Fishing nets ban to protect birds

[seafoods]

Cheers for that Seafoods I would point out that your good pal SteveG may have miss led me on this subject or more likely I have misunderstood him. I have asked for some clarity. Though TBH your explination is quite clear.

 

Reckon you have misunderstood Stevie, the only thing I've seen him posting is that monfilament gillnets are ilegal in Scotland, which is true - it would appear you have picked up the 'gillnets' part and missed the 'monofilament', which is the part that makes them ilegal.

 

If you want to do some research on it a good place to start your google search is 'MFV Moyalon' - a boat built utilising White Fish Authority grants, including grants for the fishing gear (mon nets), law banning mono came into force in Scotland as the build of Moyalon was coming to completion. She was launched, loaded up with the nets and, as soon as she came into Scottish waters, arrested and escorted into port for carriage of ilegal nets. Was fought through the courts for years and eventually led to the bankcruptcy of the fisherman who had her built. That's what you call fisheries mismanagement - give a guy grants for nets, make them ilegal before they've ever been in the water, then arrest him for carrying the nets you helped provide him!

[Bob Shotter]

Reckon you have misunderstood Stevie, the only thing I've seen him posting is that monfilament gillnets are ilegal in Scotland, which is true - it would appear you have picked up the 'gillnets' part and missed the 'monofilament', which is the part that makes them ilegal.

 

If you want to do some research on it a good place to start your google search is 'MFV Moyalon' - a boat built utilising White Fish Authority grants, including grants for the fishing gear (mon nets), law banning mono came into force in Scotland as the build of Moyalon was coming to completion. She was launched, loaded up with the nets and, as soon as she came into Scottish waters, arrested and escorted into port for carriage of ilegal nets. Was fought through the courts for years and eventually led to the bankcruptcy of the fisherman who had her built. That's what you call fisheries mismanagement - give a guy grants for nets, make them ilegal before they've ever been in the water, then arrest him for carrying the nets you helped provide him!

 

 

It never ceases to amaze me how some stories never make the press while other more trivial stories do.

 

Your example is one side of the coin the other being the £48 million fiddle of black fish from pelagic trawling? That’s the biggest valued crime in UK History, bigger than the Brinks Matt and the great Train Robbery added together.

 

However that is moving away from the topic of banning the use static nets to protect birds be they mono or otherwise. Do you think that it is right or wrong to have a byelaw to protect birds? If so is this bye law in your opinion the best way to deal with the problem?

Edited January 14, 2012 by Bob Shotter

[seafoods]

It never ceases to amaze me how some stories never make the press while other more trivial stories do.

 

Your example is one side of the coin the other being the £48 million fiddle of black fish from pelagic trawling? That’s the biggest valued crime in UK History, bigger than the Brinks Matt and the great Train Robbery added together.

 

However that is moving away from the topic of banning the use static nets to protect birds be they mono or otherwise. Do you think that it is right or wrong to have a byelaw to protect birds? If so is this bye law in your opinion the best way to deal with the problem?

 

Never make the press? The Moyallon story was national news in the eighties when it happened, the guy was in court in 1991 and won so the Tory Government appealed and he got admonished - he had to sell the boat to pay back the grant. Think he took the government to the EU court in around 2000 to sue them for £1 million. Thought the fact I mentioned 'White Fish Authority' would have let you know it wasn't a recent matter - they were the predecessors of Seafish, not been around for years, neither have grants for building boats.

 

Nobody I know condones the behaviour of the people involved in the scam in Shetland. Both the 'sensationalist' press which reported it and yourself, who keeps refering to it, seem to overlook the fact that these offences took place between 2002 and 2005. The fact that they are coming to court now should make people happy that the UK fisheries enforcement officers can actually do their job - they caught them. I'm fairly sure the figures quoted don't represent first point of sale value, which is what the fishermen scammed - retail value minus first point is what the processor scammed, reckon the press added the two together instead of subtracting one from the other to come up with that sensationalist drivel. Both the sensationalist press and yourself also seem to overlook the fact that, when they were caught in 2006, their quotas were reduced in every subsequent year till the weight of fish they scammed was 'repaid' to the quota kitty. They have now had compensation orders served on them under POCA to repay the financial gains they made, they will be back in court soon for their actual punishment. Did the Brinks Matt lot and the Great Train Robbers declare their gains to the Taxman? The fishermen did, that's how they got caught - they paid tax on what they scammed. The UK justice system generally works, they commited crime, got caught and are suffering the consequences - get over it Bob.

