Bag Limits for Devon?

[glennk]

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 .....

 

 

I'm sure your right I dont know any Bass angler who takes home sacks of fish or has any desire to, but do these spectacular fisheries you mention have DEFRA, The EU And Their commercial fishermen all working at tangents and to the detriment of the stock. Your willingness to trade anything should only come when those three show willingness to head towards a SPECTACULAR Fishery.

 

I actually don't know any unlicensed fishermen, poachers or whatever else they are termed, although I have heard they do exist, but lets not forget there is already a law to deal with these people, that law should be used.

 

Angling Reps are all to eager to give away everything in return for nothing, I think a lot of them realised the errors of your ways now, but the sea fisheries committees seem to want to beat them with their own stick and to be honest from my perspective its a beating they brought on themselves.

 

My Pb is around 2 pounds and was 40cm long ans is one of around 6 Bass I caught in my entire life.

Edited August 31, 2007 by glennk

[steve good]

The French are wearing down the bass stocks we will soon not need to worry what uk commercails or so called sport anglers catch because it will not be there to catch and all this wingeing about who catches what and who spends more money on this or that will not be worth talking about

 

Does defra or the goverment care of corse not you anglers will spend your money on something else they will not lose out nobody cares or is interested in what happens to our fisheries to many self-interests at play

[H.A.]

Angling Reps are all to eager to give away everything in return for nothing ...

 

Who? Where, When?

 

That's the trouble, we don't have any Angling Reps.

 

Sea anglers sit at home, at keyboards, on piers, on the beach and whinge !

That's all they do.

 

Listen to yourself ..... the 'EU And Their commercial fishermen', DEFRA, SFCs' and now "Angling Reps are all to eager to give away everything in return for nothing ...".

 

Glenn, you are an 'Angling Rep' .... you're perfect; you represent the ineffectual majority amongst us.

 

You've got a dozen or twenty dedicated sea anglers who stand up for their own views about the dire position sea angling is in. Reps they're not.

They don't represent your views, because you don't want them to.

 

They, however, stand up to Defra, commercial organisations, SFCs when necessary. They speak as they see it and for the good of their sea angling.

 

What do they achieve?

 

Not a lot! What do you expect?

 

You whinge and bleat at everything and everyone who dares to speak up about our sport/pastime. Coastal Policy Division at Defra laughs at us every time we want a piece of information or make a suggestion. They know who has the 'clout' and it ain't you or me.

 

Now go back to your desk and rip everything I have said to bits; then ask yourself -

"If I'm so discontent with what's being done/not done, what am I gonna do about it?"

(Don't let me answer that!)

 

I'm lucky, I've had 50 years of glorious fishing and soon my days will be up.

 

But, fer koofs sake, I worry about who and how much you'll be paying in 20 years for an afternoon's mullet fishing in a private, disused, converted marina!!!

 

[barry luxton]

Sea anglers sit at home, at keyboards, on piers, on the beach and whinge !

That's all they do.

 

 

 

 

 

I used to just go boat fishing for about 35 years, now i have to spend time in front of the computer whinging when i read about what defra wants to help the rsa out with. If i didn't before too long i think defra would help me in not spending my money on my hobby. I also bother to write to the odd sfc when they come out with pathetic proposals, so that makes me feel better and respond to the odd consultation.

 

I fear for the bass stock, not because of the french but for the inaction of defra.

 

Don't surrender yet H A

[H.A.]

I confess that 2 1/2 years sitting on a SFC (voluntary) and involving 150 mile round trips, sometimes 3 times a month is beginning to grate.

 

My motivation for bothering at all was my love, dedication and indulgence in sea angling. I fight 'like buggeree' for exclusion zones from gill nets, trawlers and dredgers within 3 miles of our shoreline and we are making progress on this in SSFDC (Hants, and Dorset).

I've lost sleep over the tope Byelaw and now I'm in the process of introducing a Byelaw to protect spurdog from the ravages of longliners off Weymouth (and throughout the UK). I fish ('cos I love it!) at all hours in conjunction with researchers from Southampton Oceanographic Institute and I go to bruddy Whitehall whenever I can to chew a few 'Defrans' up!

 

Because of my passion and outspokenness I've been thrown out of WSF (no one can tell me why? But I've given them reason enough now!), criticised by dozens for daring to speak out and attend bureaucratic-style meetings (which I hate!), chastised by angling pals and derided by the commercials.

 

What for?

 

Dunno!

 

But I've had enough.

 

Edited September 1, 2007 by H.A.

[barry luxton]

I confess that 2 1/2 years sitting on a SFC (voluntary) and involving 150 mile round trips, sometimes 3 times a month is beginning to grate.

 

My motivation for bothering at all was my love, dedication and indulgence in sea angling. I fight 'like buggeree' for exclusion zones from gill nets, trawlers and dredgers within 3 miles of our shoreline and we are making progress on this in SSFDC (Hants, and Dorset).

