BASS AND COD IN BEFORE OVER FISHING

[sam-cox]

Before the development and extensive use og monofilement gill nets there were many many large bass with some truly amazeing catches made from some early thinking angler who even then were letting go most of there catch.

 

Also at the time there was a realy good cod fishery in the winter with the same anglers catching some large hauls of decent sized cod.

 

This was defenately the case in the Thames Estuary, and from what I have read on the Anglers Net before was probably the cas4e every where.

 

So for those worried about the effects long term on the fishery as a whole if the BMP is implemented in full, please take a look at the past.

 

We have had a deacent all round fishery before, large bass are not going to decimate other fish stokes or they would of done this before.

 

Please suport the Bass management plan, there is all the information at the top of the page on this forum.

 

Listen to those people like Leon,and Steve who know the facts, not people whos do not fish for bass.

[Davy Holt]

not people who's do not fish for bass.

 

So do only Bass anglers know what they are talking about then???

 

Like any good plan, when you have a single group active in it, they only see what is best for them.

You normally always, like in this case find that it's those out with the single group that find the flaws in the great plan.

 

Tis strange that no one from the BMP camp has come out with what species will make up this £3 million shortfall.... I wonder why

Edited January 10, 2006 by Davy Holt

[Guest @Winter@]

Cant remember who it was but I thought someone made a good point yesterday. Having bigger bass about is closer to what nature intended. It is the commercial fisherman who has altered things by taking away those bigger fish.

[Davy Holt]

Cant remember who it was but I thought someone made a good point yesterday. Having bigger bass about is closer to what nature intended.

 

Yup I don't dispute that Winter and never have, my only concern here is the cost to the other species that are going to make up the shortfall.

 

If someone can prove that sharks and ray's will not be involved in the shortfall, they I will quite happily support the plan. Sadly as yet no one has

[Guest @Winter@]

It really is a bad situation m8 and I understand how you feel. I guess your not against the bmp but just dont want to see something else ruined as a consequence. I really see no way around that , commercial fisherman would target rocklings if it made them a few quid there is no denying it.

[Guest NickInTheNorth]

I am afraid that it would appear that we have unfortunately gone down the pitiful road first traveled in game fishing years ago in which one species of fish (salmon) was seen as more important that others.

 

Followed many years later by coarse fishing and it's elitist element which see carp as a more important species than the other coarse fish.

 

And now it would appear to me that a vocal minority that post on here believe that bass are a more important species than others that swim in the sea.

 

If anyone troubles to read Davy Holts post they will see that what he is arguing against is not the primary aim of the BMP itself, which I am sure he would be very happy to see implemented. What he is arguing is that the negative implications for many other species should be understood, and support (or otherwise) for the BMP should be based on that understanding of the negatives.

 

Why should everyone blindly support a measure which they believe is not necessarily in the best interests of the whole of the eco-system.

 

We need open and informed debate - which includes listening to, and responding intelligently to, points of view which are different to those we hold ourselves.

 

That is how science works. A hypothesis is put forward, and then the scientist tries to disprove their own hypothosis. Most of us I am sure would agree that is a sensible approach.

 

Religion follows a different course - a believe is put forward and then regardless of questions, or evidece to the contrary it is "believed".

 

Which would you rather follow, the "scientific reasoning" approach, or the "religious dogma" approach.

 

Just to give an example of the problems that religious dogma can lead to - in a recent survey 45% of people in the USA said they believed that the earth is less than 10000 years old. That is religious dogma. I personally believe it is somewhere around 4,500,000,000 years old, based on lots of scientific evidence.

[Leon Roskilly]

Tis strange that no one from the BMP camp has come out with what species will make up this £3 million shortfall.... I wonder why

 

As has been pointed out, the catching sector has strenously stated that they won't be able to make up most of their lost earnings.

 

Let's disbelieve them and say they are able to make up £1 million

 

Overwhelming the value of the inshore catch is made up of shellfish and crustaceans.

 

A cockle licence in my area is worth £1/2 million, and in my area there is likely to be several new licenses up for grabs this coming season.

 

The new green crab market is taking off with increasing sales to thye continenet.

 

Are we at last getting some sense of proportion here?

 

Davy, I haven't heard you vehemently protesting at the EU cuts in cod and haddock this year, that is vastly more value that needs to be made up than the shortfall from bass. Where is that shortfall going to come from?

 

A group single mindedly focussed on bass?

 

Bass members have rallayed to support the byelaw to protect tope recently put before DEFRA by the North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee, initiated by an angling rep on the SFC.

 

Four other SFCs have similar byelaws in front of them.

 

Instead of knocking the BMP because of fears for tope, why are anglers not rolling up their sleeves to get such byelaws in place in the other 7 SFCs? And in Scotland.

 

(Such protection for tope would protect them against being targeted when bass are scarce either temporarily because of the BMP as many of them are allowed to grow to spawning size; or without the BMP, in case of stock collapse caused by a combination of too few veteren spawners and a couple of bad winters)

 

(If anyone wants to put a tope byelaw proposal in front of their own area's SFC, having organised the proposal for Kent & Essex SFC, I have most of what you need to do. To put a proposal in front of an SFC, you don't have to be a member)

 

Is it because it is much easier to knock the efforts of others who have got their a*s*s in gear, than to put in the years of hard work yourself?

