NESA Species Hunt 2013

[finding nemo]

Yes its only a bit of fun, but........

How can ya exclude certain species because some people cant possitively id them.

Some people including myself couldnt identify each blenny or wrasse or probly many others dose that mean people cant include them

in my opinion its silly to if this happens

If there is only to be 1 rockling, sand eel and even bullhead allowed then hoe is that any differnt
to only allowing lets say

1 dog fish
1 wrasse
1 blenny
1 ray
The list goes on
im shure there is a good few who need help identifying a fish now and then and there is always some way to determine an id

this is a bit of fun yes but this is a fishing forum for debate so there is nothing wrong with debating till we confirm each fish even if it takes months
we all obviously have the time or wouldnt be wasting it even having this discussion

we all might actually learn something

its a species hunt after all

 

[Wee Ver]

Look wot u started nemo!

 

[lobsterwells]

Few more for me mike

dab

herring

pollock

pouting

whiting

 

[lobsterwells]

and a

turbot

 

[Pete from shields]

My vote is for 1 type of rockling, this is supposed to be for fun but lads this is getting silly now. Most people taking pics don't take them with the exact identifying features leaving Mike/Thunderpants the trauma of trying to identify whether or not it is an actual 3 or 5 bearded rockling.

We'll be bloody moaning about Joey or horse mackerel etc next.

 

[finding nemo]

Hows it silly?

Your entitled to your opinion but how is trying to include as many species as possible silly??

Im not just saying it to get my fish in becuase whatever the outcome my points total will efectivly be the same

my fish has been identified so wont be hard to indenyify all the rest and carry on as we where

i cant honestly see the problem

 

[Pete from shields]

Hows it silly?

Your entitled to your opinion but how is trying to include as many species as possible silly??

Im not just saying it to get my fish in becuase whatever the outcome my points total will efectivly be the same

my fish has been identified so wont be hard to indenyify all the rest and carry on as we where

i cant honestly see the problem

Because it is silly mate, its for fun, nothing more nor less. A sand eel/launce as a species and a rockling as a species, why need to complicate things with sub species, what if my 5 beards had a shave is that now a 3 beard lol.

In all seriousness like I say its fun, and this post by bassboyo sums up the photographic side of things.

there is a lack of positive clear photographs to distinguish between the sub species. It has to be cut and dry definite features clearly visible. Not everyone has the equipment or technology while at the water.

 

[Geordie-UK]

Its not silly, its a species hunt, there are 4 different species, with 4 different scientific names (including the 4 bearded rockling as well), would you say it would be fair to put dabs, flounders, plaice, megrim, brill, witch, et all into one, because they are all flat, or how about Saithe and Pollock??.....

Its a species hunt, i.e. we go out to get as many different species as possible.

 

[finding nemo]

Just because its only for fun dosnt mean it shouldnt be correct

Like i said before if there isnt to be any sub species included its gunna make for a pretty boring species hunt

 

[Pete from shields]

Its not silly, its a species hunt, there are 4 different species, with 4 different scientific names (including the 4 bearded rockling as well), would you say it would be fair to put dabs, flounders, plaice, megrim, brill, witch, et all into one, because they are all flat, or how about Saithe and Pollock??.....

Its a species hunt, i.e. we go out to get as many different species as possible.

People moaning about it is SILLY mate, grown adults moaning about a FUN species hunt, come on man it is silly. As for the flat fish argument that is taking it a bit extreme, do you really need to have launce and greater launce on your species list.?

As said what if we all go out and take pics that aren't up to standard, Mike can't verify etc then what, argue over who's being right or wrong over the photo, where does it end.

 

[finding nemo]

No disrespect intended at all here but he dosnt know enuff to have the final say weather its correctly id'd or not in the case of the rockling, allthough he dose have the final say whats to be included

we are all capable of being wrong and learning from it which im shure mike would agree,, i asked elsewhere and it appeared to get some confident answers.


if it is indeed a species of fish it should be included. i just cant see the logic in excluding a species of fish based on some peoples including myselfs inability to id a fish when others can do it

i hope when read this is took in context and not offensive in any way mike

 

[finding nemo]

Nobody is arguing either just debating and hopefully learning something

using the site as intended id say

Just out of interest what would you want to exclude??

Becuase if this was to happen then shurely it has to be accross the board
And no sub species at all??

P.s all comments sent with a loving smile lol

 

[Bassboyo]

Am sure it's not down to anyone's inability to distinguish sub species but the lack of suitable clear photographs, I've voted for one species of rockling purely on the back of the quality of entered photos. I can see both sides of argument, my "fishing" side does steer towards including as many species / sub species as possible but some have very slight differences that are just not possible to make a decision on in a photo. An example of this is the herring & sprat posted above. Am not for one minute saying its not a sprat am purley using it as a example so put the pitch folks down ;-) Unless you can actually measure distances on fins, etc it could be a small herring. Sub species that carry definite , clear, distinguishing differences should be included but its down to the captor to show these as clearly as possible in his/her photos.

 

[finding nemo]

Thats fair enuff...

it could then be as simple as if someone wants a fish included they have to provide enuff evidence ie photo's to back up a claim

sounds easy and fair?

 

[lobsterwells]

agree bassboyo it may well be a small herring all i know one was bigger then 14cm the other isn't and mike will put me right he always does

 

[Geordie-UK]

I have a solution for the rockling issue.

