Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 3 votes

Guernsey Consulting on Bag Limits for Anglers


  • Please log in to reply
113 replies to this topic

#11 Ken Davison South Wales

Ken Davison South Wales

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,153 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tycroes
  • Interests:sea angling

Posted 26 August 2006 - 07:22 AM

I think it is aimed at a particular mark where commercials fish with rod and line catching hundreds of spawning bass, why don't they just introduce a closed season for that area would make more sense to me.

Trouble is far to many of those making the rules don't even know what a fish looks like. :wallbash:

Edited by Ken Davison South Wales, 26 August 2006 - 07:22 AM.

I fish, I catches a few, I lose a few, BUT I enjoys. Anglers Trust PM



http://www.petalsgardencenter.com

Petals Florist

#12 glennk

glennk

    Member

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

Posted 26 August 2006 - 08:16 AM

Sounds about right Ken, Why do normal everyday anglers have to suffer for the greed of a few.

Jaffa,

I understand your logic about the big fish. Several ways to look at that I suppose rather than going straight into a bag limit situation where everyone is a loser. I personally do not think that anglers catch enough fish to make that much difference, ask a north east coast skipper to count how many double figure cod they caught this year on their boat and I bet they dont need more fingers than they have on their hand to count them. I also notice it's not ICES or Cefas calling for these measures. They seem to know the culprets. However Ill go with you on this one and for sake of debate. Lets say it is proven that anglers are part of this and removing big spawning fish is going to cure the current crisis. Surely you would place a strict catch and return policy on spawning fish for the spawning season rather than a small bag limit across the whole season. Perhaps you close the areas the fish spawn throughout the spawning season. Im sure most bass anglers follow that policy anyway and rather than a ludicrous bag limit im sure cod anglers would follow suite. If I had to return every double figure cod id caught in my life the total of fish I would have returned in my entire life would be 3. But remeber I dont think it would make any difference whatsoever.

With regard to what you said about prawning. Is ther potentially a ban coming ? I know little of methods used but recently heared a member of NESFC say that there are ways for Prawn fishermen to do away with bye catch over night (something called a grid I think??) why are they unwilling to change methods?

#13 clem

clem

    Member

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

Posted 26 August 2006 - 11:30 AM

If I had to return every double figure cod id caught in my life the total of fish I would have returned in my entire life would be 3. But remeber I dont think it would make any difference whatsoever.

With regard to what you said about prawning. Is ther potentially a ban coming ? I know little of methods used but recently heared a member of NESFC say that there are ways for Prawn fishermen to do away with bye catch over night (something called a grid I think??) why are they unwilling to change methods?
[/quote]

Yes Glenn your correct x 10,000 of us up here still will not make any difference whatsoever to fish stocks. These people are barking up the wrong kelp-bed.
As for the prawn by-catch I have been told by a few fisherman that , at times it can be horrendous with millions of very small fish being shovelled overboard often these are codlings.
I know there is work going on at the moment to address this you mentioned the grid thing and I believe using square mesh instead of diamond has reduced the small-fish by-catch by a lot without reducing the prawn catch but the wheels move very slowly. What was wrong with catching prawns using creels? I wonder with the high cost of fuel if this method will make a comeback.

#14 seaside

seaside

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 265 posts
  • Location:Scotland

Posted 26 August 2006 - 12:31 PM

.....
As for the prawn by-catch I have been told by a few fisherman that , at times it can be horrendous with millions of very small fish being shovelled overboard often these are codlings.
........

The last figures I have for the Clyde area are:

From 14314 trips

4107 tons of prawns landed
554 tons of fish landed

1886 tons of fish discarded - average length 20cm / 8ins
845 tons of prawns discarded

The vast majority of the discards are whiting, then dab, pouting and hake - there aren't many cod left in the Clyde system.

#15 Grant

Grant

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 637 posts
  • Location:Jersey
  • Interests:Bassing

Posted 26 August 2006 - 12:58 PM

Its not the imposition of bag limits that worry me- its the lack of corresponding action to protect the fish stocks that I find laughable.

If they were proposing bag limits hand in hand with a comprehensive set of conservation measures, I think this would be difficult to argue against.

The situation at Beau Blondel is appalling, and will all end with vastly diminished stocks for the channel islands as a whole.

