Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 3 votes

Guernsey Consulting on Bag Limits for Anglers


  • Please log in to reply
113 replies to this topic

#1 Leon Roskilly

Leon Roskilly

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,436 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rainham, Kent
  • Interests:Fishing (Coarse, Sea & Game), Conservation & Cycling

Posted 25 August 2006 - 04:21 PM

see:

http://www.sacn.org....Bag_Limits.html

RNLI Shoreline Member

Member of the Angling Trust


#2 Steve Coppolo

Steve Coppolo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,110 posts

Posted 25 August 2006 - 05:08 PM

The Boue Blondel rod and line fishery provides a good example of the effectiveness of angling where 49 tonnes of bass (20,000 fish assuming 2.5kg average per fish) were caught in 10 weeks during the winter of 2004. This was 53% of the total bass landed by the commercial fleet in that year.

Recreational bag limits are used as a management measure all over the world being particularly popular for certain fisheries in Australia and the United States, where the angling sector is recognized as a significant influence on fish stock abundance.

The striped bass fishery along the eastern seaboard of the United States has had bag limits enforced for many seasons as part of a raft of measures imposed on the fishery.


Recreational bag limits are used in Australia and the USA, but I doubt they are enforced anywhere that 49 tonnes of bass is caught commercially in 10 weeks! 53% of the total bass landed by the commercial fleet was caught from one mark in 10 weeks, and they weant to give anglers a two fish limit! Very rich.

Bag limits are a good idea if there are also restrictions on commercial fishing in place to complement them. If the commercials are left to plunder the stocks, (ie, 49 tonnes of bass in 10 weeks from one mark), then imposing a two fish limit on anglers is taking the ****.

The proposal sounds like it's everything to do with giving more to commercial fishermen while taking even more away from anglers. It has nothing to do with conservation whatsoever. If it was we'd be seeing proposed restrictions on commercial fishing too.

Bag limits go hand in hand with restrictions on commercial fishing, on there own they are useless. Don't sell yourselves down the river.

Edited by Steve Coppolo, 25 August 2006 - 05:23 PM.

DRUNK DRIVERS WRECK LIVES.

Don't drink and drive.

#3 Norm B

Norm B

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,246 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hampshire UK
  • Interests:Sea Angling, Conservation and shooting.

Posted 25 August 2006 - 06:12 PM

The Boue Blondel rod and line fishery provides a good example of the effectiveness of angling where 49 tonnes of bass (20,000 fish assuming 2.5kg average per fish) were caught in 10 weeks during the winter of 2004. This was 53% of the total bass landed by the commercial fleet in that year.

Recreational bag limits are used as a management measure all over the world being particularly popular for certain fisheries in Australia and the United States, where the angling sector is recognized as a significant influence on fish stock abundance.

The striped bass fishery along the eastern seaboard of the United States has had bag limits enforced for many seasons as part of a raft of measures imposed on the fishery.


Recreational bag limits are used in Australia and the USA, but I doubt they are enforced anywhere that 49 tonnes of bass is caught commercially in 10 weeks! 53% of the total bass landed by the commercial fleet was caught from one mark in 10 weeks, and they weant to give anglers a two fish limit! Very rich.

Bag limits are a good idea if there are also restrictions on commercial fishing in place to complement them. If the commercials are left to plunder the stocks, (ie, 49 tonnes of bass in 10 weeks from one mark), then imposing a two fish limit on anglers is taking the ****.

The proposal sounds like it's everything to do with giving more to commercial fishermen while taking even more away from anglers. It has nothing to do with conservation whatsoever. If it was we'd be seeing proposed restrictions on commercial fishing too.

Bag limits go hand in hand with restrictions on commercial fishing, on there own they are useless. Don't sell yourselves down the river.

:clap2: An absolute mirror of my own thoughts so I need say no more. :clap2:

#4 spasor

spasor

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,950 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greenford
  • Interests:sea-fishing, boat,beach,fly,spinning

Posted 25 August 2006 - 06:27 PM

Sour grapes or what.
This just goes to show what egotistical barstewards the Guernsey donkies are. This is not about conservation, more a mealy mouthed rant against the success of Alderney attracting anglers from the mainland.

It wasn`t very long ago anglers were threatening to boycott GUERNSEY, due to their lack of consideration when the Guernsey boats found a mark teaming with bass: which they duly set about slaughtering. :wallbash:
You don`t have to spend long in th C.I`s before all the bitterness and emnity about neighbouring islanders comes up in conversation. :yucky:

The whole statement was Alderney this, and Alderney that. I`ll bet a penny to a pound. If the mainland charter boats all based themselves in Guerney for their summer C.I`s trips. Mr (my middle names conservation) Falla would be standing on the harbour wall at St Peter Port with signs for eyeballs, welcoming all the anglers.
We don`t use J`s anymore!!

