The following passage was taken from here http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8R0GAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA113&dq=Fish+flies+of+the+fly+tier's&hl=en&ei=rPI9TJGRAceQjAeyl7n4Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CGAQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8R0GAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA113&dq=Fish+flies+of+the+fly+tier's&hl=en&ei=rPI9TJGRAceQjAeyl7n4Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CGAQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false)
Dated 1843.
'on all of which we have had most excellent sport, as a proof of which in one day ourself and two friends returned to our inn from the Freuchie with panniers crammed with beautiful yellow trout.'
Changed days? :)
Unfortunatly these people just raped and pilaged these lochs , No sign of catch and release in those days . It had been going on for centuries . Thankfully nowadays we are a little more reserved :)
Quote from: piscatus absentis on July 14, 2010, 10:20:23 PM
Aw c'mon - rape and pillage! Applying 21st century morality to long gone 19th fishers. What will your great-great grandweans say about some of your habits.
What habits would that be ?
Quote from: piscatus absentis on July 14, 2010, 11:26:38 PM
Do you use a car to go fishing?
What raw materials are used to make your rods, reels, lines clothes etc?
Now compare what you use with what your ancestors used and decide who is the most wasteful.
Were the fish they caught eaten?
Assuming yes did this mean that other fish were spared to live and breed?
Have you bought a fish supper or other sea fish recently?
The arguments are actually pointless and fruitless. The reality is that you should never apply your current way of thinking to the past particularly when you don't know what conditions were like when the words were written.
1. NO
2. Carbon fibre , And if they had it they would of used it
3. Them . i put all my catch back
4. How do you know ? Was you around then
5. Pointless responce
6. Dont eat fish
7. We finally agree your points were fruitless.
Quote from: Burnfoot Loch on July 14, 2010, 10:08:52 PM
Unfortunatly these people just raped and pilaged these lochs , No sign of catch and release in those days . It had been going on for centuries . Thankfully nowadays we are a little more reserved :)
If you have read any of the old books you will realise that the same arguments about taking too many fish, pollution, poaching and bait fishers were as relevant to them then as they are in the modern books of today. Even after all those centuries of 'rape and pillage' the trout are still there and, if they are to be believed, they were bigger then :)
Quote from: piscatus absentis on July 14, 2010, 11:26:38 PM
Do you use a car to go fishing?
What raw materials are used to make your rods, reels, lines clothes etc?
Now compare what you use with what your ancestors used and decide who is the most wasteful.
Were the fish they caught eaten?
Assuming yes did this mean that other fish were spared to live and breed?
Have you bought a fish supper or other sea fish recently?
The arguments are actually pointless and fruitless. The reality is that you should never apply your current way of thinking to the past particularly when you don't know what conditions were like when the words were written.
That's a great post. I can see BFL's point of view but the above post kicks ass. :8)
It's all about relativity to the times in which we are or were living.
Quote from: Burnfoot Loch on July 14, 2010, 11:42:06 PM
1. NO
2. Carbon fibre , And if they had it they would of used it
3. Them . i put all my catch back
4. How do you know ? Was you around then
5. Pointless responce
6. Dont eat fish
7. We finally agree your points were fruitless.
I think you've missed the main point of PA's post, especially with regards to raw materials. Even if you use no motorised transport to get fishing (or to work etc) then an awful lot of you kit will be from man made materials (lots will be petrochemical based) or from processes which rely on energy generated from it. This would make us nowadays a lot more environmentally "wasteful" (and guilt of rape and pillage to use your expression of natural resources) regardless of whether they would have used the same materials had they been available. Unfortuantely its an unescapable fact of modern life that its almost impossible to do anything without consuming a scary amount of raw materials (he types from a DSV offshore burning god knows how much diesel per hour to hold position) compared to the past. People in the future will undoubatable look back on us as being horrendously wasteful and guilty of "rape and pillage" of natural resources. HOw many resources did you consume typing your post?
theres also a (fair) argument that if fishers of yore who "raped and pillaged" the loch were fishing for food, they have the moral high ground over fishers today who only fish for the "chase" and put fish through a lot of trauma for no reason other than their own pleasure. I don't quite subscribe to it, but its a fair argument non the less. :?