I wouldnt worry about licenses in Guernsey being the thin end of the wedge for the UK- they pay little attention to the Channel Islands unless coffers are low.
B.A.S.S. member

#16 steve good

steve good

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 928 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 August 2006 - 07:59 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.


Hi steve

You say you are a SPORT angler that means catch and release WHATS all the fuss about bag limits then.

regards steve

#17 steve good

steve good

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 928 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 August 2006 - 08:06 PM

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


Hi Jaffa

QUOTE/ 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?

SPOT ON

regards steve

#18 burhou

burhou

    Junior Member

  • New Member
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 26 August 2006 - 08:22 PM

Gentlemen, I read many thoughtful and informative comments regarding this proposal of bag limits. I assume we are all 'stakeholders'? If so, are these comments being sent in to Stuart Falla, Minister, in response to the Consultation document now officially released? I see we have until October 13th to respond.

#19 Steve Coppolo

Steve Coppolo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,110 posts

Posted 26 August 2006 - 08:39 PM

Hi steve

You say you are a SPORT angler that means catch and release WHATS all the fuss about bag limits then.

regards steve


The fuss is about a proposed restriction on anglers, (ie, a two fish limit), in the name of conservation, when in fact the proposal has nothing whatsoever to do with conservation. Imposing a two fish limit on anglers whilst allowing commercial fishing to carry on as before is nonsense. If they proposed a bag limit AND restrictions on commercial fishing too, ie, closed season on the Boue Blondel, that would be a different matter. They acknowledge what a valuable contribution angling makes to the CI economy, yet they seek to penalise anglers to "protect" the fish that attract them. At the same time they acknowledge that 53% of the years commercial bass landings, (49 tonnes), are caught in a 10 week period from the Boue Blondel, yet propose nothing to restrict this destructive fishing. It's ******.

By the way, I do fish for sport but I also eat some of the fish I catch. I'd probably only keep a couple anyway, but if we are to give up our rights to take more, then we want something in return, ie, restrictions on commercial fishing. As I said before, a 2 fish limit for anglers in an area where commercial fishing goes on unrestricted is a waste of time. It will achieve nothing.
DRUNK DRIVERS WRECK LIVES.

Don't drink and drive.

#20 FishingGuernsey

FishingGuernsey

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 320 posts
  • Location:Guernsey
  • Interests:Fishing!

Posted 27 August 2006 - 03:04 PM

The whole document has arisen from the local shortsighted commercials. They have no respect whatsoever for fish stock and are only interested in lining their pockets. they have seen over the years a dramatic increase in UK charters "taking their fish" and hence complained to sea fisheries. As the ringleader of the commercial fleet is a powerful man in local circles, he has been assumed to be correct and that the Uk fleet is decimating local stocks of brill turbot. The Boue Blondel is a red herring in this consultation as the Uk fleet of charter boats do not come down for that in mid winter to my knowledge. the decimation of that stock is by local, UK, Scottish and french commercials. The figures about a "rod and line" fishery are rubbish as the reef is trawled at slack water when the fish move outside the 0.5NM netting ban "area". Tonnes of fish are taken by trawling and rumours are rife regarding some of the local trawlers, some of them quite possibly being true.

The debate is really about the turbot/brill stock on the schole and alderney banks where the trawlers have not been having as much success, they claim due to the Uk boats taking soo much stock and getting in their way. The truth is that this year, we had a much later season for the flats and they have been perfectly abundant on rod and line with a lot being returned. the UK boats don't keep much fish from the banks.

This whole consultation is utter rubbish and definitely not for the benefit of the stock or conservation. It is written by commercials for the benefit of commercials.

I will be responding in due course and also to the local paper.

This, unfortunately, is an example of the commercials using their weight to throw rubbish ideas to politicians who don't have the foggiest and who also refused to be taken on free trips aboard the UK charter boats in Question to see what they really do. The inspections of UK charters are done on the same boats all the time, and these boats are the most successful experienced ones, they do not form an average figure.

The way forward is to increase flattie size limits to something more sensible than the measly 28cm it is now and reduce commercial effort on the species in conjunction with a possible limit on anglers, all at the same time and together. That is how to preserve stocks and help conservation. Allowing the commercials to cintinue unrestricted is farclical in the context of the consultation.

Andy
www.gbass.co.uk - The Guernsey Bass Anglers Sportfishing Society