Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

NFFO slams Seafish appointments


  • Please log in to reply
119 replies to this topic

#11 steve good

steve good

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 928 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 January 2007 - 07:08 PM

And you could get a proper job that doesn't decimate fish stocks. Works both ways pal!

They're not your fish mate! We have has as much right to fish as you do.

JRT


Hi JRT

I am not decimating fish stocks, I am fishing in accordance with management policy and I am regulated and restricted to what I can do and catch

Anglers MILLIONS of them have decimated the inshore fisheries because they can catch as much as they like when they want, shore anglers can even sell their catch thats why you cannot catch the larger fish now.

I have a fishing licence and a track record that proves my entitlement to the fish I catch, what you got nothing except immemorial right of use which was made obsolete when we joined the commen market



steve

#12 Steve Coppolo

Steve Coppolo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,110 posts

Posted 23 January 2007 - 10:43 AM

Anglers MILLIONS of them have decimated the inshore fisheries because they can catch as much as they like when they want, shore anglers can even sell their catch thats why you cannot catch the larger fish now.


You're having a laugh Steve. Is that the propaganda that the commercials are going to use now to cover up the damage that they've done over the years, now that it's all coming on top? It's laughable Steve, and about as believable as you saying commercial fishing hasn't damaged the fish stocks.

Reminds me of that Iraqi PR man denying there had been an invasion while American tanks were going past in the back ground.
DRUNK DRIVERS WRECK LIVES.

Don't drink and drive.

#13 stavey

stavey

    Member

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

Posted 23 January 2007 - 11:21 AM

Hi JRT


Anglers MILLIONS of them have decimated the inshore fisheries because they can catch as much as they like when they want, shore anglers can even sell their catch thats why you cannot catch the larger fish now.


steve


Hello steve

I and a lot of other rsa's release our catches back alive, for you to catch/kill then sell to pay for your living and feed and cloth you family (like i said on another thread) dont heap genuine rsa's in with the few dole fiddling bass bashers! that i think you may be refering to, you should be pushing hard to endorse the bmp as this would put an end to a lot of those bashers capers, cheers.......
I Fish For Sport Not Me Belly

#14 wurzel

wurzel

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,730 posts
  • Interests:fishing and more fishing

Posted 23 January 2007 - 12:35 PM

You're having a laugh Steve. Is that the propaganda that the commercials are going to use now to cover up the damage that they've done over the years, now that it's all coming on top? It's laughable Steve, and about as believable as you saying commercial fishing hasn't damaged the fish stocks.

Reminds me of that Iraqi PR man denying there had been an invasion while American tanks were going past in the back ground.


Hello Steve

You may laugh, propaganda it might be but we don't have to try very hard to make it work, DEFRA love it.

Hello Stavey

Quote
I and a lot of other rsa's release our catches back alive


You are still a very small minority of the 1.5 million sea anglers.
I fish to live and live to fish.

#15 Leon Roskilly

Leon Roskilly

    Member

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

Posted 23 January 2007 - 01:04 PM

You may laugh, propaganda it might be but we don't have to try very hard to make it work, DEFRA love it.



Currently, for the calculation of each nation's quota allowance from the EU TAC, anglers catches are regarded as negligible, and are included in 'natural mortality'.

Efforts by the catching sector to persuade fishery managers that the Recreational take is substantial, and therefore that limitations (bag limits) should be imposed on anglers raise the prospect that the quota available to the catching sector should be adjusted to allow for an 'angling quota'

This is how it works in a number of countries where the total allowable catch is first calculated

This TAC is then reduced by the amount that it is estimated that the recreational fishery will take (limited by bag limits and close seasons, area closures etc - bearing in mind the importance and value of the recreational sector), then what is left is assigned as quota to the catching sector (in New Zealand, the catching sector has to purchase all of their quota).

As most angling activity in the UK takes place inshore, it is the quota available to the inshore, mainly under 10 metre boats, which is likely to be most impacted should the recreational take be deemed sufficient to introduce similar measures in the UK (or at least that is the way that the POs would like to see it go!).

Introduction of a quota system for bass (as currently being mooted) is most likely to lead to the first application of an 'angling quota' reducing the quota available to the catching sector.

The major problem is likely to be that whereas a growing number of anglers are happy to return their catch for conservation reasons, if they have an alowance of (say) 5 bass per day, they are likely to feel that is their legal entitlement and remove those fish from the fishery to maintain a 'track record' for the sector. (Not to mention returning smaller fish dead, when they have reached their allowance but then catch a larger fish - taking 5 fish off the beach, but killing more).

Yes, Wurzel DEFRA might appear enthusiastic about the idea, but in your own interest it would be better if they weren't!!

Bag Limits for anglers could turn out to have a very nasty sting in its tail for the catching sector!