I've lost sleep over the tope Byelaw and now I'm in the process of introducing a Byelaw to protect spurdog from the ravages of longliners off Weymouth (and throughout the UK). I fish ('cos I love it!) at all hours in conjunction with researchers from Southampton Oceanographic Institute and I go to bruddy Whitehall whenever I can to chew a few 'Defrans' up!

 

Because of my passion and outspokenness I've been thrown out of WSF (no one can tell me why? But I've given them reason enough now!), criticised by dozens for daring to speak out and attend bureaucratic-style meetings (which I hate!), chastised by angling pals and derided by the commercials.

 

What for?

 

Dunno!

 

But I've had enough.

 

 

I have been going to Weymouth a lot for a few years now and i can't remember the last time i even saw a spurdog. You carry on and get your bylaw H A you never know it might just make a diffrence.

[H.A.]

Re: Spurdogs.

 

They are being caught in mid-Channel by British longliners and landed in French ports for the French market.

 

[barry luxton]

Re: Spurdogs.

 

They are being caught in mid-Channel by British longliners and landed in French ports for the French market.

 

 

Oh, thats just like the bass breeding stock in the channel islands. These are the ones that move out into the english channel whats left of them. They are targeted when they shoal up to breed and are caught on mass and shipped to france with the over quota balance transhipped and sent to brixham, ligitimatly according to defra. When the stock gets low defra might consider protecting them but it will take a long time to recover i fear.

Edited September 1, 2007 by barry luxton

[dartangler]

H.A. I know how you feel! Hang in there though!

I have read with concern the comments on this and other sites since Leon saw fit to publish the details of what was an edited newspaper version of Chris Venmore's views. I note Leon that you have since used this as an opportunity to elsewhere air your own personal views on the related subjects!

To Barry, I say that as a Member of Devon SFC, as a lifelong RSA and game angler, as a conservationist and in recent months as an active commercial, having invested heavily to purchase with my partners both a suitable vessel and a hugely expensive license to permit me to lawfully sell fish if I want, I will note with interest what transpires from the letter to Devon SFC that you have openly published!

At this stage, I would like to try in this one forum, where I think there is generally a modicum of common sense, to set straight a few issues that have been misrepresented in some of the posts here and elsewhere.

Firstly I would say to Glenn , Devon SFC, has not in my opinion, I only joined them last year, been biased in favour of commercials or indeed any other faction. I suggest that you look at the terms of reference for appointees for guidance on this and impartiality. In point of fact on Devon SFC, many of the commercial representatives and indeed several of the Council representatives are active RSA's and any issue that has affected RSA's has been very fairly treated in my limited experience.

Secondly the issue of Bag Limits (raised by DEFRA) was discussed in Committee some months ago and dismissed! Members present, including David Rowe from the NFSA, and I suggested it should only be looked at as a possible part of an overall package of measures affecting all sectors.

Thirdly, Chris Venmore, who has unfairly received a great deal of unwarranted criticism across a number of sites, is an outstanding Chairman of the SFC. I know him well personally and can state with a great deal of confidence that he is a true friend of all genuine RSA's and works tirelessly to see that in his area they get the best possible deal within the confines of current inadequate legislation and funding.

Fourthly, to those that may doubt it, there is a huge problem in this area with alleged RSA's illegally selling their catch, not just bass, but pollack, cod and other species that are inevitably caught when wreck fishing and cannot readily be returned to the sea. In the case of bass (not necessarily those caught on the offshore wrecks, that do blow) the issue is clearly one of money. Boating is an expensive business and the temptation is always there to try to offset this. I make no apology for currently fishing for bass for profit myself; I am expensively licensed to do so and for one of my partners this is a major source of his income! At the current time, there appears a locally good stock of bass of many different sizes, dependent on the marks I fish. This week I have concentrated on the smaller bass, which are the ones my buyers most request. Many of the marks are well known and I am pleased to fish them in company with other boats of all types. It is good to see locals and visitors, particularly the young children catching fish and enjoying the sport. However perhaps somebody can explain to me why it is when I arrive at marks, often before dawn, there are the same unregistered boats already there and they are there day after long day, catching bass in huge numbers with great regularity! They are not returning them to the sea! I will not give you the gory details of our recent catches at these marks , but they are substantial, even though today for instance we returned over 30 of the smaller undersize fish and any that neared that mark. We set our own personal minimum size level above the statutory minimum size. That should give some indication of the level of catch of these alleged RSA’s fishing alongside us, who don’t seem to be putting many back! Some of these individuals are well known to me, some are well known in the angling world, as Members of Sea Angling Clubs, where they win awards for their angling efforts. Come on, get real, we all know what they are doing!

I am aware that Chris has received numerous complaints about illegal fishing from both the commercial sector, who see their livelihood threatened by those who undermine the market and the genuine RSA world, who see the errant individuals undermining the RSA status. I know and share with him the deficiencies of the current legislative system. My background is as a senior police officer. I have discussed with Chris and the Devon Chief Fisheries Officer, what can be done to help solve this problem, in which some of the problems stem from funding issues, others from the various jurisdictions of the various bodies involved in policing the issue, ranging from the SFC, EA and of course the MFA, who have a key role in enforcing the Buyers and Sellers legislation. Given my past experience, I am only too aware of the standard of proof required for successful prosecution, and both DSFC and the MFA have my deepest sympathy for being inadequately equipped both in resources and more importantly in legislative tools to perform their statutory duties. There are real issues here for DEFRA and the politicians and I hope you have all made appropriate submissions in respect of the possible forthcoming Marine Bill.

