Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

An Alliance Between Anglers And Commercials?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
384 replies to this topic

#21 stan4massey

stan4massey

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 532 posts
  • Location:Glasgow
  • Interests:fishing / rod builder

Posted 29 September 2005 - 04:26 PM

Ian, strange bedfellows they may well be but It`s possible they may have to team up on another issue that`s looming and include divers in the company.

I heard yesterday, from a very reliable source, that the MOD are looking at declaring some wrecks in a number of areas as war graves. Once that precedent has been set the wreck potential for anglers, commercials and divers could well be severely restricted. I`d have to be quick to say that I mean no dis-respect whatsoever to those killed in wartime sinkings and probably there is a very good case for their memory taking precedence over sporting and commercial considerations, a tricky situation.

#22 Guest_jay_con_*

Guest_jay_con_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 September 2005 - 04:47 PM

Ken Davison South Wales:



Everybody agrees that quotas do not work.

How do you know quota's dont work??? Any honest fisherman will tell you quota's have never been given the opportunity to work. The fishermen decided they wouldnt follow quota's so how can anyone know if they work. They dont work for fishermen because they know it means catching less fish. You cant judge something that hasnt been given a chance. Most fishermen just carried on as normal. My conclusion therefore is carrying on as normal doesnt work. The current situation confirms that.

Ken Davison South Wales:



Everybody agrees that unlicensed black fishing must be stopped.

Do they really. Black fish brings in extra money for fishermen, often untaxed income. Do you really believe they want less money???

Ken Davison South Wales:



Everybody would like to see our fishing controlled 100% out to the twelve mile line by British interest.

Time to be realistic Ken.


Ken Davison South Wales:


Everybody agrees that without some form of conservation no one will have anything to fish for.

They may well agree but when it comes down to it do they care??? All they care about is the here and now. THere are mortgages to pay, children to feed remember, and dont forget the next million in the bank for the "fat cats" who really dont care a toss about tomorrow.


Sorry Ken, I reaslise you are a positive guy and like to see a solution to things but I see little there to give me optimism m8

#23 Brian Carragher

Brian Carragher

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,792 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Redcar Cleveland
  • Interests:fishing , politics ,sport

Posted 29 September 2005 - 05:05 PM

Ians comments above highlight the dangerous game that some anglers play. To put the anglers and commercials into two camps is both wrong and dangerous, its a bit like kids games of cops and robers or goodies and baddies ,and to me thats what statements like Ians are,just childish.
There is a problem here and apportioning past blame and transferring it to todays anglers and commercials serves no purpose and no one.Commercials are not the baddies and anglers the goodies by any stretch of the imagination.To try and say that anglers only want to catch and release whilst watching them swim away unharmed is way from the mark.
I will go so far as to say that in my area all of the pleasure anglers want to catch as much as they can every time they go out and fill their fish boxs every time. I suspect its the same every where else. Some people have already posted how they hate the fact that commercials net wrecks and then boast about emptying wrecks with killer rigs catching three at a time. In my book a boat full of anglers catching three a time on killer rigs will catch far more and empty a wreck of fish far quicker than any wreck netter will. Whats worse, selectivly taken a portion of big fish by nets and then netting elsewhere or emptying a wreck of big fish by rod and line. Rod and line fish have always been in demand from the fish merchants and there are lots of rumours circulating around the commercial sector about charter boats supplying that demand.
That may well turn out to be untrue but it just goes to show that there is an element of mistrust from both sides. Ian has been just as guilty of overfilling his boat in the past and has admitted his part in the current debacle regarding fish stocks but there are countless boats who do not practice what he now preaches. I know of boats round here that would be horrified to just catch and release as they see that as an infringement of an Englishmans right to go to sea and catch fish.
Strange bedfellows or not,bedfellows they will become ,for both sides advantage, as the current rules and regulations benefit no one. Does anyone seriously believe that commercials enjoy shovelling prime fish stocks back over the side dead when they have bills to pay and wages are due,I think not.Every commercial I know knows that they have to look to the future and not the short term if the industry is to survive

#24 Guest_jay_con_*

Guest_jay_con_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 September 2005 - 05:18 PM

Brian Carragher:
 as the current rules and regulations benefit no one.

I will raise the same point again. Current rules as they are have only very recently been given the chance to produce benefits. For many years the current rules were ignored so not able to benefit anyone. Recent improvements in enforcement may now allow the regulations to bring benefits for all (a little late in the day though, enforcement 4 years ago would be reaping big benefits now, but the current stock size will be so small it may not even be able to grow). Remember that if current measures dont work then the next ones will possibly be even more severe and even less acceptable - Closed areas is on the cards.

#25 stavey

stavey

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,770 posts
  • Interests:sea angling

Posted 29 September 2005 - 05:26 PM

hi ian, hows it going with sos? well done and good luck by the way, as for starting an alliance org myself, well i do not have the necessary skills to take on such a huge and complexed task, my reasons for posting this thread was out of interest for me and maybe whoever else was to read it, hoping it may encourage a little more consructive dialogue rather than slagging and accusing each other (that i have found to my cost in the past)it may help to find a bit of common ground we all may agree on.

Some one with the necessary skills might just see some mileage in something like this and decide to start an org, i would be happy to support and contribute as mucn as i could to it.

I also got the feeling from the odd commercial that post here on anglers net that perhaps they would of liked to have posted something similar themselves but somehow just could not do it, maybe some sea anglers felt the same?

Any way thats why i started this thread, if i have atleast planted some seed corn then its got to have been worth it..
I Fish For Sport Not Me Belly

#26 Brian Carragher

Brian Carragher

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,792 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Redcar Cleveland
  • Interests:fishing , politics ,sport

Posted 29 September 2005 - 05:37 PM

I would support a closed area plan but would go even further than that and prohibit rockhopping trawl gear within the six mile limit

#27 stavey

stavey

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,770 posts
  • Interests:sea angling

Posted 29 September 2005 - 05:46 PM

Hi autumn, had a peak on your angling club site yesterday nice little club you have to, a question for you do you personaly know the fishermen that frequent your area? if so have you spoken to them about the trawlers/gill netters etc.......
I Fish For Sport Not Me Belly

#28 Guest_jay_con_*

Guest_jay_con_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 September 2005 - 05:58 PM

Yes I fish reguler. Probably as much if not more than most. I Know anglers all over our coast. I try not to speak for others and their views would be to diverse to sum up anyway I'm afraid. Do you have any specific questions?

We dont really have a gill net problem anymore if we ever did. Its pair trawling thats f***** it.

#29 Guest_jay_con_*

Guest_jay_con_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 September 2005 - 06:00 PM

Sounds sensible to me that Brian. But I really dont see commercials agreeing - Do you???

#30 Brian Carragher

Brian Carragher

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,792 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Redcar Cleveland
  • Interests:fishing , politics ,sport

Posted 29 September 2005 - 06:03 PM

The inshore /inshore men would go for it but I see opposition from Hartlepool Scarbrough and Whitby.
The inshore/inshore men are those that pot net and line who have lost thousands of pounds worth of gear after being towed away and they would be the net beneficeries of such a plan as would the angling boats