Edited by Leon Roskilly, 23 January 2007 - 01:11 PM.

RNLI Shoreline Member

Member of the Angling Trust


#16 JRT

JRT

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 284 posts

Posted 23 January 2007 - 03:19 PM

Steve,

I'll do the jokes,!

Even suggesting that the RSA take is anywhere near the volume of the inshore commercials is ridiculous. An inshore boat netting or rod/line thoughout the summer will be out at least 5 days a week. Even if they only catch 10 keepers a day (a bad day!) that is 50 minimum a week/200 month. I have seen first hand 1 boat take hundreds of bass from a single area. Also the rod/line charters that are NOT RSA's but commercials working portland race and other hotspots are capable of catching thousands of fish over the good tides and will keep everything they catch.

The problem is the current laws are not enforced as they are, introducing bag limits for RSA is meaningless and will not effect fish stocks at all, even it was enforced.

The commercials must be clutching at straws if their best excuse for reduced stocks are RSA's.

JRT

#17 wurzel

wurzel

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,730 posts
  • Interests:fishing and more fishing

Posted 23 January 2007 - 03:45 PM

Yes, Wurzel DEFRA might appear enthusiastic about the idea, but in your own interest it would be better if they weren't!!

Bag Limits for anglers could turn out to have a very nasty sting in its tail for the catching sector!


Hello Leon

I doubt that, the amount of quota ring fenced for the inshore under ten meter sector are so small and inadequate there would be no room for manoeuvre there, as it is proved that in some cases rsa easily catch as much and due to restrictions on commercial fishing even more in some cases, DEFRA will have no choice but to impose small bag limits.
They might be forced to adopt the Dutch, Belgium and I think France rule of no more than 15 Kg total live weight of fish.
I fish to live and live to fish.

#18 Guest_challenge_*

Guest_challenge_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 January 2007 - 03:47 PM

In this part of the world the commercials are certainly not clutching to any verbal straws.
It’s certain recreational bodies that seam to clutch to straws (condemning commercial fishermen for there own recreational results) rather than commercial fishermen blaming recreational anglers for the lack of cod in there area.
What has been said (when asked the question “do you think recreational anglers should be accountable”) was that a commercial spokesman said he did. If you run a campaign of discrediting commercial activities, you have got to expect (and I must say that I admired there restraint) some kind of defensive reaction.
Regards.

#19 wurzel

wurzel

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,730 posts
  • Interests:fishing and more fishing

Posted 23 January 2007 - 04:00 PM

Steve,

I'll do the jokes,!

Even suggesting that the RSA take is anywhere near the volume of the inshore commercials is ridiculous. An inshore boat netting or rod/line thoughout the summer will be out at least 5 days a week. Even if they only catch 10 keepers a day (a bad day!) that is 50 minimum a week/200 month. I have seen first hand 1 boat take hundreds of bass from a single area. Also the rod/line charters that are NOT RSA's but commercials working portland race and other hotspots are capable of catching thousands of fish over the good tides and will keep everything they catch.

The problem is the current laws are not enforced as they are, introducing bag limits for RSA is meaningless and will not effect fish stocks at all, even it was enforced.

The commercials must be clutching at straws if their best excuse for reduced stocks are RSA's.

JRT


Hello JRT

Who said any thing about effecting fish stocks? Bag limits like quota has nothing much to do with conservation of fish stocks.

What current laws are not enforced? other than size limits and rsa and that seems to be improving.
I fish to live and live to fish.

#20 Leon Roskilly

Leon Roskilly

    Member

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

Posted 23 January 2007 - 04:07 PM

Hello Leon

I doubt that, the amount of quota ring fenced for the inshore under ten meter sector are so small and inadequate there would be no room for manoeuvre there, as it is proved that in some cases rsa easily catch as much and due to restrictions on commercial fishing even more in some cases, DEFRA will have no choice but to impose small bag limits.
They might be forced to adopt the Dutch, Belgium and I think France rule of no more than 15 Kg total live weight of fish.



Yes, but by limiting the RSA take, that reduces the UK track record on which the future UK quota might be allocated, handing future fish to the French etc.

It would be far better to allow the recreational fishery to continue unrestricted, and bump up the estimated take as much as possible, so that when it is later included in the total UK catch (commercial+recreational), the UK is allocated a better slice of the quota cake.

Once the quota is allocated to the UK, then we can have the argument about how much is given to the catching sector, and how much is given to the recreational sector, always bearing in mind that a reduction in the total track record will result in a reduced UK quota in future years.

I shall look forward to catching my sole quota, I do like sole, and I will feel that I'm doing my bit for Britain :)

Edited by Leon Roskilly, 23 January 2007 - 04:22 PM.

RNLI Shoreline Member

Member of the Angling Trust