#5 glennk

glennk

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,237 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 August 2006 - 06:47 PM

The sadest thing for me is when anglers start supporting this poo. There are i'm sure members of this forum who call themselves anglers who think this is a good idea. I think the anglers from the channel islands have the right to do what ever they want but im concerned this is the start of something much bigger. Mark my words this is whats coming for us all along with a 20 quid a year charge.

Edited by glennk, 25 August 2006 - 06:49 PM.


#6 clem

clem

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 224 posts
  • Location:Nr.Driffield E.Yorks

Posted 25 August 2006 - 07:49 PM

The sadest thing for me is when anglers start supporting this poo. There are i'm sure members of this forum who call themselves anglers who think this is a good idea. I think the anglers from the channel islands have the right to do what ever they want but im concerned this is the start of something much bigger. Mark my words this is whats coming for us all along with a 20 quid a year charge.

I hope you are very wrong on that Glenn. Lets hope this goes away and is seen in its proper context as the bag of bureacratic nonsense it is for all the reasons discussed and I think proven on this forum before.
In the mean time I suspect the economic consequences of all this short sighted bag limit talk have already started. Would you be thinking of going ahead with say a 10 year business plan in investing in a new charterboat (sea sickness aside) in these dodgy times?

#7 glennk

glennk

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,237 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 August 2006 - 08:14 PM

Thing is Clem there is a lot of people out there who believe this twaddle. They think they impact on fish stocks. The government will look to cash in on their misconceptions. Im just hoping that when the time comes there isn't enough of thm to back it, they are out there though and their numbers are growing. Lots of people have never seen what you have Clem, they have no understanding of what happens. They hear people say there is no fish then assume it's their fault.

Edited by glennk, 25 August 2006 - 08:16 PM.


#8 Jaffa

Jaffa

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,172 posts

Posted 25 August 2006 - 10:58 PM

They hear people say there is no fish then assume it's their fault.


Maybe true for most species Glenn, but im not so sure with Turbot, Brill, Halibut and the shark family. Anglers catches may well be significant for them. Im used to seeing a big trawler land half a dozen turbot after a week fishing eg the Aberdeen bank, so a bag limit of 14 for charters seems an amazing and worrying catch to me.

The famous halibut grounds between Scotland and Faroe used to yield the odd halibut to trawlers but a holdfull to the longliners. For some species a baited hook is way more efficient.

I don't have a clue about CI fishing methods ( i presume their netters are a lot more efficient at taking turbot than the trawlers/seine netters we have) but if catches are falling aroung the CI I don't see how you can discount angling effort, certainly not on the figures they are estimating that anglers take?



Chris
Help predict climate change!
http://climateprediction.net

#9 glennk

glennk

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,237 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 August 2006 - 11:10 PM

Point taken Chris and Im sure the Channel islanders will know more about their own back yard than me and you, and its their consultation so let them do what they desire. Lets hope its not a case of making a bed and then having to lie in it. I really fear that its coming our way too, and I am ever more concerned by the amount of anglers who think returning the odd fish they catch is going to bring about a revival of fish stocks. In 20 years time when they are paying a licence fee, restricted to 2 fish each and the fish stocks are the same if not worse then it will be too late to turn back. Imo its lunacy to go down this road.

#10 Jaffa

Jaffa

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,172 posts

Posted 25 August 2006 - 11:28 PM

Point taken Chris and Im sure the Channel islanders will know more about their own back yard than me and you, and its their consultation so let them do what they desire. Lets hope its not a case of making a bed and then having to lie in it. I really fear that its coming our way too, and I am ever more concerned by the amount of anglers who think returning the odd fish they catch is going to bring about a revival of fish stocks. In 20 years time when they are paying a licence fee, restricted to 2 fish each and the fish stocks are the same if not worse then it will be too late to turn back. Imo its lunacy to go down this road.


I suspect its heading our way too. Current EU thinking seems to be that even the prawn trawlers are taking too much bycatch of cod (though ime they dont take much and what they do is small stuff) so maybe facing a ban. If that happens then the s**t will hit the fan imho; on the one hand cod are designated "endangered" and therefore everything possible must be done to "save" them and lots of prawn boats will go to the wall, yet charter boats get to catch whatever they want , without recording their catches, totally outwith the "system". If the science about the big mature fish being the important ones is right, then theres an issue surely?

The BMP "debate" must have stirred them up and I suspect they are going to want to put the boot in on this breakdown in anglers logic?

Chris

Edited by Jaffa, 25 August 2006 - 11:29 PM.

Help predict climate change!
http://climateprediction.net