In this particular case, Chris Venmore, faced with mounting pressure for the Devon SFC to do something, has I believe expressed his personal opinion on the need for a byelaw tool to assist the Devon SFC Officers to at least try more effectively to police the problem. It is not, to my personal knowledge, yet again an agenda item for the Devon SFC, as a whole, to consider anew. I personally doubt that, if it did appear again, it would receive anything other than the response it received last time. But that is no reason at all for genuine anglers to start criticising Chris for his opinion, he merely exposes an ongoing problem.

Personally I will be doing my best to encourage both the SFC and MFA to adopt a more proactive preventive stance, such as the recent local checks on both RSA's and commercial sector in respect of undersize fish, together with MFA checks on buyers. At the same time I believe that a local prosecution is well overdue on illegal RSA sales and purchase and will be encouraging them in that direction.

These are crucial times for a sustainable fishery for future generations of both anglers and commercial fishermen to enjoy. I would suggest to all that rather than continuing to foster ill- informed comments that seem to want to try to divide both factions, we should all be working more closely together to try to influence both DEFRA and the politicians.

Pressure on my personal time, means that I will not be entering into debate on this subject within this forum, albeit I will be active on the coal face. My apologies in advance to anyone who might wish me to do so!

[Leon Roskilly]

David,

 

Thanks for your contribution.

 

Galling as it is to see anyone breaking the law and getting away with it, we don't search everyone leaving a shop to see if they may be carrying goods for which they haven't paid.

 

There are laws that can be used to prosecute those commercially fishing without a licence (ie fishing with the intention of selling their catch).

 

And I fully appreciate that there are difficulties in obtaining the necessary proof to bring about a successful prosecution. But to change the law to assume that anyone in possession of an arbitrary number of bass is a criminal, is not the way to tackle the problem.

 

However, in some circumstances, bag limits for anglers can be a useful conservation tool for species in need of protection.

 

But with bass, any attempt to introduce further conservation measures is countered with the claim that bass is being fished 'sustainably' (albeit some of this effort is unlicensed).

 

Indeed there is no quota (apart from a 5 tonne per week per vessel landing limit!) or any cap on effort on the species.

 

i.e. there is no reasonable limit on the number of fish that can be landed by any vessel, and no limit to the number of licensed vessels that can choose to target bass, especially when struggling to find fish and quota for other species, a situation which is likely to increase even more.

 

So, a general bag limit on all anglers to make it easier to prosecute a relative few unlicensed commercials, when compared to the practically unlimited overall commercial effort on the species, is like **** in the wind, as far as conservation is concerned.

 

Introduction of regulations to prevent trawling at speeds likely to catch bass, in shallow areas where large quantities of undersized fish are probable, and increasing the mesh size of nets, would at a stroke do far more for bass conservation than any regulation to impose bag limits on bona fide recreational sea anglers.

 

(The current level of discarding of undersized bass by trawlers trawling in areas where they know that they will hit a large number of undersized fish must far exceed the catches of unlicensed rod and line fishermen)

 

And if the species is in such need of protection that bag limits for anglers is necessary for conservation reasons, then that MUST be accompanied by a meaningful cap on total effort, both commercially and recreationally, otherwise there is no point.

 

As part of an overall package of needed conservation measures, applied proportionately to both commercial and recreational catches, reasonable bag limits would be far more acceptable to many anglers.

 

But introduced as a stand alone measure simply to reserve catches and preserve the market of a practically unrestricted commercial fishery, such restrictions on the freedoms of the recreational sector would be scandalous.

 

(Remember even if introduced as a reasonable bag limit of say ten bass per angler, it would then be far easier to revise the limit downward later perhaps to 3, 2 1 zero fish perhaps by others with a different agenda).

 

Such a dangerous proposition shouldn't be readily accepted by anglers (or fishery managers) without some substantial quid pro quo conservation measures as part of an overall package to benefit the fishery for everyone.

 

Indeed, the Prime Ministers Strategy Unit Net Benefits Report strongly suggested that bass should be reserved as a recreational species.

 

Instead, bag limits for anglers simply to preserve the market of licensed commercial sellers of bass, without any overall cap on effort or market, or a substantial and worthwhile conservation package, would seem to turn the idea on its head and lead to bass becoming the first species reserved for commercials, with only strictly limited access granted to recreational sea anglers!

 

Yes, I can see where Chris is coming from simply from an enforcement perspective, and sympathise with his frustration, but surely he realises that in suggesting bag limits for anglers, there are more fundamental issues that need to be addressed, and an overall package promoted that could actually be welcomed by anglers and the many businesses that rely on the angling sector.

 

Could it be that he shies away from suggesting such an overall package in fear of reaction from the commercial sector?

Edited September 2, 2007 by Leon Roskilly