This article is certainly the most difficult
I have ever sat down to write.
I think you will see why as I progress.
Most times when I get into discussions about things fishy, it is with
fishing people. But just a few days ago I was out to dinner with a group
of ten people, only one of whom was into fishing. I was in full enthusiastic
discussion with the fishy one on the subject of Mark Kitteridge’s
article last month (in NZ Fisherman) on his dream trip to the Three
Kings Island – fisherman’s heaven. My second hand description of
John Rae’s eight hour saga on a marlin on light tackle fishing
and the pain and endurance required was picked up on by the others and
the vehemence of the reaction to our discussion floored me.
"All very well for the angler, but what about the poor fish, it
went through hell", summed up the reaction.
Without exception each of the non-fishers at the table thought that
subjecting a fish to a long fight on light tackle was certainly not
sporting, and there could be no justification for a human to use an
unwilling animal with no choice in the matter to derive pleasure. To
subject any animal or fish to the stress and pain of trying to escape
from capture for nothing other than a sport fishermen to gain some kind
of perverted pleasure was something these people found totally unacceptable.
My partners in dinner could not be described as animal-rights dogmatists,
or "greenies" at the silly end of the scale. No, just reasonably
intelligent people with a reasoned point of view.
My attempts to persuade the group that the level of skill required
to land fish on light tackle was the pinnacle of the anglers art were
met with a wall of derision. Further attempts to explain that fish may
not feel pain from hooks were flagged as nonsense. It was not the pain
from the hooks that was the problem, it was the simple notion of subjecting
a fish to all that punishment so a human could look good amongst his
mates.
I guess the argument that ended the discussion was promoted by a lawyer
(who else?) who used the analogy of placing a halter on a Kaimanawa
wild horse, connecting the halter to a line and ‘playing’
the horse to a standstill. The public outcry would kill that branch
of the sport. Perhaps more pointedly he posed the question what would
happen if we replaced the marlin with a ‘warm fuzzy’ fish
such as a dolphin?
My arguments subsided, and the conversation moved on to things to do
with nothing of particular interest to me so my mind wandered around
the mauling I had just taken in defence of my sport.
Perhaps my attempts at justifying light tackle fishing were to no avail
because my arguments were hamstrung by my own feelings of hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy? Unfortunately yes. For some time now I have begun to question
my ethics and the morality of fishing with light tackle. This self doubt
has been reinforced by several factors.
My first worry is the deepening doubt I have developed over the validity
of the notion of sportsmanship that seems to accompany arguments for
light tackle fishing.
The basis on which many who make a case for light tackle fishing is
the idea that because the tackle is lighter the fish has greater chance
of escape. This may well be true in principle if the angler did not
reload the dice in his favour but filling up large reels with kilometres
of light line. The pressure that cannot be applied to the fish by weight,
will be applied by making it run for miles. Either way it can add up
to pretty much the same result, except for the time element. But even
the time element is a two edged sword. The longer a fight goes on the
more chances there are for a fish to escape, but just as true is the
fact that the longer a fight goes on the less able is a fish to take
advantage of those chances.
Another part of the sportsmanship argument talks of the high skill
levels required to land fish on light tackle. But current trends in
light tackle sport fishing are anything but sporting.
Recently I read of a new World Record that simply strains every boundary
of credulity. The capture was a 420 kilo black marlin on 2 kilo line.
That is right, 900 pounds of black marlin on 4 pound line. Assuming
a drag setting of around half a kilo is it reasonable to believe that
the fish even knew it was hooked, let alone believe that the angler
actually played any role in landing the fish, apart from hooking it?
The story of the capture made edifying reading. Seems the crew came
upon the fish quietly finning along. A live bait was manoeuvred in front
of the fish who ate the bait with little deviation from its course,
and having eaten the bait the fish stayed on course. Once hooked the
skipper of the boat stayed in close contact with the fish- close enough
to maintain contact – but not so close as to spook the fish. Ten minutes
after the fish was hooked the boat was drifted up to the fish and the
leader grabbed and slowly drawn close enough for a gaff to be deployed.
Two more gaffs and seven minutes later, after "sheer mayhem"
beside the boat the fish was finally tethered.
It is captures like these that make some light tackle captures little
more than a joke. Something less of a joke to a concerned group of USA
fishermen who have banded together to question the IGFA on some of the
light tackle records they have allowed. Marlin caught on 2, 4 and 6
kilo line in under 3 minutes, for instance, and there are too many of
them.
Yes it can be done. Using teaser lures without hooks, fish are enticed
close in behind the boat. The angler drops a livebait right if front
of the fish from the transom. The moment the fish bites the bait, the
angler races for the back of the cockpit so the leader and double come
out from the rod tip. Immediately the deckhand grabs the leader, and
the gaffs go in.
Crews who go in for this dubious practice argue that it requires a
huge effort in timing and crew skill to make the capture. But is the
fish hooked and played by the angler? No way! Any angler who has a World
Record Certificate hanging on the wall for this kind of capture is kidding
themselves and demeaning the sport.
OK so what I described above is not sporting in the true sportfisherman’s
sense of sporting, but why am I so queasy about light tackle fishing
aside from these questionable practices?
Accompanying Mark’s story were some photos of the crew preparing
for the end game on a marlin. The skipper had the boat under full noise,
in reverse. The sea surging in over the transom. This is real heart
pounding stuff when you are in the thick of the action – it does not
come more exciting. Mark Kitteridge waxed strong on the excitement of
this largely light tackle trip. I worked with Mark for eight years behind
the counter at Just Fishin’ so I need no convincing of Mark’s
interminable enthusiasm and skill. But who was doing the fishing?
