Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Bag Limits for Devon?


  • Please log in to reply
69 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 28 August 2007 - 11:54 AM

See:

http://shorterlink.co.uk/12921

RNLI Shoreline Member

Member of the Angling Trust


#2 barry luxton

barry luxton

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,345 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:rochester
  • Interests:Boat fishing and more boat fishing. Some times i have to go to work so it does interfere with my boat fishing, but not much.

Posted 28 August 2007 - 12:13 PM

See:

http://shorterlink.co.uk/12921


This emotive subject really needs proof for this Mr Venmore to make the claim that it is 'anglers' who are selling before considering restriction. It's pub talk, or prove it.

 Free to choose apart from the ones where the trust poked their nose in. Common eel. tope. Bass and sea bream. All restricted.

 
New for 2016 TAT are the main instigators for the demise of the u k bass charter boat industry, where they went screaming off to parliament and for the first time assisting so called angling gurus set up bass take bans with the e u using rubbish exaggerated info collected by ices from anglers, they must be very proud.

Upgrade, the door has been closed with regards to anglers being linked to the e u superstate and the failed c f p. So TAT will no longer need to pay monies to the EAA anymore as that org is no longer relevant to the u k . Goodbye to the europeon anglers alliance and pathetic restrictions from the e u.

Angling is better than politics, ban politics from angling.
 
Consumer of bass. where is the evidence that the u k bass stock need angling trust protection. Why won't you work with your peers instead of castigating them. They have the answer.

Recipie's for mullet stew more than welcomed.
 
Angling sanitation trust and kent and sussex sea anglers org delete's and blocks rsa's alternative opinion on their face book site. Although they claim to rep all.
 
new for 2014. where is the evidence that the south coast bream stock need the angling trust? Your campaign has no evidence. Why won't you work with your peers, the inshore under tens? As opposed to alienating them? Angling trust failed big time re bait digging, even fish legal attempted to intervene and failed, all for what, nothing.
 
Looks like the sea angling reps have been coerced by the ifca's to compose sea angling strategy's that the ifca's at some stage will look at drafting into legislation to manage the rsa, because  they like wasting tax payers money. That's without asking the rsa btw. You know who you are.. 


#3 H.A.

H.A.

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,407 posts
  • Location:An island between Selsey and Portsea Island
  • Interests:None

Posted 30 August 2007 - 01:01 AM

I'm afraid some of it is true ..... there are plenty of so-called rod and line anglers who sell fish illegally.

This is, however, an example of standard diversionary tactics used by 'the industry' to cover up their inability to keep their own house in order.

The biggest 'fiddle' is carried out on the TAC (CFP 'Total Allowable Catch' system) quotas granted to member States. These transfer into “fixed quota allocation units” (FQA) for individual vessels. The vessels then masquerade as say, 'scallopers', or in one case I know of, as dogfish catchers (!).
By using allowable By-catch percentages, the quotas are completely circumvented and overfished high-value stocks like sole continue to be heavily fished for even though a vessel or group of vessels quota has been exceeded.

The MFA (rather like our terrestial Police Service) has to concentrate its limited resources on the biggest law-benders and so it is difficult for them to caution or prosecute the illegal rod and lining. Given that there is so much 'industry-related' fiddling and cheating, it's a bit 'rich' of Mr Venmore to take his high perch and call for bass bag-limits aimed at RSAs.

Just look at the crap which Venmore so carefully chooses not to mention!

http://www.mfa.gov.u...007/070727a.htm

:nono:

#4 barry luxton

barry luxton

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,345 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:rochester
  • Interests:Boat fishing and more boat fishing. Some times i have to go to work so it does interfere with my boat fishing, but not much.

Posted 30 August 2007 - 06:46 AM

I'm afraid some of it is true ..... there are plenty of so-called rod and line anglers who sell fish illegally.

This is, however, an example of standard diversionary tactics used by 'the industry' to cover up their inability to keep their own house in order.

The biggest 'fiddle' is carried out on the TAC (CFP 'Total Allowable Catch' system) quotas granted to member States. These transfer into “fixed quota allocation units” (FQA) for individual vessels. The vessels then masquerade as say, 'scallopers', or in one case I know of, as dogfish catchers (!).
By using allowable By-catch percentages, the quotas are completely circumvented and overfished high-value stocks like sole continue to be heavily fished for even though a vessel or group of vessels quota has been exceeded.

