Bob Shotter

Couldn’t agree more re the Bass this move has to come first and while I’m not holding my breath if it does happen and other adjustments are made inc the MLS then we might well see more and bigger Bass. On the down side if the CF are restricted then the effort will simply move to another species like the Turbot and Brill that brings anglers like you to the Channel Islands year on year.

Barry mate what I meant by my comment yesterday was don’t get your hopes up in that you might get to run the show because I don’t believe you will get the support nor do I think it likely anyone else will put their hand up. If you were to get the support or anyone else for that matter then I would happily stand down, I never wanted to be the boss or chairman as well you know because I know my failings. Now please note this is Elton’s site and the topic is not RSA-UK if you want to discuss RSA-UK further then go to the org and do it I will not respond here again. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now where was I oh yes, you know how you can sleep on a thought and wake up with a clear picture, well with that in mind I would like to make a further comment on what Leon had to say yesterday Quote ‘I did tell Benyon that as both a coarse and game angler I was much happier than as a sea-angler, constantly being led up long blind-alleys by DEFRA then abandoned without delivery of anything of significance.’ Now I don’t want to get into the fresh water side even though I think some might say how fed up they are with all the regulations and the poor fish on offer but it’s this DEFRA thing that I’m thinking about and having now had the pleasure of meeting with you Leon I have to admit I found a very nice chap who was as expected quite well clued up and while our views may well be miles apart you like all of the reps I have meet so far was both passionate and dedicated to the cause. My point is the ‘Nice guy’ bit, it’s one thing to sit a chat with the minister or DEFRA they need people to do that so they can tic boxes but if they don’t deliver could it be because you are so nice, politics is not a nice peoples game it is full of power maniacs and control freaks who may well appear to be nice but would have no trouble shafting you. Just look at the last big push by B.A.S.S. to up the Bass MLS during the last administration, B.A.S.S. looked to have a deal on the table until the money men in the NFFO world stuck a spoke in the wheel ( See http://www.rsa-uk.org/rsafiles/SeaBassRegs.pdf ) At the first Cefas steering group meeting last summer Iain Matheson (DEFRA) asked me to tell him what anglers wanted from DEFRA I told him a few days later and never heard another word. Iain has now moved on from DEFRA so that’s the end of that one. The thing is it should not be that way these people are public servants and have a duty to deliver it is something we all seem to forget these days, how on earth did they get away with overturning a regulation after a consultation process was complete. I don’t know I wasn’t involved so can’t be sure if the NFFO took part in the consultation or not but it does not look that way to me. I firmly believe DEFRA needs to give rather than take I said as much at the Cefas meeting and angling reps need to get together and find a common goal and see to it DEFRA takes note, they work for us it is not the other way around and being nice to them gets you nowhere. Nick I believe we have had this conversation before you as a scientist and often need work from them so you have to be nice we on the other hand pay the wages of these people and should start to demand something in return even if it is only to tell them to naff off and leave us alone.

Um Barry I said this a long time ago and I meant it then just as much as I do now but I wouldn’t get YOUR hopes up if I were you, old friend.

I hear what you’re saying Nick but and it is just a little ‘but’ I talk to the few who seem interested in doing anything and they all say the same. Little enthusiasm coming from any of their members or the people who they represent it is not just an RSA-UK problem. Talk to any of the reps and you will get the same story they enter the ring full of get up and go only to meet a wall of resistance and abuse and decide the better option is to say little and when it comes to forums to say even less and rely on posting info via links. Tom Pinborough and Les Weller will back me up I’m sure as will Leon I suspect. Yes I have upset the PBA skippers, well a few of them and over what ‘misrepresentation’ they and we are aligned when it comes to policy but if they want to put personality before angling interest then what hope have we. I have said it before and I will say it again find the org a new leader who the members will accept and is prepared to give it a go and I will stand down and will have no problem in doing so.

