries in a northwest London suburb. As we are all finding today; times change.........
Posted on April 25, 2020 at 8:47 AM
|
Total Posts: 280
Joined: December 27, 2015
|
Re: Is our rule legal?
If "non-native" fish can't be returned to the water, shall we start throwing carp up the bank and removing barbel from the Severn, Teme and Wye?
Posted on May 1, 2020 at 10:25 PM
|
|
Total Posts: 820
Joined: July 4, 2015
|
Re: Is our rule legal?
I think we should assume Carp and Barbel to be native species now, the Monastries as far back as the Middle Ages kept Carp for the table, and Barbel are a species that was around in the times of Issac Walton, albeit in the eastern rivers.
Posted on May 2, 2020 at 5:23 PM
|