The MFA (rather like our terrestial Police Service) has to concentrate its limited resources on the biggest law-benders and so it is difficult for them to caution or prosecute the illegal rod and lining. Given that there is so much 'industry-related' fiddling and cheating, it's a bit 'rich' of Mr Venmore to take his high perch and call for bass bag-limits aimed at RSAs.

Just look at the crap which Venmore so carefully chooses not to mention!

http://www.mfa.gov.u...007/070727a.htm

:nono:


Many thanks for this post H A, could you confirm just who these illegal rod and line guys are as Mr Venmore either chooses not to or there is no proof provided in his carefully orcestrated non-story.
I firmly believe that these so called rod and liners are not rsa but clandestine commercial and these need banging up if caught.
Yet again you have provided another example of the problem that appears to be 'rife' within our fishing community and i agree, this is where a lot of our taxpayers money is spent to try and counter this. The example also shows that apart from the initial scam ie hiding the catch, this guy certainly new what back door to sell at, no way he would have declared this landing. There aught to be bigger fines for the people who receive these products if caught.
As i was confused in which capacity Mr Venmore was using when he compiled this posting to the newspaper, i have asked the dsfc for clarification of the alledged cheating carried out by these rod and liners and also have asked if there is NO definate link with true recreational sea anglers.

Edited by barry luxton, 30 August 2007 - 06:59 AM.

 Free to choose apart from the ones where the trust poked their nose in. Common eel. tope. Bass and sea bream. All restricted.

 
New for 2016 TAT are the main instigators for the demise of the u k bass charter boat industry, where they went screaming off to parliament and for the first time assisting so called angling gurus set up bass take bans with the e u using rubbish exaggerated info collected by ices from anglers, they must be very proud.

Upgrade, the door has been closed with regards to anglers being linked to the e u superstate and the failed c f p. So TAT will no longer need to pay monies to the EAA anymore as that org is no longer relevant to the u k . Goodbye to the europeon anglers alliance and pathetic restrictions from the e u.

Angling is better than politics, ban politics from angling.
 
Consumer of bass. where is the evidence that the u k bass stock need angling trust protection. Why won't you work with your peers instead of castigating them. They have the answer.

Recipie's for mullet stew more than welcomed.
 
Angling sanitation trust and kent and sussex sea anglers org delete's and blocks rsa's alternative opinion on their face book site. Although they claim to rep all.
 
new for 2014. where is the evidence that the south coast bream stock need the angling trust? Your campaign has no evidence. Why won't you work with your peers, the inshore under tens? As opposed to alienating them? Angling trust failed big time re bait digging, even fish legal attempted to intervene and failed, all for what, nothing.
 
Looks like the sea angling reps have been coerced by the ifca's to compose sea angling strategy's that the ifca's at some stage will look at drafting into legislation to manage the rsa, because  they like wasting tax payers money. That's without asking the rsa btw. You know who you are.. 


#5 H.A.

H.A.

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,407 posts
  • Location:An island between Selsey and Portsea Island
  • Interests:None

Posted 30 August 2007 - 10:34 AM

Some of the 'rod and liners' who illegally catch and sell bass are bona fide Angling Club members.
MFA and SFCs are particularly aware of problems in Areas VII d, e and f (Dorset, Devon, Cornwall and S Wales).

The whole situation is complicated by the fact that it is illegal to sell fish caught by an unlicensed, unregistered powered vessel or a vessel over 10m in length.

But, anyone catching fish from the shore or from a small, unpowered vessel can legally sell any quantity of fish which they catch whether made by use of rod and line or nets (subject to local Byelaws). Neither is registration under buyers/sellers legislation required. This 'opens the back' door to both licensed fishermen selling a few fish for cash at higher rates (and avoiding tax) than at market and for persons representing themselves as 'anglers' to hawk their wares from restaurant to restaurant. Believe me this does go on!

Interestingly, Defra have found that they are unable to introduce 'bag limits' by means of Statutory Instruments (SIs) and have requested local Sea Fisheries Committees to step in to enable bag limits to be introduced via 'Byelaws'.

