Debunking The Top Ten Angling Myths

 

MYTH 1. A long distance cast will catch more and bigger fish.

This is based on the belief that fish don't come close in to the beach prefering deepwater further out. Oh yeah, so why do most shark attacks occur in only a few feet of water? The reason long distance casters are more successful is because they can fish a wider area, a short lob into a gully 10 metres offshore or belt the bait 150 metres out when need be. This is why fishing in a group can be so productive, you cover a range of ground till the fish are located then everyone adjusts their distance accordingly. Of course when fishing from piers you are already quite a distance from the beach and blasting your bait 150 metres will only result in crossovers if the current is strong. Water depth is often important thats why marks which enable the angler to hit deep water easily are popular but it is not as critical as many people think. On many occassions when fishing the ebbing tide I have continued to catch fish even when only a few feet of water remained.

MYTH 2. The stronger you are the further you cast.

True strength, power and speed are all key components in casting distance but the secret of all long distance techniques is to load the rod till it locks then releasing the sinker at the critical moment. A smooth well exectuted cast will always go further than a one where brute force is the only component. Simply casting twice as hard does not make the sinker fly twice as far. Perfect your casting style first and then start increasing the power you put into the cast.

MYTH 3. You'll only catch fish when the tides coming in.

As a child I fell hook line and sinker for this one, believing the tide was bringing the fish towards me. True many marks fish best on the flood, but then many fish best on the ebb. This is particularly true of holes and sandy bays which fish best as they empty out rather than fill up. Where water depth is important for your target species fishing 2 hours up to high and 3-4 after seems to work well for high tide marks. See TIDES for a full description of understanding tides from an anglers viewpoint. Truth is different marks fish at different times of the tide and only local knowledge can tell you which.

MYTH 4. Angling is all about luck.

Course and game anglers often boast that sea-angling is little more than hit and hope, requiring little more skill than casting and reeling in. Oh yeah so why does the local guy win 9 out of 10 competitions? This myth is often put about by the anti-angling brigade to dismiss angling as a sport. True we've all been outfished on occassions by a snotty nosed nine-year-old with a handline on his first ever fishing trip. True angling is all about being in the right place at the right time. True bringing the right bait can make all the difference. True in the sea the fish are not always there let alone feeding. While it cannot be denied that luck does play a part a little knowledge and common sense can tip the odds considerably in your favour and the angler that puts a little planning into his trips will invariably outfish the guy who pops down the beach and casts out with fingers crossed.

MYTH 5. Angling is cruel.

If they didn't like it the fish wouldn't take part. Critics often claim that most fish die shortly after being released, whilst is cannot be denied that a small number do, most recover from their ordeal very quickly. The evidence for this comes from tagging programs and stocks in lakes rivers etc. Upon catching a tagged fish (usually a large species) anglers are normally requested to record the data on the tag and release to be caught by another angler who will hopefully do the same. This fish will probably have been caught by a hook in the first place. Logic would also tell us it would be pointless realising fish if they were to die within hours and we should ignore minimum size limits. While most sea fish will never see a hook, course fish will be caught and realised several times over their lives yet even in heavily fished waters we do not see piles of dead fish littering the riverbanks. Evidence for fish dieing comes from a small number of badly controlled capture-recapture population monitoring exercises. In these tests a sample of the population is caught by netting marked and released. After a short time this is repeated the fish remarked and new fish marked. This is repeated again and from the data an estimate of total population is gained. What is strange about this technique is no two people ever get the same figures. Once when fishing Royal Quays during December (River Tyne) a cormorant amused (or annoyed) anglers by flying over and begging every time a fish was reeled in. Needless to say undersized fish thrown back were eagerly taken. Were these included in the fish die anyway arguement?