 

Davy (or anyone else) If you want to do something positive, how about organising anglers in the regions that aren't covered by current tope proposals to put in their own proposal and gather support for that.

 

Should anglers keep quite as the catching sector moves onto one species from another, allowing the destruction to continue on its 'natural' course, wiping out any apparent abundance as it appears, anglers fearing that protecting any species will simply put pressure on another (even if it's mostly shellfish!)

 

Should the mullet club drop it's plans for managing mullet, SOS their's for tope?

 

In and ideal world, we'd have the energy and resources to deal with the whole problem in one go.

 

Unfortunately, there are way too few anglers who are prepared to put in any effort at all, especially when those that sit back most of the time then come out to moan, not at the loss of fish and species, but at the attempts of others to start to turn that around.

 

Perhaps they would be better applying for the job below, it certainly pays well, and will ensure that underfunded and undersupported attempts by a few anglers to save something for themselves and other anglers are mostly thwarted.

 

 

Tight Lines - leon

 

 

If only we had ONE person in RSA nationally, financed and supported at this level!

 

What we are competing with:

 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE

For the Welsh Federation of Fishermen’s Associations Ltd

 

Salary: £30,000 per annum + allowances, fixed term until 30th June 2008

 

Subject to a probationary period.

 

Applicants need to be highly motivated, computer literate, possess shrewd negotiating skills with a high degree of integrity, a thorough knowledge and experience of the inshore fishing industry, being capable of working to tight deadlines and able to write accurate comprehensive reports, and preferably have accounting/project management and personnel experience.

 

This post will require a flexible approach to working hours.

 

Applicants must hold or be prepared to train for certificates in Sea Survival, Safety Awareness, Fire Fighting and First Aid in line with current MCA guidelines.

 

The Chief Officer will mainly

 

Work closely with Associations around the coast of Wales, to further their aspirations for a better managed, regulated, sustainable fishery for the future in Welsh waters, out to 12 mile.

 

Progress Fisheries management initiatives with the regulatory bodies that will ensure that the industry is in the forefront of the changes in inshore management techniques.

 

Liaise and work closely with external bodies such as Welsh Assembly Government Fisheries Department, Defra, Sea Fisheries Committees, and others.

 

In collaboration with the Associations develop a strategic Welsh fisheries management plan covering requirements for the next year, 2, 5 and 10 years.

 

This will cover all aspects from research programs to management changes and implementation, regulatory and policing policy and effectiveness.

 

Be capable of responding to urgent situations as they arise in a clear and concise manner, and after the required consultation with the Board and Associations, effectively carrying out their requirements.

Negotiate on behalf of the Fishermen’s’ Associations through WFFA Ltd at all levels.

 

Manage the project finances and work targets.

 

Ensure that claims and reports are presented to the relevant bodies on time.

 

Be solely responsible and accountable to the Employer (WFFA LTD) and management committee on all aspects of the project.

 

Ensure that the projects administrative assistant produces accurate and timely work at all times.

 

Be able to work effectively without supervision.

 

Have a clean driving licence and reliable car.

 

Ability to speak Welsh would be an advantage.

 

The successful applicant will be expected to live in Wales in a suitably accessible area.

 

The deadline for the receipt of letters and Applicants C.V.s is 20th January

 

Further enquiries should be made to wffa@btconnect.com

 

Please circulate to colleagues who may be interested

Edited January 10, 2006 by Leon Roskilly

[big_cod]

I think there was one thing leon what was missed out on the credentials list and that is been an expert at telling jo public that stocks are rossy when really are not.

[Leon Roskilly]

I think there was one thing leon what was missed out on the credentials list and that is been an expert at telling jo public that stocks are rossy when really are not.

 

 

Ah! But they do Big Cod

 

"Work closely with Associations around the coast of Wales, to further their aspirations for a better managed, regulated, sustainable fishery for the future in Welsh waters, out to 12 mile."

 

You really have to get up to date with the catching sector's equivalent of 'managementspeak'

 

Tight Lines - leon

[Ian Burrett]

Yup I don't dispute that Winter and never have, my only concern here is the cost to the other species that are going to make up the shortfall.

 

If someone can prove that sharks and ray's will not be involved in the shortfall, they I will quite happily support the plan. Sadly as yet no one has

 

Hi Davy

 

I understand where you are coming from but I ask you to consider this.

 

If the BMP which is supported by Defra scientists and Bradshaw fails due to lack of angler support, then the politicians will not stick their necks out again and support RSA. Their attitude will be, if the rank and file member can't be bothered supporting their own plans why should they?

 

Proposals by the National Mullet Club and SOS which are intended to be for the Marine Bill 2006 will be received with derision.

 

How many sharks and rays will die then, if the commercials are allowed to go on without opposition? How many more lowest oft threats will happen, (Wurzel has intimated that the tope slaughter continued after we all assumed it had stopped.) I fervently believe a hell of a lot more than may or may not die in the interim period of the Bass growing to 45cm.

 

To call me a hypocrite for supporting a move which i believe will ultimately help save our sharks for ever is frankly OTT

 

If the BMP doesn't get implemented then RSA can forget any thoughts of equal stakeholdership, and SOS successes, certainly during this government.