Southern Sea Fisheries Committee has recently declined to do this at the present time.
Defra needs to ensure that its ongoing funding to SFCs will cover the considerable costs of implementation and ongoing enforcement if SFCs are to comply and to meet the cost of legal challenges and possible Public Inquiry.

Most RSAs and many SFC Committee representatives appear to hold a common view that the 'bag limit' proposals are like using a sledge-hammer to crack a nut and is not addressing the problem of 'black bass' which is the catering trade's willingness to buy fish from individuals and the commercial sector's propensity to sell fish at the back door ('Commercial Sector' includes anyone selling fish, licensed or not).

How reasonable is it for bona fide Recreational Sea Anglers, legally taking fish for their own consumption, to be criminalised in an effort to crack down on the activities of a minority of people fishing with the intention of selling fish?

Sometimes, regulation and bureaucracy loses sight of the reasons for protecting fish species and in their (EFP/Defra/SFC) 'stumblings' detract from more rigorous enforcement of the overly complicated rules which already apply.

:schmoll:

Edited by H.A., 30 August 2007 - 10:36 AM.


#6 barry luxton

barry luxton

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,345 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:rochester
  • Interests:Boat fishing and more boat fishing. Some times i have to go to work so it does interfere with my boat fishing, but not much.

Posted 30 August 2007 - 06:40 PM

Interestingly, Defra have found that they are unable to introduce 'bag limits' by means of Statutory Instruments (SIs) and have requested local Sea Fisheries Committees to step in to enable bag limits to be introduced via 'Byelaws'.


Most RSAs and many SFC Committee representatives appear to hold a common view that the 'bag limit' proposals are like using a sledge-hammer to crack a nut and is not addressing the problem of 'black bass' which is the catering trade's willingness to buy fish from individuals and the commercial sector's propensity to sell fish at the back door ('Commercial Sector' includes anyone selling fish, licensed or not).


Can't see bag limits affecting the sale of back door fish as the cheats will carry on doing what they are doing. They will be very unlucky if they get caught.

However can't see any compelling argument against the simple method of control of back door selling by gill tagging. Or is this too easy. Only those who shout the loudest will have the most to loose.

 Free to choose apart from the ones where the trust poked their nose in. Common eel. tope. Bass and sea bream. All restricted.

 
New for 2016 TAT are the main instigators for the demise of the u k bass charter boat industry, where they went screaming off to parliament and for the first time assisting so called angling gurus set up bass take bans with the e u using rubbish exaggerated info collected by ices from anglers, they must be very proud.

Upgrade, the door has been closed with regards to anglers being linked to the e u superstate and the failed c f p. So TAT will no longer need to pay monies to the EAA anymore as that org is no longer relevant to the u k . Goodbye to the europeon anglers alliance and pathetic restrictions from the e u.

Angling is better than politics, ban politics from angling.
 
Consumer of bass. where is the evidence that the u k bass stock need angling trust protection. Why won't you work with your peers instead of castigating them. They have the answer.

Recipie's for mullet stew more than welcomed.
 
Angling sanitation trust and kent and sussex sea anglers org delete's and blocks rsa's alternative opinion on their face book site. Although they claim to rep all.
 
new for 2014. where is the evidence that the south coast bream stock need the angling trust? Your campaign has no evidence. Why won't you work with your peers, the inshore under tens? As opposed to alienating them? Angling trust failed big time re bait digging, even fish legal attempted to intervene and failed, all for what, nothing.
 
Looks like the sea angling reps have been coerced by the ifca's to compose sea angling strategy's that the ifca's at some stage will look at drafting into legislation to manage the rsa, because  they like wasting tax payers money. That's without asking the rsa btw. You know who you are.. 


#7 H.A.

H.A.

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,407 posts
  • Location:An island between Selsey and Portsea Island
  • Interests:None

Posted 30 August 2007 - 11:07 PM

If the intention is to conserve bass stocks, then a system such as carcass tagging, which puts a cap on the total catch of bass, would be needed to supplement 'bag limits'.

Other conservation measures such as a review and expansion of 'Nursery Areas'
http://ukbass.com/se...shorerules.html and the introduction of a Close Season for all might be included.