Nick let me be clear about a few things RSA-UK was removed from just one committee, the Cefas steering group because the org set out to derail Angling 2012 with the ‘Tell them Nothing’ campaign. It has nothing to do with my attitude at meetings as I DO know how to behave at them, it might be more to do with the fact that I would not sign off the minutes of the first meeting that gave a completely false view of what happened but was the only one with the balls to say so, clearly Cefas knew our participation was not going to be the typical yes man attitude that they wanted. It was also obvious that had we not been removed then we would most defiantly have had to resign or be classed as supporting the data collection which we do not. RSA-UK has remained active consulting with everyone from the minister down and right now has put some very serious points to both the MMO and Cefas. If I have upset some of the misrepresentatives then you should realise I have achieved some of what we set the org up for and on that score I’m more than happy to be judged. You are a premium member of the org and have not resigned to my knowledge and I have on numerous occasions asked you to put up or shut up and you seem content to do the latter even though I have made it quite clear that if the membership want me to stand aside for the benefit of sea angling then I would happily do so. There is a right way to address your criticism and that is to put your case to the members something I have been waiting for you to do for some time. Like you say ‘sad but true.’

There has been some very good points made here by you all and I must commend Leon for telling Richard about how badly sea angling has and is being treated by DEFRA. While the majority of sea anglers want nothing more than to be left alone and free from management/regulation as they always have been it must be remembered as I said before they do pay tax in pursuit of their pass time and should receive some benefit from that. As for ‘Substance’ being involved in Angling 2012 I could be wrong but I get the feeling that there might be a credibility issue in so far as they are lottery funded. My view is it might have been a much better idea for the social and economic side of Angling 2012 to have been carried out by ‘Substance’ as they had done so well previously with the reports provided at the Angling summit last year. Frankly I will make no bones about it but I have a cynical view in that I see this 20 12 project as having been presented in a manner to get the data the government are duty bound to supply the EU by dressing up the collection to look as being of benefit to sea anglers when in truth it is anything but that. Leon you go on to say it was a shame there weren’t more sea angling orgs present at this meeting, could that be because those present were there by selection as I have no idea what this meeting was or who called it etc. One thing I have learnt since getting into the representation world is there is a clear tendency to have yes men involved in committees and any one likely to rock the boat will get shown the door, however you acknowledge that things are starting to change and I agree the sooner the better. Both Barry and Worms mention the Angling Trust and the funding side is quite interesting If and I do stress the word ‘IF’ the Trust has £75,000 subs from individual members and further funding for the involvement in the Angling Development Board as well as other payments to get things like regional committees set up, less what the ‘Fish Legal’ cost them how is it they are so poor that they need David Mitchells wages paid by the ‘Waterloo Foundation’ and Martin Salter funded by some sort of bereavement payment? Something doesn’t add up but that is my own personal view. Having said that I also believe people look at the Angling Trust in the wrong light, they are a business that offers a service if you like what they offer you join them it really is that simple. If you want to be calling the shots then you join and org like RSA-UK and I can tell you hand on heart not many are that bothered.

As for my idea of a sea angling summit I didn’t mean instead of the full on meeting of all disciplines Leon far from it. I found last year’s get together very useful but like many of the delegates felt we may have gotten more from the two sectors having a separate day conference as well as the full angling summit. There is a vast difference between the disciplines and sea angling seems to get left out primarily because it is unregulated, none the less we still pay vat on everything angling and it is about time government recognised that.

Oh Barry why don’t you follow the leads offered, Cornwall will, following my pointing it out, look at making an amendment to the MLS if and when conditions change making it a valid way forward. What will have to be taken into account is the French have not yet changed their view re the Bass effort in the channel and mesh sizes may also need to be changed. Good news about another summit Leon, though I would still like to see one solely for sea angling and it would have been better to have it as an annual event.

Yes very intresting quote 'We all know that the current 36 cm Minimum Landing size(MLS) on European Bass set by the EU fisheries committee is set too low. It defies nature and logic. I understand that the French Government plan on setting their MLS at 42 CM sometime very soon. Its a huge step in the right direction and great news for all involved . There are also rumours of Bag limits for recreational anglers and most importantly they are looking very hard at the Winter Pair trawling fishery and a potential Bass closed season.'

To get involved should there not be a link Elton?

