No Take Zones - Good for Anglers?

[Guest Leon Roskilly]

No Take Zones (NTZs) are areas of total protection. Nothing is allowed to be extracted, living or mineral, nothing is allowed to be dumped, sewage, effluent, anything at all.

 

New Zealand has introduced a number of NTZs, usually to protect an area where fish are particularly prevalent and/or vulnerable, such as a reef or spawning area.

 

The benefits of NTZs are felt a long way outside of the protected area. So much so that a number have been introduced at the request of commercial fishermen. Although they are not allowed to fish the area bounded by the NTZ, the quantity and quality of fish outside the immediate area, available for exploitation, is increased.

 

In campaigning for the introduction of NTZs in European waters, recreational sea anglers must be aware that they may also be excluded from the area.

 

To my mind, if it means giving up fishing one area, so that other areas become more productive, it's a fair trade-off.

 

However, NTZs are likely to encompass what presently proves to be the best fishing marks. Perhaps for some specialist anglers, the only mark worth fishing for perhaps 50 miles or more.

 

It could be argued that the catch of recreational anglers is so small, that it would make no real difference whether they are allowed to continue to fish these areas or not.

 

No doubt, commercial fishermen would counter that many so-called recreational angling boats take many more fish than the individual anglers' freezers could possibly hold. The 'surplus' finds its way onto the market undermining the prices paid to those making their living from the sea. (It is now illegal for boat anglers to sell their catch).

 

Perhaps making these areas strictly catch and release could be the answer.

 

Non-angling conservationists would argue that catch and release anglers would make such areas harder to police.

 

Twenty boats anchored up. Are they all practicing catch and release? The cost of policing the NTZs would soar.

 

Allowing catch and release recreational angling would seriously undermine and weaken the concept of No Take Zones. Perhaps there would then be an argument for only requiring certain species to be subject to catch and release, or perhaps a bag limit would apply.

 

Perhaps better to keep them strictly as they are meant to be. Areas of *TOTAL* protection.

 

So what do you think? Would you be willing to give up fishing your favourite mark if it meant increasing catches elsewhere? Or do you think that recreational anglers should fight tooth and nail for the right to fish NTZs, perhaps risking making them impractible or unworkable?

 

Tight Lines - leon

[Guest chris pledge]

NTZ's are one method of conservation that has been proved successful, others like artificial reefs also work - how do we get this message over to the right departments.

 

The Government recently pledged £250,000 to help set up a national biodiversity network to help wildlife; birds, animals, plants, insects - no mention of fish and the sea though?

 

Originally posted by Leon Roskilly:

No Take Zones (NTZs) are areas of total protection. Nothing is allowed to be extracted, living or mineral, nothing is allowed to be dumped, sewage, effluent, anything at all.

[Guest Roger.Baker]

I would like to see the introduction of NTZ's, which would fall into two categories:

 

1. Those that can be fished (including catch and release) by recreational anglers and atisans. From the shoreline around the whole of the UK, extending outwards for 12 miles.

 

2. Those that cannot be fished by anyone. Large tracts of water, beyond 12 miles, which cover important habitat and spawning areas (as identified).

 

The great majority of people employed in the commercial fishing industry in Britain, are land-based processors of, mainly imported and farmed fish. The major share of 'prime' fish, caught by British (over 10m )boats, whose crews form the minority in the industry, are exported for consumption in Europe. A 'bone of contention' with European fleets?

 

A concession to the EEC and CFP; that Britain

ceases to export fish from EEC waters, in return for 'No Take Zones', including the 12 mile limit?

 

The recreational zone covered by a '12 mile limit' would create vastly more employment and tangible eco-socio benefits, than it currently affords from commercial exploitation. To the UK economy, the contribution (?) formed by exporting seafish stocks, is insignificant. The full impact, of the loss of the coastal zone, has yet to be realised, economically (tackle trade and tourism) and socially (outdoor recreation in open spaces).

[frankthebass]

Six years ago and the topics have not changed much have thay?

[Snatcher]

Works for me A quick Rexy and bye. The way to go. mind you I do keep the odd bass but if in a resticted area no probs

 

Just enjoy the planning/stalking/the fight all fish can go back for me. Its the challenge that pulls my string

[Jim Roper]

On land, out and out preservation just leads to an increase in vermin species.

Don't know what would happen under water.

Would 'No Take' mean preserving cormorants?

 

FISH ARE FOR EATING!

[Snatcher]

On land, out and out preservation just leads to an increase in vermin species.

Don't know what would happen under water.

Would 'No Take' mean preserving cormorants?

 

FISH ARE FOR EATING!

No the black death are for shooting Being an ex trout man I know the score. DDDIEEEEEEEEE

 

Mind you if they were endangered would change my stance - honest team.

 

How do you feel about seal numbers? Every other time I fish on the Mull of Galloway Sammy pops his heed up

 

A Yozuri Aile magnet 18g off his forehead normally sends out the right message.

 

Actually I am an ok caster. Last June was at Terally for sunriser/bass popping.

 

Sammy turned up at about 40yds! first cast bounced my popper off his head. About 30 mins and 2 bass later the fool poked his head up again! I am sure I hit the same spot

 

Mind you live and let live but keep out of my swim.

 

Bye the way love seals - "in the right place"

[mr motorola]

On land, out and out preservation just leads to an increase in vermin species.

Don't know what would happen under water.

Would 'No Take' mean preserving cormorants?

 

FISH ARE FOR EATING!

Nice reply jim and yes FISH ARE FOR EATING

 

I personally (my opinion) don't think anything like that will ever happen , and seeing that this post started years ago, it looks like nothing has been implemented since that 1st warning to protect the species

 

If the seas WERE that bad and at an all time low ,then SURELY all the talk would stop and the action would start? (Government and EU)

 

I hope i'm right , but maybe i'm wrong ..... Who honestly knows???

[Stoaty]

Don't want them. We already have bass nursery areas around here. I don't want anymore places I can't fish.

[mr motorola]

Don't want them. We already have bass nursery areas around here. I don't want anymore places I can't fish.

Edited October 28, 2006 by mr motorola