 

As for birds in gill nets, it will always be a problem with surface set nets - especially near nesting sites for seabirds. That is compounded if the nets and seabird colonies are easilly seen by the general public, folk will see birds stuck in nets and complain, then the RSPB and all sorts of conservationists get involved. Best for everybody if the nets are kept away for a wee while - even helps the image of the industry if the fishermen comply - they are being 'caring'. We used to get a few birds in the leaders of our salmon bag nets years ago, one net was where a few folk used to walk in summer - we always went to it at first light and got rid of any birds before anyone saw them. No birds seen, no issue.

[Bob Shotter]

Never make the press? The Moyallon story was national news in the eighties when it happened, the guy was in court in 1991 and won so the Tory Government appealed and he got admonished - he had to sell the boat to pay back the grant. Think he took the government to the EU court in around 2000 to sue them for £1 million. Thought the fact I mentioned 'White Fish Authority' would have let you know it wasn't a recent matter - they were the predecessors of Seafish, not been around for years, neither have grants for building boats.

 

Nobody I know condones the behaviour of the people involved in the scam in Shetland. Both the 'sensationalist' press which reported it and yourself, who keeps refering to it, seem to overlook the fact that these offences took place between 2002 and 2005. The fact that they are coming to court now should make people happy that the UK fisheries enforcement officers can actually do their job - they caught them. I'm fairly sure the figures quoted don't represent first point of sale value, which is what the fishermen scammed - retail value minus first point is what the processor scammed, reckon the press added the two together instead of subtracting one from the other to come up with that sensationalist drivel. Both the sensationalist press and yourself also seem to overlook the fact that, when they were caught in 2006, their quotas were reduced in every subsequent year till the weight of fish they scammed was 'repaid' to the quota kitty. They have now had compensation orders served on them under POCA to repay the financial gains they made, they will be back in court soon for their actual punishment. Did the Brinks Matt lot and the Great Train Robbers declare their gains to the Taxman? The fishermen did, that's how they got caught - they paid tax on what they scammed. The UK justice system generally works, they commited crime, got caught and are suffering the consequences - get over it Bob.

 

As for birds in gill nets, it will always be a problem with surface set nets - especially near nesting sites for seabirds. That is compounded if the nets and seabird colonies are easilly seen by the general public, folk will see birds stuck in nets and complain, then the RSPB and all sorts of conservationists get involved. Best for everybody if the nets are kept away for a wee while - even helps the image of the industry if the fishermen comply - they are being 'caring'. We used to get a few birds in the leaders of our salmon bag nets years ago, one net was where a few folk used to walk in summer - we always went to it at first light and got rid of any birds before anyone saw them. No birds seen, no issue.

 

 

Sefoods old mate while I sympathise with your chap in the Moyallon case the suggestion that these black fish landings should be looked at any less seriously because they happened many years ago and that it is in any way ok because the fish were returned by quota adjustment and they did after all pay tax on their ill-gotten gains some way makes it acceptable is simply not on.

 

Calling me or the press ‘sensationalist’ shows how out of touch with the populous you are and it is bordering on defending the indefeasible and makes you and some from the CF sector using the same rhetoric just as bad as these people. They did not set out to get caught they set out to steel and make huge sums in the process and should have had their boats and licences taken away and been locked up. They most certainly should not be allowed to continue fishing.

 

This case and the Stevens thing down here a while back has raised questions as to how wide spread and corrupt the industry is and cast a huge shadow over the honest guys who play by the rules. Get over it you say, that comment I will leave others to judge you on.

 

To go on and suggest out of sight makes things ok with regard the birds in nets only adds to my theory that the thinking or mind-set behind the commercial sector is let’s get away with what we can and if we get away with it all the better, just my opinion BTW.

Edited January 14, 2012 by Bob Shotter

[seafoods]

Sefoods old mate while I sympathise with your chap in the Moyallon case the suggestion that these black fish landings should be looked at any less seriously because they happened many years ago and that it is in any way ok because the fish were returned by quota adjustment and they did after all pay tax on their ill-gotten gains some way makes it acceptable is simply not on.

 

Calling me or the press ‘sensationalist’ shows how out of touch with the populous you are and it is bordering on defending the indefeasible and makes you and some from the CF sector using the same rhetoric just as bad as these people. They did not set out to get caught they set out to steel and make huge sums in the process and should have had their boats and licences taken away and been locked up. They most certainly should not be allowed to continue fishing.