Wow Leon was that an Ode to a single species c&r fanatic or what, very poetic though I must say, all credit to you. While it is good that you also acknowledge the effort in the English Channel I have actually been researching some official documentation and here are a few quotes that will help build a picture of what has gone before; The first is from the House of Commons Library Sea Bass Fishing >> Standard Note: SN/SC/745 Last updated: 19 January 2011 Author: Christopher Barclay Section ‘Science and Environment Section’ 1 The regulation of bass fishing There has been particular interest in bass, because they are fished by both sport fisherman and commercial fishermen. There is no quota for bass, so that it can be fished by commercial fishing boats, by commercial rod and line fishing and by anglers. There are some protective measures for bass, particularly for nursery areas. There is also a minimum landing size, laid down at EU level. Defra has also persuaded supermarkets selling Mediterranean farmed bass to label it as such, so as to avoid undersized bass being caught and passed off as farmed bass. However, the Labour Government reconsidered the decision after a meeting with the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO). On 25 October 2007 the Labour Government announced that the minimum landing size for bass in English waters would remain at 36cm.7 The change of plan was debated in November 2007. Martin Salter criticised the Minister’s decision: His announcement of 25 October on retaining the minimum landing size for bass at 36 cm rather than increasing it to 40 cm and then to 45 cm by 2010, as recommended by the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science just two years ago, flies in the face of scientific evidence and has been greeted with understandable anger and dismay by hundreds of thousands of sea anglers, as well as by conservationists. He himself admitted that his decision was based on looking after the short-term interests of the inshore fleet rather than the long-term interests of the species and the environment. I want to tease out those points. The Minister replied: Before making this decision, I was aware that the consultation on the issue had generated some 2,800 responses… My approach was to ensure that my decision took proper account of the science and all the other evidence. I was also clear that I would not reach a decision until both parties had had a chance to put their case to me. I am also concerned about the effects of any increased minimum landing size on discards of bass—when fish are thrown back into the sea, often dead. That is a key issue for fishermen and for managers, and the European Commission has recently produced proposals to reduce the number of discards in key fisheries. The largest discard impact would have been on trawlers in the eastern English Channel. At 40 cm, an estimated 55 tonnes of bass would have been discarded—and would probably have died—from UK inshore trawlers each year out of an average trawl catch of around 230 tonnes. Finally, when I reached my decision I bore it in mind that we now had a clear indication that other member states and the Commission would not support an increased MLS, as we had originally hoped. 8 Bass fishermen worried about the stock, 2009 The BASS Anglers Sport fishing Society reported alarm about the sustainability of stock in 2009: UK anglers will soon start to see a disastrous decline in both the number and size of bass available in the important and valuable Recreational Fishery. That is the conclusion from studies that show an alarming reduction in the number of juvenile fish coming into Southern nursery areas indicating a collapse in recruitment in recent years. And if that isn't bad enough, this harsh winter could very well have wiped out most of the young fish expected to have recently entered the nursery areas "Typically young bass will spend four or five years growing in protected shallow inshore areas" said John Leballeur, Chairman of the BASS Restoration Project team. "And it's not until those fish leave the nursery areas and spread out around the coast that anglers and fishermen will notice that there are far fewer young fish joining the fishery to replace those now being taken as adults in the commercial fishery." BASS are calling on DEFRA to take urgent action to address the problems of overexploitation of bass stocks and to reverse this alarming decline now, not when their failure to do so becomes obvious to all.

Is it not geriatric speak because I fully understood you.

Your claim quote ‘YOU KNOW WHAT HE SAID’ now that’s strange as I was sat next to him and you weren’t there at all were you? So you are relying on what you call….. Hearsay? Yeah right. If you think I got any pleasure out of picking fault in Chris then your sadly mistaken but you can’t pick and choose if you are going to put our representation back in order, I know what Chris said I also know what he meant, the thing is he got one sentence wrong I heard it, the MMO heard it DEFRA heard it and there was no need to have even brought the subject into the conservation. Barry I know Chris meant well but the truth is he gave them something to think about something they may or may not have considered but now you have the likes of Councillor Lamb who was also there and now he is fuelled with an idea to take to his IFCA. Thing is I haven’t forgotten what Councillor Lamb said but I bet Chris has. You do know who this councillor is and the position he holds don’t you? As for affecting Mr Caines business, that’s the biggest crock of poo I have ever heard. Chris has made it clear to me where he stands on the subject, it is a shame he hasn’t made that view public knowledge and that is the only thing that may affect him and his future custom, or do you think when the brown stuff flies people will be forgiving. Like it or not Barry the PBA the Angling Trust and others are steering this data collection on, using the old Reg Phillips argument ‘Ya have to be in it to count’ that also is wrong and the sooner they realise and get out of it the better, though to be honest it’s probably a bit late for that now. The pair trawling effort you mention go look on the B.A.S.S. web site you will find it there and it is in a related article written by Nigel Horsman. Told you where to find Mr Derriman and his response mush, Provide you a link, hugh, why should I? Like I said if you believe I lack substance to back up my claims then go get the evidence to prove me wrong.