The Bass Management Programme (BMP) makes 7 recommendations:-

1. Bass commercial licences - for the retention of bass.
2. Bass carcass tags - to cap effort, increase traceability and improve enforcement.
3. Bass bag limits - to limit the retention of bass by unlicensed fishermen and anglers and to aid detection and enforcement of illegal fishing.
4. Closed season - to protect spawning bass when they are vulnerable.
5. Increases in minimum landing size - to strengthen the brood stock.
6. Nursery area additional measures and enforcement - to protect juveniles.
7. Near-Shore netting restrictions - to protect our fragile coastal zones.

Ada

#8 glennk

glennk

    Member

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

Posted 31 August 2007 - 07:06 AM

3. Bass bag limits - to limit the retention of bass by unlicensed fishermen and anglers and to aid detection and enforcement of illegal fishing.


And I was wondering where the Commercials and sea fishery committees were getting these ideas from. Look no further, anglers planted the seeds and now spend all their timing trying to chop down the mutant seedlings.

#9 H.A.

H.A.

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,407 posts
  • Location:An island between Selsey and Portsea Island
  • Interests:None

Posted 31 August 2007 - 10:18 AM

Why would you oppose 'bag limits' per angler, Glennk??

I'm not keen on the idea, but how many recreational anglers actually catch 6, 12, 18 (?) bass above the MLS and retain them all??

And why would they want to keep more than say 4, if they wanted them for home consumption?

Makes me laugh, this one .... I reckon I can catch bass (PB 13-12-0) and a probably a hundred or so over 8 lbs; but I can't remember the last time I was faced with the dilemma of returning more than I needed (usually no more than one 4 lbs fish, if I'm lucky enough).

Bag limits apply in nearly every managed recreational fishery in the world and results are usually spectacular!

Well, come on .....

<_<

#10 barry luxton

barry luxton

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,345 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:rochester
  • Interests:Boat fishing and more boat fishing. Some times i have to go to work so it does interfere with my boat fishing, but not much.

Posted 31 August 2007 - 05:02 PM

2. Bass carcass tags - to cap effort, increase traceability and improve enforcement.
3. Bass bag limits - to limit the retention of bass by unlicensed fishermen and anglers and to aid detection and enforcement of illegal fishing.

Bass bag limits on the rsa.
Aid detection and enforcement. Can't agree to that purly on cost. At present there is no enforcement on any of the rsa activity regarding the bass. For the huge amount of effort and cost to the taxpayer for this item, the policing of any bylaw, it would be prohibative to the good that it will do.

Bass carassing, again i think this is the way forward, no one, commercial or 'angler' would be allowed to sell with out the carcass tag in place, solves the problem for me. That would definatly aid detection and control illegal fishing.

Sorry my reply is ars. about tit.

My pb is just under ten, the best i have done in one day ever is six decent bass from the wrecks. What is the point in restricting and policing that.

Edited by barry luxton, 31 August 2007 - 05:08 PM.

 Free to choose apart from the ones where the trust poked their nose in. Common eel. tope. Bass and sea bream. All restricted.

 
New for 2016 TAT are the main instigators for the demise of the u k bass charter boat industry, where they went screaming off to parliament and for the first time assisting so called angling gurus set up bass take bans with the e u using rubbish exaggerated info collected by ices from anglers, they must be very proud.

Upgrade, the door has been closed with regards to anglers being linked to the e u superstate and the failed c f p. So TAT will no longer need to pay monies to the EAA anymore as that org is no longer relevant to the u k . Goodbye to the europeon anglers alliance and pathetic restrictions from the e u.

Angling is better than politics, ban politics from angling.
 
Consumer of bass. where is the evidence that the u k bass stock need angling trust protection. Why won't you work with your peers instead of castigating them. They have the answer.

Recipie's for mullet stew more than welcomed.
 
Angling sanitation trust and kent and sussex sea anglers org delete's and blocks rsa's alternative opinion on their face book site. Although they claim to rep all.
 
new for 2014. where is the evidence that the south coast bream stock need the angling trust? Your campaign has no evidence. Why won't you work with your peers, the inshore under tens? As opposed to alienating them? Angling trust failed big time re bait digging, even fish legal attempted to intervene and failed, all for what, nothing.
 
Looks like the sea angling reps have been coerced by the ifca's to compose sea angling strategy's that the ifca's at some stage will look at drafting into legislation to manage the rsa, because  they like wasting tax payers money. That's without asking the rsa btw. You know who you are..