 

This case and the Stevens thing down here a while back has raised questions as to how wide spread and corrupt the industry is and cast a huge shadow over the honest guys who play by the rules. Get over it you say, that comment I will leave others to judge you on.

 

To go on and suggest out of sight makes things ok with regard the birds in nets only adds to my theory that the thinking or mind-set behind the commercial sector is let’s get away with what we can and if we get away with it all the better, just my opinion BTW.

 

Nobody said anything about looking at any case less seriously. If I'm 'out of touch with the populous' why were you stating It never ceases to amaze me how some stories never make the press while other more trivial stories do.

 

Your example is one side of the coin the other being the £48 million fiddle of black fish from pelagic trawling? a couple of posts back? You were pointing out that there has been very little about the Shetland case in the press - guess why? It's only of interest to very few people, the ones who like sensationalism. Who has either case raised questions with Bob? RSA misreps like yourself? nobody else seems to be freaking about it. Naturally you are very much 'in touch with the populous' - that's why they are tripping over themselves in their thousands to join your org and have you representing them eh?

 

If my light hearted comments about the odd seabird we used to get in a net 20 years ago can be taken by you as 'out of sight makes things ok' what is your opinion on C&R angling? - isn't that the same? Just because you don't see it die doesn't mean it doesn't die.

[Bob Shotter]

Nobody said anything about looking at any case less seriously. If I'm 'out of touch with the populous' why were you stating It never ceases to amaze me how some stories never make the press while other more trivial stories do.

 

Your example is one side of the coin the other being the £48 million fiddle of black fish from pelagic trawling? a couple of posts back? You were pointing out that there has been very little about the Shetland case in the press - guess why? It's only of interest to very few people, the ones who like sensationalism. Who has either case raised questions with Bob? RSA misreps like yourself? nobody else seems to be freaking about it. Naturally you are very much 'in touch with the populous' - that's why they are tripping over themselves in their thousands to join your org and have you representing them eh?

 

If my light hearted comments about the odd seabird we used to get in a net 20 years ago can be taken by you as 'out of sight makes things ok' what is your opinion on C&R angling? - isn't that the same? Just because you don't see it die doesn't mean it doesn't die.

 

 

OK Seafoods let me try to explain again I have some sympathy toward Moyallon not because he broke the law but for the way in which he got caught up in changes. He as you say was given a grant to encourage him to take up fishing. Unlike a good many that have put their homes on mortgage to get the necessary money to invest in the business of fishing. Moyallon had public funding then by the time he was ready to go to sea another government department changed the netting rules. Clearly he had a choice and he chose to break the law for which there is a penalty. My sympathy for Moyallon would also include the disparity in what that cost him as opposed to say the Stevens case where those that made the most appear to have got away with it. Just as our wonderful MPs seem to have got away with ripping of the tax payer while just a few pay the price.

 

Picking on fishermen does not sell papers and the time in bringing the case to a conclusion has not helped in that regard but to suggest that I ‘am a misrepresentative and run an org that people are not falling over them self to join as a comparison is clever because it highlights the apathy that exist in this country that for one has allowed these MPs to get away with their criminal embezzlement. However I would put it to you that no sea angling org has a huge membership. The Trust’s David Mitchell was challenged recently by the leader of the Northern Federation in that the Northern Federation alone had more members than the Trust and even taking all the clubs aligned to the Trust the numbers still fall short of this one Northern Federation. I know for a fact that the AT are keen to get this org back on side and would probably like to do so before government wake up to the fact that they can no longer claim to represent the largest group. BTW the Northern and the Bristol Channel Federations are associated members of RSA-UK.

 

Finally to your light hearted comment about a few dead birds, on the week end following the closing of the St Ives fishery bird watchers filmed over two hundred dead birds all drowned by a net, as a member of the Cornwall IFCA I can say no more about that case at this time other than that is being investigated. However given Leon has already pointed out that the EU are looking at this would it not have been wise to have fished the night tides as birds do not feed during darkness and the problem could have been avoided?

 

As for catch and release that I believe is down to the individual, personally I realise that undersize fish have to be discarded but the shock of being caught, the damage of being hooked, probable blown swim bladders and the damage to the mucous membrane are all going to reduce the chances of survival of any fish returned. The thing is sea anglers don’t catch or more importantly discard anything like the number that the CF sector does. From the way you are speaking I take it then that you support the changes to the CFP that will see all fish caught landed and counted against quota and once quota of any species that cannot be avoided in a mixed fishery is reached then fishing stops. Oh and how do you feel about the further increase of mesh size planed for a good many some nets I believe will enable better targeting but all of this is putting pressure on the bigger fish the one anglers and scientist would prefer to see protected.

