The following editorial By Mel Russ totally misrepresents the recent work of the NFSA,BASS, EEA and UKSWFF. Please don't give this idiot your money :

"Talking of bass.......

There are certain anglers among us that would like to raise the status of the bass to a sportfish. Very grand. But have they ever considered that the government might latch onto this idea as yet another way of making money.

Now salmon and sea trout are game fish - are you getting the picture? - and there might be a day, because of all the pressure being applied by so-called sport bass anglers, that we might have to hold a sea game licence to catch one of Britains favourite fish!

The effect of a bass game licence would be catastrophic for the sport and the industry. I cannot for the life of me see the ordinary working man paying for such a licence, which in turn would affect charter fishing because many anglers catch bass when they are afloat.

Of course they would be able to hook and play the fish but legally it wouldn't be theirs and it would have to go back. Job done, say the sport bass anglers, but shouldn't we have the right to keep a fish?

I personally think the whole licence issue is devious, destructive and a bloody mess. "

my reply :

1. ever considered gamefish status means a 90% reduction in exploitation, and a reversal in declining bass stocks.
2. What facts does he have that a licence will be catastrophic ? - did the stillwater trout or coarse scene collapse when the EA bring in the freshwater licence? don't ordinary working men troutfish or coarsefish then ?
3. if the licence leads to more bass in the sea why will that badly effect charter skippers ?- surely more fish means more anglers and more charters, bait, tackle etc sold ?
4. under the bass management plan, with daily bag limits, anglers DO have a right to keep a fish.
5. I personally think Mel Russ is talking out of his a*se and should resign or shut up.

boycott the magazine and its advertisers until he does.

GB :mad: :mad: :mad:

I would have to agree with you on that one.
It would seem that Mr Russ needs to get out of his office more and see what is really going on in the real world.
I am sure that any serious angler would not mind paying a license fee each year, AS LONG AS they could see where the money is going. I have a trout and course license, each year the EA send me a magazine, in which there are articals about how and where the money has been spent....why not do the same for sea angling.

I sometimes fish a mark near me that sees 20 or more 'anglers' (if you can call them that) each tide throughout summer. most of them are holiday makers visiting the area and to be quite honest do not have any respect for the Bass they catch, most of which end up being knocked on the head and placed in a bag, and are usually undersized.
I cant help but feeling that there needs to be something put in place to stop this, and i am sure that similar things go on through out the country.
whether the best way is by way of a Bass licence or a Sea licence, im not sure, but something has to be done!!

It's not just Bass that anglers take as undersized fish, some anglers take tiny little one pound Codling home. I am not against a licence if it has fish management included in the deal. First, sort out the trawlers, and the overfishing, and the bycatch problem, let us see trawlers skippers being fined when they break the rules, when did you last see this happen, and I might be persuaded that a licence is a good idea. When you can convince me of course that it is possible to police hundreds of miles of coastline , at night, and force an angler to produce a licence etc. etc. etc.
It's just unworkable, and not neccessary.

Kent,

agree with all of that.

But the Bass Management Plan can be a precedent for other species :

1. it enforces commercials to tag carcasses, with numbered tags up to their quota, theres no overfishing or people pretending to be rod n line anglers 'taking a few for the pot'.
2. it recognises that the commercials are not the only stakeholders - did you know 2,300 odd commercial fisherman take 90% of the bass catch, whereas 400,000 bass fisherman take only 5%?
3. licence funds from ALL parties will contribute to fishery management.
4. recreational anglers WILL be able to take one for the pot.

the BMP is based on the US and Irish models where stocks are recovering - spectacularly, and it gives recreational anglers representation and a say in how out fisheries our managed.

GB

[ 18. November 2004, 09:46 PM: Message edited by: guernseybass ]

sigh

surely we are all entitled to an opinion? As an editor he was only expressing his that's what an editorial is about!and causing disscussion.
see Socksey's thread re "getting silly" for everyone saying about right to comment and express themselves.

er,

Add up the length of the rivers in this country, then add in the length of canals, cuts, brooks, streams, burns etc, now double that length to account for both banks.

