roryh

Ah lighten up!!

Grow up! That sort of attitude is why we are all in the mess we are.

Who was it campaigned against a usefull mls, etc?

Bugger working for a living, can i have a job?

I believe he went to the 'Robert Maxwell business school (Swimming extra-curiculum)'

Now now we're not all like that

Must admit that i'd rather see the rules bent a bit than 5 tonne of fish wasted, that would make no sense at all!

dont know about commercially but there are always good numbers of small whelks in the dropnets when crabbing

grab a grot night?

Tell them to hurry the fek up before gordon brown nicks it, he likes pensions he does! bloody pirate

Billfish? cant afford a boat so i'm blowing up me armbands!

--> QUOTE(Norm B @ Feb 11 2007, 10:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> When I was on fishery protection off Iceland we took shelter in a fjiord during a blizzard. Using frozen herring I caught several halibut between 15lb and 25lb, only to find out later that they were below the minimum landing size. The Icelandics certainly look after their fish stocks. Bloody hell! 25lb below mls, knew they were big buggers but that surprises me (never seeen one whole)

If i understand correctly, once full one of the pair heads for port while the third boat becomes the vacant half of the pair. How many vessels can proced in this manner i have no clue.

Thanks cornish, dont suppose you know a good way of cooking 'em as i always catch loads when i take the kids crabbing?

I bloody well would! £100 do i get a refund if i blank as is highly likely due to the depleted fish stocks? Seriously though i firmly believe that to initially charge for a license before any improvement comes about would kill the sportand we are trying to run before we can walk. I know that the money has to come from somewhere but isn't that what DEFRA are for when they sort it all out, i mean one crowd get a free license the other lot are held to ransom '£100 or there'll be no more fish' We need an improvement in stocks and catches before we can justify charges .

Aaah c'mon a lot of that goes on from both sides theres more to this debate than two groups sitting slagging each other off, no matter what the subject this is how it always seems to degenerate. I think, in fact i am sure that properly managed and sustainable fisheries would bnefit us all in the long term, the only point to debate is in which way we go about achieving this. For both groups to start off on the defensive just leads to mud slinging and the good poiints which are made get ignored. I find the comment about trashing commercials for selfish greed to be absolute rubbish from my point of view, if i am being selfish and greedy by wanting to be able to take a reasonably sized fish or two today then go back and catch the same tomorrow then maybe in a fortnight take a few more for the table (hardly 28 tonnes) thereby feeding my mrs and kids on fresh wholesome food then so be it. By the same note i see no problem with the guy who catches the oft quoted 28tonnes (as long as it is sustainable fish) he is just providing the service of fishing for those who cant (or cant be arsed) catching their own. Yes there are some greedy, immoral people on both sides of the debate and they are the only ones who win when the adult talk stops and the teddies get thrown out of prams.

Although i can see from your point of view arguing for greater MLS while refusing bag limits seems contradictory, you have to appreciate that if - for example the amount of anglers who actually target Bass (or even catch one as a bonus) for argument sake 500,000 anglers taking one per year as per your figures is 500 tonnes, now introduce a bag limit and anglers start to take the full limit (say 7 as a halfway betwen the suggestions i've seen in posts) so the limit doesn't get reduced and as some people have to take all they are allowed without even realising anything about bag limits/conservation well theres 3500 tonnes. MLS is supposed to give fish a chance to grow to breeding size, or that was the idea originally, while bag limits promote a greater take rate.

Now THAT clarifies things perfectly, for one boat to be full and leave being rplacd by the third is legal but for fish to be cross loaded isnt!?! Can see the reasoning in spreading the catch between markets tho, only common sense, as far as the islands never seeing the fish is concerned there was never any suggestion that they were for consumption by the islands, just a scource of revenue.

I know i'm probably having a laugh but what about some kind of sectored deal (six miles here four there, one a mile further on etc.) maybe a little difficult to organise but something will have to give. roflmfaro

sry tried to delete a doubled post.

Fully agre with the hypocrisy point tho, to suggest such damage by the proportionaly few anglers then tak such numbers all in on hit, sounds a bit iffy to say the least.

See this is why i asked in th first place, no good coming out guns blazing till the facts are out. Three boats working sounded like common sense to me in the first place. However do we know what the investigation is for?

Cheers Barry This is why i asked. It sounds very hypocritical to me, they sound like they are a real gang of cowboys who are arrogant, greedy and stupid enough to believe veryone else is stupid enough not to see through their little plot. Had to find out what was going on properly.

Remind me not to take the kids by woolly's fer a bit................ just in case!

Fair comment, especially the 'worth paying for' bit, are thy talking nominal (reasonable) fee or sport killing extortion do you know? Also have to consider JB's comment to be a good point though.