 

These points I’m sure will give you and others plenty to comment on and if you have got this far thanks for reading. Tight lines from your no 1 misrep.

[cleeclive]

Cheers for that Seafoods I would point out that your good pal SteveG may have miss led me on this subject or more likely I have misunderstood him. I have asked for some clarity. Though TBH your explination is quite clear.

Most nets used these days are multi-mono, a twisted monofilament twine, they are fairly selective in terms of fish size targeted , but they do tend to entangle lots of crabs and some unwanted species. Gill nets have recieved a lot of bad press when used as oceanic drift nets because of destruction of sea birds , marine turtles etc. Images of this on the telly tend to taint everyones view on the subject. However bottom set gill , trammels and tangle nets used in British waters for targeting demersal species are in my opinion far less damaging than trawl nets to both the environment. benthos and juveniles. Nets targeting wrecks were of a large mesh size and only targeted the big fish that were in residence. However bits of torn or abandoned net would be a problem. I appreciate that there is a direct conflict with anglers with wreck netting, but we have lived with this for 40n years now in the North Sea

 

It is very easy to get emotive about gill nets through media images and distorted facts

[barry luxton]

........................ to suggest that I ‘am a misrepresentative and run an org that people are not falling over them self to join as a comparison is clever because it highlights the apathy that exist in this country that for one has allowed these MPs to get away with their criminal embezzlement. However I would put it to you that no sea angling org has a huge membership. The Trust’s David Mitchell was challenged recently by the leader of the Northern Federation in that the Northern Federation alone had more members than the Trust and even taking all the clubs aligned to the Trust the numbers still fall short of this one Northern Federation. I know for a fact that the AT are keen to get this org back on side and would probably like to do so before government wake up to the fact that they can no longer claim to represent the largest group. BTW the Northern and the Bristol Channel Federations are associated members of RSA-UK.

 

As for catch and release that I believe is down to the individual, personally I realise that undersize fish have to be discarded but the shock of being caught, the damage of being hooked, probable blown swim bladders and the damage to the mucous membrane are all going to reduce the chances of survival of any fish returned. The thing is sea anglers don’t catch or more importantly discard anything like the number that the CF sector does. From the way you are speaking I take it then that you support the changes to the CFP that will see all fish caught landed and counted against quota and once quota of any species that cannot be avoided in a mixed fishery is reached then fishing stops. Oh and how do you feel about the further increase of mesh size planed for a good many some nets I believe will enable better targeting but all of this is putting pressure on the bigger fish the one anglers and scientist would prefer to see protected.

 

Tight lines from your no 1 misrep.

 

Agreed there's comments to make. There's a difference between apathy and alianation. Having spent many months 'p' ing off various orgs and rsa because they have a different opinion he concludes it's apathy, perlease. The governer of the northern fed has made it plain what he has to do for the rsa org to succeed. Based on the current track record it appears as if he wants the northern org to join with the trust. How many bristol channel guys have offered him support? How can apathy be used when those two orgs have 8000, how many are also active rsa members, the org has 18 active members, apathy has nothing to do with it. Are they hanging on in the hope that something may change.

 

Mucus membrane argument again. swim bladders now, how deep was this water within the six mile limit? This had nothing to do with the sifca proposel that the rsa put up for more and bigger fish. Or net sizes, as the stock being targetted was mainly line caught. Even his own staw poll indicated rsa in favour of an mls increase. What was offered was a voracious dissagreement in support of more of the same. The result of this rsa rep session is the pool bay small boat owners who are now also idiots along with lots of others in one persons opinion and not worth speaking to. When the rsa mls proposel was discussed within the cifca, comment back from him was 'we won' with regards to plate sized as opposed to their opinion of more and bigger fish. A rsa hero.

 

 

As for mis rep, errrm, can i reserve judgement.

