RSA Representation

[H.A.]

OK, so at great risk of 'thread-napping', here's a suggestion:

 

Recreational anglers are a pretty ragged group of individuals.

 

Many of us fish because we like to be solitary, like to tackle the elements, like to give our 'hunter gatherer' instincts some free rein.

 

Others like the social or the competitive side and some fish for the 'pot'.

 

So collectively, what do we want?

What do we have in common; what would we like to see changed?

 

I spend a lot of time, effort, money and words on what I believe in for angling in general and sea angling in particular and yes, I do get involved and emotive about the issues as I see them.

 

Then, having got the ball rolling from my own point of view, I find fellow anglers (as well as a good few with other motives!) knocking every move I make on protecting bass, tope, smoothhounds, rays and spurdogs. As well as making my voice felt to MPs, Ministers, my SFC and Defra on Nursery areas, No Take Zones, inshore netting, beaming and dredging, funding ................ .

 

Then there are the national bodies .... NFSA, SACN, BASS, NMC and more recently NUBA.

None of them can do anything without grass roots support, unity and strong memberships.

 

Government has recently cut off UKSport funds to NFSA and other angling bodies.

Reason?

Well, wouldn't tax payers rather spend their cash on Beijing in 2008 and London 2012???

 

As a comparison, from 2006 -2009, Handball will receive £2.99million, Shooting will get £4.8million, Wrestling £1.99million, Taekwando £2.28million and Judo a whopping £5.5million!!!!!

 

Sea angling will see not one penny of your taxpayers money!

So, why don't we start by identifying those areas of sea angling we'd most like Government to show some concerns about.

 

SEA ANGLING - KEY ISSUES:

 

I'll set the ball rolling -

 

Near-Shore netting restrictions - to protect our fragile coastal zones.

[barry luxton]

SEA ANGLING - KEY ISSUES:

 

I'll set the ball rolling -

 

Near-Shore netting restrictions - to protect our fragile coastal zones.

 

Don't know if it fits in here but it sounds a rather cheap option for what could be a good return for the stock for all.

 

 

 

GILL TAGGING

[wurzel]

I spend a lot of time, effort, money and words on what I believe in for angling in general and sea angling in particular and yes, I do get involved and emotive about the issues as I see them.

 

Then, having got the ball rolling from my own point of view, I find fellow anglers (as well as a good few with other motives!) knocking every move I make on protecting bass, tope, smoothhounds, rays and spurdogs. As well as making my voice felt to MPs, Ministers, my SFC and Defra on Nursery areas, No Take Zones, inshore netting, beaming and dredging, funding ................ .

 

I'll set the ball rolling -

 

Near-Shore netting restrictions - to protect our fragile coastal zones.

 

Hello H.A

 

[Edited]

 

I have been a commercial fisherman for the last 30 years an angler for many more, I deal in facts as I have experienced them, not anglers misconceptions.

 

[Edited]

 

So lets start with the inshore gill netting.

 

How is banning gill nets going to protect our fragile coast line? What damage does it do?

A gill net properly used is one of the most selective non destructive of commercial fishing activities.

 

In an earlier post you blame nets set 200 yards from the beach for your lack of fish to catch, I know that if I came along and shot some nets 100 yards inside of those nets the chances are I would catch fish, so why can't you?

What is the total mileage of the UK's coast line? several 1000 miles, if you add up the few places nets are set close enough to shore to bother anglers it amounts to a very tiny proportion of the over all coast line, Banning them won't make much difference over all, small local bits perhaps, but then are you being greedy? want all the fish to your selves and to hell with some body making small living from the area.

 

[Edited]

Edited September 16, 2007 by John S

[barry luxton]

Quote edited

 

 

Mornin Wurzel, why is that, it would sort out the lying cheats who sell illegally who ever they are and the better than that the lying cheats who recieve.

Edited September 16, 2007 by John S

[steve pitts]

So lets start with the inshore gill netting.

 

How is banning gill nets going to protect our fragile coast line? What damage does it do?

A gill net properly used is one of the most selective non destructive of commercial fishing activities.

 

The problem is Wurzel, that not every gill netter (or very few) is as conscienceous and as skilled as you.

 

300m of gill net set in a 2 metre-deep bay, less than 50 metres from shore, still there at low water, now sagging in water less than 1 metre deep.