I do agree that the stripping of lochs, say by netting or otter boarding now a-days amounts to "rape and pillage" as we should know better and there is much more pressure on land and water, but its hard to pass judgement on people living a long time in the past based on todays thinking on an issue like this.
Changed days and changed attitudes (for the better we hope) sounds about right, but I wouldn't pass judgement on folk in the 1840s based on todays thinkings. Especially as I don't know the loch and waters in question so any lack of fish could be down to a load of other factors.
Anyway, having fished for all of 15 minutes I can't really argue with any authority on the issue so will stop there.
Anyhoo, this is all a bit too serious for this time in the morning and I've a fun 12hrs of work to look forward to :(
Cheers!
Stu
until recently the taking of vast numbers of fish while maybe incomprehensible to us today did not affect the quality of the fishing.as mentioned in a previous post it had "been going on for centuries".perhaps we might have to look closer to home as the decline of these types of loch in most cases is a recent phenomenon.perhaps the introduction of pike and the increased angling pressure brought about by the fact that the ordinary working man now has the ability to access these places due to modern transport.
Garry
Quote from: Ardbeg on July 15, 2010, 02:45:15 AM
Not a pleasant post to a very reasoned argument, especially #7 which pretty much negated any other point you put forward I'm afraid.
As stated, and clearly illustrated by your last comment, you seem to have missed the point of PA's post.
Ardbeg
Im afraid PA as you call him , Went completly off the topic when the old green issues were pointed out . So i just replied on his level . Original post was in refrence to the numbers of wild trout taken years ago which was in a lot of cases was in excess of 100 trout a day , Not like today when most people thankfully show some consideration . Nothing to do with whether you burn petrol or whether your rod is made by carbon fibre or carrots . Does that clear things up for you .
He didn't go off topic as you say. You were all off topic :) The reason for the OP was that Freuchie now has a name for pike rather than trout not for the number of trout they took :)
Anyway the point is that what was the norm 150 years ago is looked down on now which will be the case 150 years from now when the people that follow us look back on our failings. Which was the point PA was making.
By the way, you can have a discussion without being condescending. Everyone can have an opinion which will be respected, it doesn't mean everybody has to agree with it and I will defend your right to have that opinion whether I agree with it or not.
Quote from: fishtales on July 15, 2010, 01:26:06 PM
By the way, you can have a discussion without being condescending. Everyone can have an opinion which will be respected, it doesn't mean everybody has to agree with it and I will defend your right to have that opinion whether I agree with it or not.
Thats just it its only opinions , If you were a wee bit more clearer on your original post as to what you were trying to acheive it would of helped the process . We will agree to disagree and i will leave you to troll through old books of yester-year .
That was why I let the discussion run as I then became aware of the two ways it could be read.
There you go again with the condescending, sniping attitude. I don't troll old books, I read them, something you obviously find demeaning or difficult to understand. By reading history we should be able to learn by the mistakes made in the past, not that it works that way. Humans just keep making the same mistakes over and over again. :roll:
aye fishtales if history teaches anything us anything it is that history teaches us nothing.
Garry
Quote from: fishtales on July 15, 2010, 02:34:16 PM
That was why I let the discussion run as I then became aware of the two ways it could be read.
There you go again with the condescending, sniping attitude. I don't troll old books, I read them, something you obviously find demeaning or difficult to understand. By reading history we should be able to learn by the mistakes made in the past, not that it works that way. Humans just keep making the same mistakes over and over again. :roll:
Firstly condescending , Now sniping attitude . Fishtales cmon your needing to get out more for some fresh air . A mean i could of said you were rather dull and in a wee world of your own , but i wont reach as low as yourself with the catty remarks . Now thats the last i will say on the matter and wish you well with your reading .
As pointed out before, history has a habit of repeating itself. :roll:
Re. the old book postings FT makes, I find them interesting reading and informative as well as enlightening us with a bit of history. Surely that cannae be a bad thing. :8)
The one and only time I fished it I caught and released about twenty trout in half a day. My mate, who was pike fishing, caught one pike :) That was about fifteen to twenty years ago.