While I’m no expert Phone this net does not look as though it has been in the sea for very long as there is not enough weed and stuff on it. Truth is there are probably thousands of bits of net floating around our sea of which this is just one.

Bit soggy down here in the south west too. Hope there is still water in the tap when I visit Hampshire in a few weeks time.

My guess is they don’t. When this was first publicised the news coverage said they had no idea how the net got there, this looks to be a flagrant piece of journalism particularly when saying there are pictures of a diver is seen removing a ‘RARE ?’ Ballan Wrasse from the net. They then say they know it is not from commercial licenced fisherman quite how they can come to that conclusion I don’t know other than relying on an unsubstantiated rumour that someone saw a net being shot or by relying on the fact that no right minded fisherman would shoot the wreck with this net type. However I can confirm that there were no surface markers attached to this net so that would make the rumour of it being shot on the wreck look a little flawed as it wouldn’t be likely that a net would be shot without a means of retrieval. As a matter of clarity Whitsand Bay falls in the Cornwall IFCA district however Devon and Avon IFCA have been following up on the suggestion that Plymouth based boats were involved in shooting the net.

Are these not separate issues Phone? While this thread has probably run it’s coarse now, given the ban has been lifted, the ‘nets’ thread is about an entirely different problem and is in relation to a topic that is a long way from St Ives.

MLS, do they work? During this thread we have indeed discussed MLS and I have just had another thought prompted by the mention of Whitby. Last year as you will have gathered I joined a group who fished a week of the Whitby Festival the biggest Cod of the week was landed by one of our group and was all of 14.5 lbs There was no shortage of codling but no big Cod not one even though many of the charter boats went some distance. One would suspect the netting effort has a lot to do with that so thinking along the lines of the Bass principle and the idea that MLS will lead to more and bigger fish, should the local IFCA not consider the introduction an MLS of say 10lb for Cod or whatever the average measurement is for that size. Yep go run the idea by the lads up there and see the response.

At Whitby I never once saw you return a fish, lip hooked or not, but your right all the fish landed went to the pot and no one made a penny from them. Talking of which perhaps you owe a chap with a blue boat an apology before you go ranting about me and I assume you’re talking about that disgusting individual who took the preverbal out of my late brother who he never even knew. Every single attack from your good self about my post are not based on anything being disproven but on a personal level like the way you miss spell my surname on another site. Two years ago I believed you were the sort of guy who had the balls to take down the misrepresentatives of sea angling and on that score also I was wrong. Once you realised it involved your own chums and your fishing from a Dorset port you soon changed your tune didn’t you? Those same blokes were my friends Barry you seem to forget that Mr Caines was wrong to say what he said but he couldn’t handle the criticism and you sir have taken full advantage of that a fuelled the divide which is why I say you do not have the interest of sea anglers to heart and it pains me to say your one selfish and immature individual. You have been provided all the necessary info to check out what I say I’m not here to pamper you, so go do your own research and bring back the evidence to back up your hearsay claim. My apologies to all for going off on one, while I do believe in naming and shaming, here I’m guilty of posting a very personal reply which is not what the forum is there for or what you guys would probably want to read and yes I could have PM’ed this to Barry only see it turn up on another part of the net, so if this post is moderated I would be neither surprised nor disappointed.

Sorry Wurzel your probably right Barry will you.......................................... perhaps.......................m m m m agree to disagree