Doing research and comparing sites, I have found one site that has easy and concise descriptions, http://www.lymeregissac.co.uk/Rockling ID.htm

5 bearded rockling submissions should have a clear overhead picture showing clearly all 5 beards

3 bearded rockling submssions should have a clear sideways picture showing the white hairs behind the head

Shore rockling sideways picture

It becomes the submitters responsibility to ensure a clear picture, that the species can be identified from, failing to do so, will result in an entry of rockling as the first rockling caught by that person, if the submitter already has another type of rockling listed, then no entry is made, and the new submission will be assumed to be identical to the previously caught fish.
That leaves it squarely in the hands of the submitter, either supply concrete and clear photographic evidence showing the known differences, (beards for 5b or hairs for 3b) or accept it as a rockling

 

[Thunderpants]

Welcome back Lobsterwells! That's an impressive batch of fish, I'll update the table tomorrow when I'm at home. Regarding the sprat/herring the decision is yours mate. It's hard to tell from the photo so it's your call. Here are the descriptions of the two ....


Clupea harengus Linnaeus, (Herring)
moderate-sized silvery fishes, elongate, a little compressed; belly with a keel of scutes, rather rounded. Lower jaw projecting; gill cover without radiating bony striae, hind margin of gill-opening smoothly rounded (without fleshy outgrowths). Pelvic fin with usually 9 finrays, its base below or just behind dorsal fin origin; last two anal finrays not enlarged. Colour: back dark blue, flanks silvery (without any dark spots). Size: to 40 cm, usually 20-25 cm.


Sprattus sprattus (Sprat )
small silvery fishes, fairly elongate, a little compressed; belly with sharp keel of scales. Lower jaw projecting; hind margin of gill-opening smoothly rounded (without fleshy outgrowths); gillrakers 30-41. Pelvic fins with 7 (rarely 8) finrays. their origin below or before dorsal fin origin; last two anal finrays not enlarged. Colour: back blue/green, flanks silvery. Size: to 16 cm, usually 8-12 cm.




I am amazed that so much "debating" (not arguing lol) is taking place as I only started this as a bit of fun and it wasn't meant to cause so many furrowed brows. Rocklings have gone to the vote now so there is no need for more debating on this subject. It is only rockling that are being voted on, not all subspecies.


The results for the vote so far .....

One type of Rockling 4 Votes - Bassboyo, Fishingmark, toonboymc, Pete from Sheilds,
Different species of Rockling 4 Votes - Aqua Holic, lumpsucker, finding nemo, codcatcher3000




.

 

[Aqua-holic]

Tadpole fish

 

[lobsterwells]

Well i was just going by size and i did think it might be of the same species so am happy with just a herring thank you

 

[Stewart 1971]

Welcome back Lobsterwells! That's an impressive batch of fish, I'll update the table tomorrow when I'm at home. Regarding the sprat/herring the decision is yours mate. It's hard to tell from the photo so it's your call. Here are the descriptions of the two ....


Clupea harengus Linnaeus, (Herring)
moderate-sized silvery fishes, elongate, a little compressed; belly with a keel of scutes, rather rounded. Lower jaw projecting; gill cover without radiating bony striae, hind margin of gill-opening smoothly rounded (without fleshy outgrowths). Pelvic fin with usually 9 finrays, its base below or just behind dorsal fin origin; last two anal finrays not enlarged. Colour: back dark blue, flanks silvery (without any dark spots). Size: to 40 cm, usually 20-25 cm.


Sprattus sprattus (Sprat )
small silvery fishes, fairly elongate, a little compressed; belly with sharp keel of scales. Lower jaw projecting; hind margin of gill-opening smoothly rounded (without fleshy outgrowths); gillrakers 30-41. Pelvic fins with 7 (rarely 8) finrays. their origin below or before dorsal fin origin; last two anal finrays not enlarged. Colour: back blue/green, flanks silvery. Size: to 16 cm, usually 8-12 cm.




I am amazed that so much "debating" (not arguing lol) is taking place as I only started this as a bit of fun and it wasn't meant to cause so many furrowed brows. Rocklings have gone to the vote now so there is no need for more debating on this subject. It is only rockling that are being voted on, not all subspecies.


The results for the vote so far .....

One type of Rockling 4 Votes - Bassboyo, Fishingmark, toonboymc, Pete from Sheilds,
Different species of Rockling 4 Votes - Aqua Holic, lumpsucker, finding nemo, codcatcher3000




.

I agree with the little Clown Fish et al. All three sub-species to count - this is a species hunt after all. Not everyone agrees on what is "just a bit of fun", I'm hyper competitive so to me the fun is catching as many species as possible over the 12 months and that includes 3B, 5B and Shore Rockling, Ballan, Corkwing and (dreaming here) Cuckoo Wrasse, plus all the sub species of Goby, Blenny, Sea Scorpion etc etc (and if you think the discussion about Rockling is touchy wait until the LRF'ers get going and the real mini-species start to make a showing...)

As for identification, that is down to the captor to sort out. If you want to claim a species you need to provide solid photographic evidence that it is indeed that species; if it is not clear from the photograph then either no fish can be claimed or it goes down as the most commonly caught example (at risk of starting a new discussion :hallucine: )