Already you have a length of bank far, far greater than the UK coastline, many times over.

(Just look at all of those blue squiggly lines on any map!)

Now add in the length of banks around lakes, lochs, ponds, resevoirs, moats, meres, broads etc

Mind boggled yet?

Now consider that much of that is in difficult to get to places, with trees and bushes growing down to the waterline, and reedbeds extending down into the water, making it hard to spot any angler snuggled in there. (and there are a lot of carp anglers etc., fishing in the dark, not showing any lights)

Very different to the scene on Chesil beach, Dungeness, all the piers and other places sea anglers fish from, mostly sticking out like sore thumbs, especially at night time when the anglers lanterns dot the coastline for as far as one can see).

I think that you might get the idea that a freshwater licence is what is totally unenforceable, far too many miles of thickly covered banks in remote places to patrol, with anglers hidden from view in amongst the vegetation.

IT DOESN'T WORK LIKE THAT!!!

Yes, some coarse anglers fish for years without buying a licence, but look at the EA site and see that many also get caught and heavily fined.

Imagine sitting their fishing, trying to hide and getting nervous every time a stranger comes into view. Do you grab your gear and run, or tough it out, hoping to bluff it out if it is a bailiff? (strangely many try giving a false name and address, doubling/trebling their possible fines not knowing that the bailiff already has the registration number of their car! Bailiffs have a few tricks up their sleeves and more deviously minded than most licence dodgers who tend towards stupidity anyway).

Imagine never going fishing in one of the more popular spots, knowing that the bailiffs target them; going off on your own instead of fishing with youir mates, particularly if you want to fish competitions or go out on charter boats.

Most coarse anglers haven't had their licence checked for years, but they are 'happy' to pay £22 per year for the piece of mind that brings, confident to fish anywhere and never dreading the approach of strangers.

Especially when hidden in the reeds, concentrating intently on a float that just dipped, when a soft voice from behind says 'Can I see your licence please?'

It's almost a pleasure to get it out and show it!!

Not every licence has to be checked everwhere, everytime you go fishing. There just needs to be the risk that it might be checked to make the vast majority nervous enough to buy one.

And when the benefits become obvious, and anglers actually appreciate what they get for their money, the vast majority soon demonstrate their contempt for licence dodgers.

Fishing licences exist all over the world, freshwater and saltwater.

Enforcement isn't such a great problem.

I'm not sure why so many people think that it will be different here.

I remember when people were equally incredulous that there would be anyone willing to buy bottled water in the UK, when we get pure water free from our taps.

Same kind of thinking I think, a complete inability to see or believe the obvious until it's fact.

Tight Lines - leon

[ 19. November 2004, 09:36 AM: Message edited by: Leon Roskilly ]

well put leon
the eventual cost of a licence shouldn't break the bank anyway
In our daily grind how many pay union subs?
I have to pay nursing registration just to be able to practice and this has just jumped massively
What will be will be.
May keep the idiots away who give us such a bad name!

if you want to affect people's fishing habits then magazines are the tip of the iceberg...if all the grockles are the ones taking small fish then they aren't going to be the ones that read SA. If you want to make an impact, get into the tackle and bait shops with an awareness campaign, get into the charter boats that run tourists everyday and get them to sign up to something...show them the benfits of joining a policy and the downsides if they dont...and if the NT allow a sign about pebbles at Chesil, then they might allow one about fish and leaving litter/tackle all over the shop.

But i doubt the idiots who take tiny fish, leave tackle behind etc really ever read anything.

I suppose living where I do, I have a different outlook on things.

A licence up here would be a joke and completly un-enforcable (Just like our car tax). Several islands all with less than 500 people, many miles of coastline and a population who will occasionally go and catch a fish for food.

If any one is serious about fish conservation. STOP trawling.

A licence will just be another layer of administration raising money to pay for more staff.

What do you do with people who only fish once or twice a year.

I agree with Mel and if anglers activly start saying they want a licence, the future of one of our few remaining freedoms will be lost.

Just a few thoughts.

Bob