golden mile

[Leon Roskilly]

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.

 

Steve,

 

Byelaws are required to prohibit the setting of nets that aren't fixed, otherwise nets which aren't fixed can be set anywhere within 6 miles if there is no byelaw prohibiting them.

 

Nets that are fixed are illegal with six miles unless there is an enabling byelaw that makes them legal.

 

(It can get very confusing when looking at 2 sets of byelaws for netting, one which prohibits non-fixed netting, the other that enables fixed netting, as they tend to be mirror images of each other ie (say) non-fixed netting prohibited 1st jun to 30th Sept, fixed netting allowed 1st Oct to 31st May, same with mesh sizes, areas etc)

 

But if there is no byelaw enabling the setting of fixed nets at a certain time, place etc., then by default they are illegal.

Edited March 3, 2008 by Leon Roskilly

[steve pitts]

Thanks for clarifying that Leon

 

It's all rather academic anyway since you can't catch a bass of more than 2lb from this mark anymore. Which is a shame because it used to produce doubles, 8's and 9's with regularity.

 

I can't understand where all those big bass have gone

[H.A.]

I can't understand where all those big bass have gone

 

[wurzel]

 

 

 

I suppose you wouldn't consider that two generations of constant angling would have accounted for several, perhaps just as many.

[barry luxton]

I suppose you wouldn't consider that two generations of constant angling would have accounted for several, perhaps just as many.

 

 

I would consider these guys first.

 

http://ukbass.com/2008/01/everyone-loses.html

 

Same article different sorce, in this one the skippers complains about lack of pollack, but goes on to admit that they have caught it all.

 

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/displa...e=sidebarsearch

 

This bit made me smile, he went out on a thirty mile trip to catch pollack but made a ten pound loss. If he took ten anglers out on that same trip he would have earned upto 500 quid, even if they had caught none of the pollack that he has already caught.

 

Correct me if i'm wrong, is this the bass stock that is being fished on a sustainable basis.

Edited March 5, 2008 by barry luxton

[H.A.]

I suppose you wouldn't consider that two generations of constant angling would have accounted for several, perhaps just as many - Wurzel

 

Of course I would consider it; then I'd laugh a lot, were it not also a sad indictment of the greed of the many and the incompetence of the few.

 

One of our gill netters and one of our licensed rod and liners could catch more bass in a day than I have in fifty years!!

 

I guess I'm no good at it, which is why I get a bigger kick out of catching and returning one 13 lber than looking at my wage packet after a week of plunder.

 

[hastfish]

loverly pictures of nets them.one big point though do you think they sit like that? i wish by the time tide,weed,and general human waste hit them they stand less than a third of there full height.the only time they stand up is high,low water slack so not for long.but i do dissagree with nets shot as close as the pictures.but no one seems to have come up with a sensible distance that they want commercials to keep out ,1 mile will never happen.so what would be the compermise 500m,1000m back of low water ?certain areas shut to nets . even i would like to see trawling stopped with in 2miles of the shore.but we have got to work together and come up with some answers all the gov will do is make things worse for everyone.

[H.A.]

Hi Hasty

 

Glad you like my pictures .... they were an abstract I did earlier.

 

It doesn't really do them justice, try these:

 

 

 

In case you thought I was totally against them and their users, I can do a nice leetle number like this -

 

 

50m x 3m at a measly £50 to you my boy!

 

[hastfish]

there all well and good an weve all seen them before,illeagle set nets,lost driftnets ect.were not allout to destroy the enviroment.and we dont all haul up birds, sharks[never had one].if you put nets down illeagilly and dont do them regually in shallow water i would expect to see diving birds,90% of our fishing locally is done in 30_40ft of water.we see them regually shot out from angling boats on saturdays back of the rocks then unable to get back to them cos of breeze on the sunday picked up days later rolled up with dead fish,cormerants,guilimots ect.even had them over lobster pots in 20ft water 5o yards of under the cliffs.also the beachpeggers, even shallower,so you cant scream commercials every time you see a bit of gillnet.so come on befair and try to come up with sollutions to the problems we are all facing or anglers will disapear just like commercials trying to earn a living.

[barry luxton]

loverly pictures of nets them.one big point though do you think they sit like that? i wish by the time tide,weed,and general human waste hit them they stand less than a third of there full height.the only time they stand up is high,low water slack so not for long.but i do dissagree with nets shot as close as the pictures.but no one seems to have come up with a sensible distance that they want commercials to keep out ,1 mile will never happen.so what would be the compermise 500m,1000m back of low water ?certain areas shut to nets . even i would like to see trawling stopped with in 2miles of the shore.but we have got to work together and come up with some answers all the gov will do is make things worse for everyone.

 

Hiyer hastfish, i do appreciate your fair posts that you put on here. I'm pleased to see that you appear to be a commercial who does care for our fish stocks with the knowledge that if it goes tit's up you'll be out of work and the rsa won't have a hobby. I have posted previous that the inshore boats and the rsa have been left with the scraps after the big boys have their share and this certainly is an area of conflict that has been manufactured by others. I don't really have a strong opinion on the distance from shore or whatever 'cept as long as it is sensible and not taking the 'p' At the end of the day, if it continues to be a 'problem' then the likes of defra will intervene. Lord knows what the outcome of that will be.