But what about fish feeling pain? Well it is true fish have a nervous system and pain receptors and it cannot be argued that fish do not feel pain, just watching a fish get stung by a sea anemone proves that. But fish just don't seem to care about pain. Watch two fish fight in an aquarium and receive nasty injuries, within minutes of the fight ending neither fish shows any sign of discomfort or suffering (although this is not proof of not feeling pain, hiding the fact may be a response to fool predators or competitors). It is common to catch fish with deep scars, missing eyes etc especially during or after rough seas. Many anglers complain about the lack of sport some fish provide, swimming around as without a care in the world after being hooked. Sharks have been known to continue feeding after being hooked. In fact many fish don't come to life until the last minute, hardly the reponse of an animal that is suffering. A term which in itself is difficult to define let alone measure. It would appear that fish feel pain but do not recognise it in the same way we do, it certainly does not persist for any length of time. Take dogs as an example, all breeds have a well developed nervous system yet pit bull terriers are well known for their high pain tolerance making physical punishment pointless during training. PLEASE DO NOT USE THIS AS AN EXCUSE TO RUN PAIN TOLERANCE EXPERIMENTS ON YOUR DOG (NOT WITHOUT HOME OFFICE LICENCE ANYWAY)

But what about the thousands of scientists who want fishing banned as claimed by the anti-angling lobby? No mention of the thousands of scientists who go fishing. As scientists specialise in a particular field how did these people find thousands of scientists who were qualified to make such a judgement? How many ichthyologists with an interest in fish nervous systems and pain recognition are there. In the millions of years man has fished only a couple of dodgy scientific papers have been written suggesting fish feel pain. One way of testing if an animal feels pain and learns from it is to apply an unpleasent stimulation when it takes a particular food. Over time the animal learns to leave one food alone and only eat other things. Often these experiments involve electric shocks to the side of the body, or injection with poison, which is not the same as from a small prick. Cut open the stomach of any cod and it is common to find it stuffed with crabs (it is a myth that fish only eat soft peeled crab, the chitosin in their stomachs allows them to digest the hard shells) Ever been nipped by a crab? ouch, yet these fish are happy to feed on them. I once caught a 1lb codling with a crab dangling from its lip, hanging on by its pincer. If there was any real proof then there would be an international outcry for the banning of angling. The claims of many anti-anglers might be taken seriously if so many of them were not in prison for terrorist activities.

It can be difficult to objectively evaluate the evidence for and against. Anti-angling groups provide little in the way of proof prefering to tug at the heart strings (one website sinks to the depths of using an artists impression of a fish crying). Many of these people are strict vegans opposed to the use of animals in anyway and love to force their views on everyone else, attacking fishing is just another way of drawing attention to themselves. Many anti-anglers use the arguement "how would you like...." to make comparisons. This shows a complete ignorance bordering on stupidity. The lack of hard scientific evidence may come from the fact that many ichthyologists and marine biologist got into fish because of angling and are so reluctant to search for evidence. The fact is many of these scientists kill more fish in a week than the average angler does in a month and still sleep soundly at night.

Another argument is playing the fish causes suffering. Let's put this into perspective. During heavy seas cod migrate into casting range to feed on small creatures. They thrive in mountainous seas, have no problem being tossed around in the surf and banged against barnicle covered rocks but getting reeled in slowly troubles them, yeah right.

Discared rubbish and tackle by anglers causes suffering. Let's look at this shall we? First not every bit of junk on the beach is the property of anglers, we're just an easy target. Walk down any pier in the world and you will see discared food cartons, chip papers, cans dropped by tourists but guess who gets blamed. The sea can also deposit material thrown into the sea miles away as any beachcomber will testify, but no it must have been dropped by local anglers. Used condoms and sanitary towels littering your beach, oh it must be the anglers. The best fishing spots are often places where food naturally accumulates, often rubbish gets washed up here as well. Birds perish in line and hooks left behind. When tackling up it is rare to cut of more than an inch or two of line, hardly tangling material. True we do get snags and lose line, but it is quickly destroyed by the sea and sunlight. Hooks disintegrate even faster, rusting away to nothing. The world is a dangerous place, thousands of animals die every year in road accidents but nobody says ban cars. Many birds kill themselves flying into windows, so lets ban windows. Banning angling because a few birds die is simply silly. Sadly the sea is full of rubbish, most of which is dumped intentionally, fishing tackle is only a tiny fraction of this problem. Let's not forget anglers tend to be the ones reporting the rubbish to the authorities, a fact the antis choose to ignore.

Anti-angler regrets trying to rescue maggots from bait shop by hiding in mouth


If Confronted by anti-angling demonstrations during fishing it is advised that you