Edited January 15, 2012 by barry luxton

[seafoods]

As for catch and release that I believe is down to the individual, personally I realise that undersize fish have to be discarded but the shock of being caught, the damage of being hooked, probable blown swim bladders and the damage to the mucous membrane are all going to reduce the chances of survival of any fish returned. The thing is sea anglers don’t catch or more importantly discard anything like the number that the CF sector does. From the way you are speaking I take it then that you support the changes to the CFP that will see all fish caught landed and counted against quota and once quota of any species that cannot be avoided in a mixed fishery is reached then fishing stops. Oh and how do you feel about the further increase of mesh size planed for a good many some nets I believe will enable better targeting but all of this is putting pressure on the bigger fish the one anglers and scientist would prefer to see protected.

 

These points I’m sure will give you and others plenty to comment on and if you have got this far thanks for reading. Tight lines from your no 1 misrep.

 

Try telling that to any conservation body, they can (in their mind) at least partially justify commercial fishing because it is supplying food to the masses. Trying to use that argument to justify C&R will bite the misreps on the backside big style, no conservationalist will accept that it is anything other than a blood sport - unjustifiable in their eyes.

 

Mesh size increases are for trawl nets, something which much of the industry is in favour of, it will not catch a single bigger fish than would have been caught anyway. Mesh size increases in gill nets would see less smaller fish caught and, possibly, a few bigger ones, in trawling that will not be the case, it may reduce the number of juveniles caught but it certainly won't increase the number of bigger ones. Bigger square mesh panels and coverless trawls would contribute more to reducing juvenile discards - if anybody actually bothered to ask the industry they would know that.

 

Many years ago, when I had no experience of trawling, I said to an experienced skipper that it would surely be better to increase mesh size and let more small fish away. He told me that was a view taken by fisheries managers and it is ******, enough horsepower will tow any mesh, other than a square mesh, closed. He was right, and, since then I have agreed with him, it's not rocket science, only needs simple explanation by guys that actually know about these things. It also taught me that it is much more sensible to speak to people who know what they are talking about before formulating an opinion. That is something I have done ever since then, and something you should seriously consider adopting - saves much egg on face.

[Bob Shotter]

Try telling that to any conservation body, they can (in their mind) at least partially justify commercial fishing because it is supplying food to the masses. Trying to use that argument to justify C&R will bite the misreps on the backside big style, no conservationalist will accept that it is anything other than a blood sport - unjustifiable in their eyes.

 

Mesh size increases are for trawl nets, something which much of the industry is in favour of, it will not catch a single bigger fish than would have been caught anyway. Mesh size increases in gill nets would see less smaller fish caught and, possibly, a few bigger ones, in trawling that will not be the case, it may reduce the number of juveniles caught but it certainly won't increase the number of bigger ones. Bigger square mesh panels and coverless trawls would contribute more to reducing juvenile discards - if anybody actually bothered to ask the industry they would know that.

 

Many years ago, when I had no experience of trawling, I said to an experienced skipper that it would surely be better to increase mesh size and let more small fish away. He told me that was a view taken by fisheries managers and it is ******, enough horsepower will tow any mesh, other than a square mesh, closed. He was right, and, since then I have agreed with him, it's not rocket science, only needs simple explanation by guys that actually know about these things. It also taught me that it is much more sensible to speak to people who know what they are talking about before formulating an opinion. That is something I have done ever since then, and something you should seriously consider adopting - saves much egg on face.

 

 

 

While you are absolutely right knowledge is a wonderful thing but would you not agree that debates such as this are also way of learning, they are from my point of view you talked to an experienced skipper while I talk to you and the other guys on here. My views if wrong you can correct and I will go away the better for it, on the other hand you might just learn something from me and the things that I have experienced. If my memory serves me correctly we are neither of us what you might call youngsters.

 

Now you will note that I have highlighted a bit in your post with which I would dispute, you say in regard to increased mesh size the fish caught will, quote ‘certainly won't increase the number of bigger ones.’ I would suggest with all due respect that if fewer smaller fish are caught because they escape then their shortfall will be made up by taking yet more big fish all be it longer fishing times more fule used etc.

 

Many scientists are explaining that this is leading to our fishing the stock from the top down which they say is disproportionate and the outcome will lead more quickly to a stock collapse because bigger fish produce more and stronger fish than smaller ones do. Clearly that is what is now happening fewer big Cod in areas where there is not sever restriction and fewer big bass.

 

The MLS of bass as set by the EU is 37.7cm that is 12” in old money now B.A.S.S. are again pushing for an increase to 48cm four more inches now that is a very good size fish and bigger than most plates. So to make that work up goes the mesh size and to get to quota more and more bigger fish are to be targeted, could someone please explain the sense in that particularly while the pair trawlers are having an unrestricted field day on breading shoals.