Guernsey Bass Management Meeting

[wurzel]

QUOTE

well several of the commercials murmured agreement about better more efficient methods, and a couple told me so afterwards - so maybe you're not very representative of bass fisherman. i have to say i thought they were quite intelligent, so possibly thats true.

 

I suggest they might be 25 years behind the rest of us.

 

Seriously though what metheods do the bass fishermen of guernsey use, I heard it was mainly rod and line, if so how has that changed or got more efective in the last 25 years.

 

I doubt that the French pair trawling, except for the amount of boats doing it , has changed in the last 25 years.

[Bob Jerunkel]

Reputation and career or not.

Hes a scientist who was employed to give scientific advice.

Not personal opinions.

Did his personal opinions cloud his judgement whilst carrying out his work?

I wonder.

[Ian Burrett]

IF Dr Pawson says :-

Then I for one would rather hear someone answer the points, rather than start making personal attacks on his reputation and insinuations about his career. I've previously seen this done on these forums, to other respected scientists, like Dr Alastair McVicar and Paul Tett (in regard to the salmon farming issue), and hope the BMP supporters are not going to take the same route as soon as they hear something that does not suit them.

 

I can't be the only one that gets turned off listening when people attack the person rather than the content of what they are saying.

 

Chris.

 

Hi Jaffa

 

I quoted a respected Dr and scientist on fish farm issues and you chose not to believe them. I guess we all believe what we want to.

[stavey]

IF Dr Pawson says :-

Then I for one would rather hear someone answer the points, rather than start making personal attacks on his reputation and insinuations about his career. I've previously seen this done on these forums, to other respected scientists, like Dr Alastair McVicar and Paul Tett (in regard to the salmon farming issue), and hope the BMP supporters are not going to take the same route as soon as they hear something that does not suit them.

 

I can't be the only one that gets turned off listening when people attack the person rather than the content of what they are saying.

 

Chris.

Hello christopher, i have read his comments and i personaly dont agree with what he says at all, i am allways a bit suspicious of anyone regards their qualifications scientist or what! especially when their opinions are so heavily biased and one sided such as this, as far as i am concerned all he is promoting is more disharmony between sea anglers and commercials and helping to drive a bigger wedge between the to, if thats what he and the people that may have paid him for wants?then thats ok it just shows in the end who is being the most unreasonable.

[Jaffa]

Hi Jaffa

 

I quoted a respected Dr and scientist on fish farm issues and you chose not to believe them. I guess we all believe what we want to.

Hi Ian, indeed you did (though you did not say who he was) and I attacked the content (which was easily shown to be rubbish) , not the person who said them. So far in this thread I see plenty of spin attacking the messenger and nothing to refute what he is alleged to have said.

 

Hello christopher, i have read his comments and i personaly dont agree with what he says at all, i am allways a bit suspicious of anyone regards their qualifications scientist or what! especially when their opinions are so heavily biased and one sided such as this, as far as i am concerned all he is promoting is more disharmony between sea anglers and commercials and helping to drive a bigger wedge between the to, if thats what he and the people that may have paid him for wants?then thats ok it just shows in the end who is being the most unreasonable.

 

Last person to call me Christopher was me mum when I was misbehaving

 

Its fair enough to be suspicious of peoples qualifications, and to question what so called experts say, but if you believe his comments are one sided you should say why and back it up surely?

 

As soon as people start slagging off the guy, rather than what hes saying, I assume they have a weak case.

 

Can anyone point me to some opinion/research/any damn thing , that might help me understand if protecting one predatory species, while its already doing well, will have a significant effect on all the other species (who everyone agrees are not currently doing well) ? Or are there going to be another 20 posts slagging off DR Pawson?

 

Christopher

[Bob Jerunkel]

Perhaps we should wait until its on the verge of collapse then before we do something to protect eh jaffa?

[Jaffa]

Perhaps we should wait until its on the verge of collapse then before we do something to protect eh jaffa?

