Jump to content

golden mile


hastfish

Recommended Posts

so were do we all begin then. there is already talk of banning towing of chainmats over a large area of sussex sea bed.quite a few netsman would like to see this and a lot agree that the damage they do is almost irreversible.static nets dont do the damage to the ground that they do nor potters so were do you call a halt.we all dont have huge towing boats so wich ones would u throw out.alot of smaller boats are single handed, work enough gear to make a wage[not a living any more]and work close in because of this.so how far out would anglers like to see them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 Mile (as in the golden mile) would do nicely sir.

 

In reality - I have experienced on numerous occasions (30 or more times) gill nets set in very shallow water, within casting range of a plug (a lure weighing about 28 grams). So that would be around 40 metres from the shore.

 

I have even been fishing and a commercial from Weymouth arrives and proceeds to set a net directly infront of me - again, within casting (and swearing) range.

 

netter1.jpg

Sets net at 6:30am

 

netter2a.jpg

recovers net (+ bass, mullet, wrasse and crabs) 24 hours later

 

 

I have no hesitation in suggesting that a minimum of 500 metres from the shoreline and around piers/ jetties would be an appropriate distance to set a no netting demarkation zone along with the complete closure of estuaries to all forms of netting, except for strictly licenced research activities.

 

Trawling should be banned within 1 mile.

Edited by steve pitts
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That weymouth boat looked like it was beached. :lol:

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..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what are your local by laws regarding set nets and how deep is it there.does seem close.

 

When the video (from which the above stills were taken) was shot, there were no byelaws to prohibit the setting of fixed nets in this area. The fact that this took place within the bounderies of the Purbeck Marine Reserve, was even more galling.

http://www.coastlink.org/kimmeridge/

 

The depth of water varies from 3 meters at HW springs to dry at LW springs.

 

You're right - it was close (as per my earlier post).

Edited by steve pitts
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The depth of water varies from 3 meters at HW springs to dry at LW springs.

 

Southern Sea Fisheries Byelaws prohibit the following:

 

The setting of fixed engines (nets etc) other than fyke (eel) nets from 1 April to 30th Sept in -

Poole Harbour

Keyhaven

Lymington

Test and Itchen

River Meon

Lyme Bay

(limits defined in the Byelaw)

...... unless the headline of every fixed engine is set at least 3 metres below the surface of the water at any state of the tide or the fixed engine does not interfere with the migration of salmon or sea trout and permission has been given by the CFO.

 

To be honest that appears to make any gill/tangle net illegal in water that is not deeper than the depth of net + 3metres!

 

<_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

To be honest that appears to make any gill/tangle net illegal in water that is not deeper than the depth of net + 3metres!

 

I think it reads that the byelaw is only enforceable within those areas - most of which are salmonid specific.

 

Everywhere else is open season :angry: .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sussex regs are1.5 mt below the water at any state of tide,and that is a fair way out for our boats we also have ski buoys,that we have to be back of with nets,not pots.most of the time in our area its parttimers,hobby boats that try to push this and never seem to get tugged by the fisheries as there out and back before there finished checking us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason for having a minimum depth of water over the headline is that ALL 'fixed engines' (ie anchored gillnets) are illegal within 6 miles, under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975.

 

ie these rules are to protect migratory salmon and trout (which pass at the top of the water column).

 

However, Sea Fisheries Committees are able to make enabling byelaws which give permission for fixed nets to be placed at times and locations and in ways that will not interfere with the passage of migratory fish, hence the point about the headline being at a certain depth at all states of the tide.

 

If enabling byelaws are allowing nets to be set where they do impact on the passage of salmon and trout, then the Environment Agency can require the SFC to modify or extinguish the byelaw.

 

If fixed nets are being set where they are not covered by an enabling byelaw, or not according to the conditions of an enabling byelaw, or where there is evidence that they are interfering with the passage of salmon and or sea trout, then the Environment Agency will usually act, even if the SFC officers are inclined to turn a blind eye.

Edited by Leon Roskilly

RNLI Shoreline Member

Member of the Angling Trust

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We and our partners use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences, repeat visits and to show you personalised advertisements. By clicking “I Agree”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit Cookie Settings to provide a controlled consent.