I believe from years of observation that in the vast majority of big
game captures from crewed boats on 24 kilo tackle and above the angler
contributes less than 20% to the success of the capture. That 20% requires
that the angler does nothing stupid and obeys the crew’s instructions.
But if the angler does do something stupid it seems that invariably
the fish comes unstuck at the fishes end. It is rare for the fish to
depart the scene trailing the leader and mainline, sometimes hundreds
of metres of mainline.
In light tackle big game fishing from a crewed boat it is likely the
skill percentage required by the angler to make the capture is even
less than 20%. The true skill is keeping the boat in the right position,
and manoeuvring it to allow the angler to recover line. Once the fish
is near the boat, the crew work becomes even more important. But if
something or someone stuffs up the poor fish is left trailing the leader
and many many metres of mainline.
So, yes I will go along with the angler who tells me of the pain of
going 3, 4, 6, 8 and more hours on a fish. But we should not confuse
endurance with skill. We do not hear too many complaints from the fish
about the length of the fight and the pain it went through at the same
time and the fish was doing a helluva lot more work than the angler
and crew.
I do not want anyone to get me wrong on this, I am in utter awe of
the skill level by all the crew required to boat any large fish on light
tackle.
Put light tackle to work closer inshore and the chances of success
are probably weakened. Near shore the bottom of the sea becomes the
major problem. While it may be true that landing big fish on light tackle
is at least a team effort in open water, near shore the overriding factor
in success is luck. It is no coincidence that there is no ten to one
kingfish record in the books. But there are heaps of kingis swimming
around right now trailing the remains of the gear of those who continue
to try. There are probably many more skeletons of kingis attached to
the bottom by the remains of live bait rigs.
The notion of using light tackle to capture big fish seems to have
developed out of some attempt to grade or equalize skill levels. For
example capturing a 10 kilo fish on one kilo line is somehow equivalent
to capturing a 100 kilo fish on 10 kilo line. But once this notion of
grading entered into single species, I think the sport lost the plot.
Let me try and explain. In most sporting endeavours there is only one
winner, one record holder. There is only one high jump world record.
Imagine for a moment a list of high jump records for jumps where the
athlete was handicapped by say having weights attached to their bodies.
Then we could have world record high jumps for athletes in the 2, 4,
8, 10 and 15 kilo added weight class. Or sillier still world record
high jumps for people of different heights.
The perverting of the basic principle of there being one World Record,
that is the biggest fish of any species being caught by an angler on
rod and reel began when records for lighter line captures were introduced.
You see once the basic principle is eroded then further erosion of the
principle commences.
Lower line weights were added to match the size of new fish being added
to the list of eligible species. So where there existed only records
for 37 kilo lines for marlin and tuna, new line weights of 24, 15, 10,
8, 6, 4, 2 and 1 kilo were introduced to meet the lighter quarry being
sought.
Once the lower line weights arrived people began to try and catch big
fish on line weights introduced to catch much smaller fish. I guess
the only answer to why was the same answer given by the expedition that
first climbed Mt. Everest, "because it is there".
I am growing strongly of the belief that not only should there be a
restriction on the upper level of line weight to match the likely size
range of each species of fish, but there should be restrictions on the
lower level of line weights. In our waters these could be 15, 24 and
37 kilo for all marlin, 10, 15 and 24 kilo for kingfish, 10, 15 and
24 kilo for yellowfin tuna, 4 and 6 kilo for kahawai.
The notion of subjecting a fish to a protracted fight to meet some
ideal of it being in the name of ‘sport’ does our sport no
good at all in the wider community. Equally, to attempt to ‘grade’
an anglers skill level by equating lower line weight to skill, and thereby
subjecting a fish to a protracted fight is to ignore basic human decency.
To believe otherwise is to bury our heads in the sand and to ignore
what is happening around us.
The evidence is already around us around the world. Many countries
in Europe now ban catch and release – all fish caught must be killed.
Imagine fishing where you are allowed to catch only one or two fish
and the first two fish you caught meant you had to stop fishing. In
many places around the world, parts of Europe and the USA, using live
bait is banned.
Here in New Zealand it would be silly to ignore the spate of letters
in the NZ Herald and other papers on the ‘cruelty’ of catching
fish then releasing them.
The fishing fraternity here and overseas has an uneasy alliance of
convenience with most of the major conservation and ‘green’
organizations. That alliance based on the fact that both groups have,
to a point, similar aims – the care and protection of the water
and habitant to ensure the preservation of fish and other marine life.
But if the sport fishing fraternity became seen as ‘villains’,
by subjecting fish to cruel treatment that alliance will shatter.
I guess what all this boils down to is a personal choice of what my
fishing ethics will be.
I choose to believe that chasing fish on light tackle is something
best left to those who derive some pleasure out of light tackle fishing
for its own sake. These people say they like to make their fishing more
‘sporting’ by reducing the strength of their tackle to give
the fish a sporting chance of escaping.
I do not agree with this view.
I will reduce the strength of my tackle to the point where it will
maximize my chances of hooking fish, but I choose not to go below this
point based on some notion of ‘sport’ when ‘playing’
(a truly unfortunate word) the fish.
I choose to fish with tackle which, once a fish is hooked, that fish
can be brought to the boat or shore as quickly as possible. There, the
fish can either be quickly killed, or released in the best possible
shape to survive.
Fishing with tackle that is too light does nothing but commit too many
wonderful fish to a long and lingering death attached to the bottom
or hamstrung, by terminal tackle.
If you are going to fish, honour your opponent by fishing with strong
tackle.
