For as long as I can remember, people have insisted on throwing the small fish back, on the basis that it is tomorrow’s breeding stock, and in keeping the nice sized fish for eating purposes. I have long wondered what would happen if we reversed the trend? Throw the larger fish back, because they are the breeding stock of today, and eat the little fish, because there are so many more of them and they will probably be eaten anyway. This is the law of biomass, the little stuff gets eaten at the bottom of the pyramid.
The reason I bring this up on a gundog site, is I think it applies to the pheasant as well. The practice of letting the easier shot pass whilst shooting the high flyer, will surely lead to poorer quality breeding stock? Shoot the lazy ones that will not get off the ground until they have to, and leave the wilder birds for the future.
This is after all a case of survival of the fittest, and to have consistently high-flying birds you should not select the high flyers for what is in effect, culling.
December 17th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
As an update to this idea, reps for Scottish fishermen are in Europe negotiating this year’s quotas. There is much bitterness at the thought of external quotas and regulations that have such a disasterous impact on the fishing industry.
Coming from a scientific background, I can see the argument from both sides. I am concerned that fish stocks could drop to unsustainable levels, but realise that quotas can have an enormous impact on livelihoods and populations.
I think in years to come, the improvement in fish stocks that I believe we will see from ‘preserves’ such as that established in Skye recently, where fishing is totally banned, may allow a relaxation of quotas. Not because of less fish being taken leading to increased stocks, but because there will be less damage done to the environment within these preserves, allowing more young stock to grow and be caught in the ‘fishing lanes’ between these preserves.