 

Is this selective, or perhaps the netter was out to catch doggies and wrasse?

Edited September 16, 2007 by steve pitts

[wurzel]

Mornin Wurzel, why is that, it would sort out the lying cheats who sell illegally who ever they are and the better than that the lying cheats who recieve.

 

Hello Barry

 

Please explain how?

 

How many gill tags would a French pair team be issued with? how many are you thinking of issuing to UK fishermen? would farm bass have to have gill tags?

Or are you thinking of just a select few be issued a hand full of tags reducing the industry to just a minute cottage industry? How do you pick the select few? How do you stop surplus tags being handed out or even sold on e bay.

[wurzel]

The problem is Wurzel, that not every gill netter (or very few) is as conscienceous and as skilled as you.

 

300m of gill net set in a 2 metre-deep bay, less than 50 metres from shore, still there at low water, now sagging in water less than 1 metre deep.

 

Is this selective, or perhaps the netter was out to catch doggies and wrasse?

 

Hello Steve

 

I mean selective in size of fish, it's a bit more difficult to be species selective, it can be done up to a point, there are just so many spotty dogs on the grounds that it is difficult not to catch some no matter what gear you use.

 

The net you mention being only 300 meters suggests a part-timer or hobby netter or even a poacher after a sea trout, there are cases of commercial fishermen setting nets for pot bait such as wrasse, some thing I'm not familiar with or condone, the potters in my area don't.

[H.A.]

Dear Wurzel

 

Thank you for your kind words.

 

Since your intellect appears to have run off with you, I'll re-state the suggestion I made in the post -

 

So, why don't we start by identifying those areas of sea angling we'd most like Government to show some concerns about.

 

SEA ANGLING - KEY ISSUES:

 

If you have no contribution to make, then surely even you can work out the required response.

 

Do feel free to contact me by PM if my comments regarding some commercial activities do not find favour with you.

 

Could I further suggest you take up your own idea to lay your nets 100 yards inside other set nets. Perhaps take this a stage further and have set pathways for beamers to follow over the sea-bed ... sorta 'Keep off the Grass' kindee thing, eh?

 

It's nice that you guys are capable of thinking up such conservation measures. Full marks!

 

[barry luxton]

Hello Barry

 

Please explain how?

 

How many gill tags would a French pair team be issued with? how many are you thinking of issuing to UK fishermen? would farm bass have to have gill tags?

Or are you thinking of just a select few be issued a hand full of tags reducing the industry to just a minute cottage industry? How do you pick the select few? How do you stop surplus tags being handed out or even sold on e bay.

 

Hi Wurzel, thanks for the responce. Not interested in what the french get up to. That is for thier goverment and the eu to sort. I'm talking about getting our house in order. Namely the hidden amount for example of bass that goes into the market by the back door. Apparently it's quite serious down in devon according to commercial and the local sfc sources. As the value to the commercial sector is say 7.5 mill per year, i,m talking about the hidden one's on top. That the commercial sector and also the rsa complain about. No boni-fide commercial wants this black trade and the rsa certainly don't want to be labeld as illegal unlicenced commercial sellers, i hope, so the way of controlling it would be to tag the bass landed.

 

First of all it would increase the value of the take, if no one can sell without a tag. They could be very easily coded, colour or numbers and whoever decides to get rid of the tags illegally then it could be traced back. The tags to match the invoices. In addition they will be easy to trace in the supply chain. Make sure the fines are adequate for the cheats who try to sell the tags after they have been issued with them. It would not matter how many defra issue subject to controlling the stock, if required. Defra would issue only to registered commercial fisherman. Any premises holding bass stock or selling without tags to be taken to court, make sure the fines are even more. I understand that trading standards find it very easy to check if a fish is farmed or not,there has already been cases where supermarkets have tried to pass the fish as wild and found to be not the case. So farmed fish do not require tagging. The punter would also know what they are buying and it has come from a sustainable stock.

Edited September 16, 2007 by barry luxton

[wurzel]

Hello Barry

 

Sounds like a logistical nightmare, right up DEFRA's street I suppose.

 

So will UK merchants be banned from buying French untagged bass?

 

A lot of black bass are sold to the Chinese communities how would it be possible to prove they didn't catch the fish themselves? That is if there is the man power to go and check every Chinese house old fridge freezer.