 

 

We should wait until what is on the verge of collapse? The bass fishery?

 

Care to answer a single one of Dr Pawsons "opinions" instead of now slagging off my views?

[Bob Jerunkel]

O.K.

 

1. the BMP is intended to favour anglers

2. and is nothing to do with conservation but is about financial benefits for the Govt.

3. Regardless of what the anglers say, stocks are increasing and we have a sustainable fishery in the UK.

4. the larger number of smaller fish caught by anglers is due to their success, they are more voracious than larger fish and so take your bait/fly first.

5. no other stakeholders have been invited to contribute to the BMP

6. The renewal of the irish ban was political not conservation based - and their scientists are part timers !

 

1. The BMP is intended to favour anglers and commercial fishermen.

2. By ensuring that bass have spawned before being caught is is everything to do with conservation.

3. Yes stocks are increasing but setting the MLS at a size where the bass haven't spawned can not be described as truly sustainable.

4. Doesn't explain why the commercial gill netters are catching less big bass.Especially inshore.

5. No the BMP was written by anglers and has been adopted by politicians.All stakeholders will have a say during the consultation.

6. Pawson is slagging off his fellow scientists which doesn't give much credence to his opinion about why the Irish ban was renewed.

 

Still doesn't answer my earlier point about Pawson being a scientist.

He is qualified to give scientific evidence but his personal opinions are no more valied tham mine or yours.

Edited October 29, 2005 by Bob Jerunkel

[Jaffa]

O.K.

1. The BMP is intended to favour anglers and commercial fishermen.

2. By ensuring that bass have spawned before being caught is is everything to do with conservation.

3. Yes stocks are increasing but setting the MLS at a size where the bass haven't spawned can not be described as truly sustainable.

4. Doesn't explain why the commercial gill netters are catching less big bass.Especially inshore.

5. No the BMP was written by anglers and has been adopted by politicians.All stakeholders will have a say during the consultation.

6. Pawson is slagging off his fellow scientists which doesn't give much credence to his opinion about why the Irish ban was renewed.

 

Still doesn't answer my earlier point about Pawson being a scientist.

He is qualified to give scientific evidence but his personal opinions are no more valied tham mine or yours.

 

Then lets hear, point by point, why you disagree with what hes saying.

 

No ones asking you to be an "expert" but tell me why you feel the way you do about

 

1. The BMP is intended to favour anglers and commercial fishermen.

[Ryford]

1. the BMP is intended to favour anglers

 

This is exactly what the BMP was always intended to achieve. Not least to redress the historical imbalance and support the SU Report recommendations for bass.

 

2. and is nothing to do with conservation but is about financial benefits for the Govt.

 

It is all about conservation as it is intended that there will be more bigger female fish which not only provides a safety buffer for poor spawning years, but also realises best value from the species via RSA expenditure - a big chunk of which will go to the UK government

 

3. Regardless of what the anglers say, stocks are increasing and we have a sustainable fishery in the UK.

 

Incorrect. We have a sustainable commercial recruitment fishery not a sustainable recreational fishery. The number of bigger bass are also decreasing in all forms of the catching sector – this cannot possibly be termed sustainable.

 

4. the larger number of smaller fish caught by anglers is due to their success, they are more voracious than larger fish and so take your bait/fly first.

 

I agree with this but the number of schoolies far and away out number anything over 5lbs, let alone the needle in the haystack 10lb fish. BASS would like the opportunity for anglers to encounter bigger fish more often hence the 45 mls.

 

5. no other stakeholders have been invited to contribute to the BMP

 

The BMP was the submission from BASS to the UK Government in response to the SU Report, and is also posted for all to see on their web site. I do not recall ever seeing any commercial submissions which were ever circulated to RSA organisations, let alone a specific response to the BMP.

 

6. The renewal of the irish ban was political not conservation based - and their scientists are part timers

 

Part-time does not mean incompetent

 

andyR