rays, sharks and skate......edible?

Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 7:44 am

as the waters warm i am hopeful of catching some sharks suh as smooth hounds (if indeed they are prevelant around the north east waters, mainly tyneside) maybe some skate or even rays.

If i do manage this, it will usually be on a catch and release basis, however, i may take an occasional one home for the table.

i know skate is edible, though i have been told its not very good eating, but what about other species from our coasts?

are any ot edible, poor eating or indeed in low numbers??

graham

Occasional Joined: Oct 03, 2009 Posts: 184 Location: Hants

You're right to mention C&R for smuts; they're such good sport-fish. It's also not a good idea to take large females as they are often 'in pup' (live-bearers) from May - August.

A small male in the region 5 - 7lbs makes good eating; particularly if you know how to cut the belly portion. Best get someone experienced to show you how.

Rays are excellent eating, the small-eyeds and spotteds are better than thornbacks in my opinion.

Again the smaller fish 4 - 7lbs are better than larger specimens. You need to be shown how to skin a wing.

Good luck

winking

Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 10:09 am

thanks,

incidentaly, i did a quick search on bing to find images of smuts, and found this almost straight away..

i presume its you big grin

graham

Occasional Joined: Oct 03, 2009 Posts: 184 Location: Hants

Noooo ...
that's the fantastic 28-10 which Steve caught and returned last July.

I only catch its offspring ...

Never mind ....

winking

(I fergits to weigh 'em!)

Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 6:02 am

why would you want to eat a sport fish? confused

big fish contain high amounts of mercury. and if you didn't already know that's where the phrase 'mad as a hatter' came from as they used to line the hats with mercury. conclusion is...don't come into contact with mercury winking

lot's of fish take years and years and years before they become of any size.. but i won't babble on because noone listens anyway. If someone want's to take something...then that's what they will do, and mostly out of spite "because i can!"

Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 10:34 am

celticcatch wrote:

why would you want to eat a sport fish? confused

big fish contain high amounts of mercury. and if you didn't already know that's where the phrase 'mad as a hatter' came from as they used to line the hats with mercury. conclusion is...don't come into contact with mercury winking

lot's of fish take years and years and years before they become of any size.. but i won't babble on because noone listens anyway. If someone want's to take something...then that's what they will do, and mostly out of spite "because i can!"

in my defence i did say that i would take the occasional fish home, not every one i catch, and that i would consider c&r....

also, i would consider almost all fish as 'sport' to some degree.

regarding eating fish high in murcury, i don't suspect many would object to eating a line caught tuna.

lastly, the phrase 'mad as a hatter' coming from murcury poisoning is circumstantial, it is also believed to come from New Zealand, where the name hatter that was given to miners who work alone and often went mad from the solitude.

graham

Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 10:40 am

incidentally.... are smooth hounds, smuts, dogfish and sand shark all the same fish?

Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 9:31 pm

Smooth hounds & smuts same fish not the others. They eat huss and other small shark types down south. Under the name of rock or sometimes rock salmon. done in batter like cod. it dont taste to good very rubbery IMHO.

Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:06 am

Wish the fish bite like you! I'm not having a go. You asked a question and I gave my opinion. confused

What is it that you really want?

Sport fish..as in actual sport fish. Mullet, sharks, billed fish etc. Of hardly any commerical value but worth their weight in gold for the fight. Tope are protected..I think spurs are also. Will only be a matter of time before smuts are.

I'm not going to go off topic with the tuna thing but basically..if you lived on albacore(white tuna) then you'd probably end up..well i'll let you work that out seeing as you know what your talking about

Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:31 am

Why anyone would want to eat shark is beyond me. Surely we have enough of a variety of fish without the need to kill sport fish?

Please keep the replies on a friendly basis as subjects like this can lead to heated arguments.

I will be monitering this post very carefully
Cheers
keith big grin

Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:02 am

point taken kieth, i might have antagonised people a bit with my comments/opinions, my a pologies.

whele were on the subject though (sort of) is there a clear deffinaition as to what is or isnt a 'sport fish' are we just talking about top preditors or does te term refer to fish further down the food chain?

graham

Member Joined: Feb 26, 2010 Posts: 55

The reason larger fish have more mercury content is because they eat smaller fish (Mackerel, herring etc) containing small amounts of mercury which builds up.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but the fish mentioned in the first post mainly eat crustaceans, worms etc and not fast oily fish as mentioned above, therefore their mercury level will be low.

I really recommend this book:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/River-Cottage-Fish-Book/dp/0747588694/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272438210&sr=8-1

Half the book is dedicated to recipes but the other half gives a wealth of information on British fish and fish conservation. Each fish is rated according to how fragile their stocks are, and whether they should be eaten or not. For example, Eels and Whitebait should be avoided at all costs, while something like Whiting, Pouting and Dabs are fine.

The book recommends that we eat at least some dogfish. I imagine most people don't because of the tough skin, but in actual fact it makes good eating because there are no fiddly bones to worry about!

Sorry to waffle, but my point is, I disagree with you Celtic. And to the OP - consider buying the book, it will list every fish that you should avoid (and I know some Rays or Skates are vulnerable whilst others aren't - I will check).

Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:48 am

thanks JF i'll have a look at the book, my only concern with it would be that it would have to be bought on an almost anual basis if it is refering to fish stock levels...

anyway thanks for the feed back, i think i'll leave you all to each other in this post though as i appear to be getting a few peoples backs up, each to thier own and all that ....

graham

Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:07 pm

All subjects can be discussed on the forums, that's what the forums are for, but sometimes a discussion can turn into an argument, hence me keeping an eye on it.
You have offended nobody, far from it, some of my posts have been deleted in the past.
Cheers
keith big grin

Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 4:48 pm

JFReturns you are welcome to disagree. I don't trust everything that's on the 'net' but after a quick search it tells me

"U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) advise women of child-bearing age, nursing mothers, and young children to completely avoid swordfish, shark, king mackerel and tilefish (golden bass), to limit consumption of albacore ("white") tuna to no more than 6 oz (170 g) per week, and of all other fish and shellfish to no more than 12 oz (340 g) per week"

Not saying that your a child bearing woman, a nursing mother or a young child lol...but..I wouldn't try my luck. Paralysis, comas and death don't sound all that fun to me. I personally don't take any fish..& I don't intend to persuade others. But i'm just trying to make my point as...why eat sport fish that take years to reach a good size and also possibly breeding fish which will have a knock on effect. Just my two pence worth happy