Damage to the mucus membrane of fish will expose that fish to infection FACT go do your own research and find prof that I’m wrong. The smaller the fish the less likely it will survive FACT common sense will tell you that. Can you prove otherwise I doubt it. The request to increase the MLS of Bass and other species was presented by the CFSA not Bass and the response by Mr Derriman can be found on the Cornwall IFCA web site in the DRAFT minutes and associated files, I’m sure you can find it. The top down argument can be found by using Google try the names of either of the professors quoted and do some homework you might learn something. You may well say the CFP is a failed framework that does not make the data collected or the scientific research flawed. The EU and the CFP do affect some IFCA decisions and it was Mr Derriman who quoted the MLS and breeding size of Bass as being recognised by the EU. Why not give him a call and ask him you can find the number on the CIFCA web site. I’m a self-appointed expert you say when all I have done is offer a PERSONAL opinion based on research and listening to others. Two years ago I would have backed the idea put up by B.A.S.S to increase the MLS but once others started to explain some of its failings and looked at the research have I changed my mind. Does that make me right? look at the answer Barry it’s ‘NO’ No it does not mean I’m right! I accept the straw poll shows more support upping MLS does that make them right? Again No it does not. The argument put forward by Bass looks good but it is flawed for example the 60% line caught is based on landings within the district not fish caught in the district and landed elsewhere. The thing is where this poll to become RSA-UK policy then I would both follow and support it, that is how democracy works two sides of an argument aired and the people decide. I don’t have any difficulty in communicating with others perhaps getting my point across but what you call failing and name calling is where I put peoples back up because they have been shown up, your chum Chris Caines a classic example and that started over a single sentence and the fact that he was speaking out of turn. He sees that as more important to continued talks and you also made sure they cant continue. Again the truth Barry on day one out of Whitby I was returning Codling larger than some you kept for the pot. It was only when I realised you and others indeed intended to keep them that I contributed the ones I then caught. Remember I took none as I have bigger Cod on tap at home.

Barry there is little point in posting a reply to you as you will simply try and score points. But you are an old pal in need so who am I to disappoint. You keep banging on about my being an angling rep but don’t accept or consider any of the arguments offered. So for the record CFO Derriman stated that the MLS for Bass set in Cornwall is both higher than other parts of the UK and is in line with what is recognised by the EU. Bass can and do breed at 37.5 cm unless you can prove him the EU and their scientist wrong. There is little research into mucus membrane but enough to say that handling a fish will damage it and that in turn will lead to the infections that it prevents, the smaller the fish the greater the risk of survival, if you know better again please prove me wrong. Everyone I know inc. B.A.S.S. but apart from you it seems, realise that the effort of the pair trawling in the western approaches has a significant impact, however there appears to be no political will to address that at present. It is my personal opinion that the top down approach as you call it which is based on evidence provided by scientist like Professor Ray Hilborn (The University of Washington.) and backed by Professor Martin Pastoors (The Centre for Marine Policy in the Netherlands.) is valid. Upping the MLS will increase effort on the larger fish of which there are fewer, the practice is unsustainable and the proof of that is in the numbers of large fish in the stock which are already falling. Yes there are still some but for how much longer? While your catch and release friends at B.A.S.S. may have a point in the very small Southern District, changing byelaws in that area will have no significant overall affect, even less without addressing the net mesh size to prevent yet more discards or considering the introducing a ‘passage byelaw’ preventing commercial landings, be they trawled or line caught from simply being transported the short distance to Brixham in the Devon district where they can be landed. Southern cant police what they have at present without adding more to their management. You surprise me the man who championed ‘no unnecessary regulation without proof of need.’ Yet here you are supporting an org who are not seen in good light by the average angler, not least the fact that they proudly boast a catch and release policy. Perhaps you could present us with some credible facts to support this need to up this MLS and maybe show where you stand as an angler who was retaining Cod smaller than those I was returning when last we fished together. Whats that on your post ‘Recycle Fish’ yeah right.

To be fair Wurzel, Nigel Horsman at B.A.S.S. did present a good case covering many aspects in support of the application ( http://ukbass.com/2011/11/10/southern-ifca...n-the-bass-mls/ ) However I’m inclined to agree with you and in this case I’m still not clear how putting more pressure on the stock you want to preserve can in any way be seen as being sensible. From a recreational point of view it is totaly pointles.

Hi Wurzel The Cornish do indeed have mesh sizes for specific areas like the Maniacal Rocks and the Runnel Stone both prolific Bass areas, indeed the county has more byelaws than most. They are going to look at passage byelaw also so any fish/lobster/crab will be deemed to have been caught in the district though ATS will play a part for those genuinely returning fish from further afield. IMPO until the effort in areas where the species gather as a part of their breading is addressed then any other regulation is futile.

Hi Wurzel The MLS for Bass is not uniform, different bylaw sizes have been set around the country, here in Cornwall it is 37.5cm whereas the national mls is set at 35cm? B.A.S.S. have asked the Southern IFCA to look at introducing an MLS of 48cm which QUOTE ‘Should the Southern IFCA decide to move to increase the Minimum Landing Size for bass, as we suggest, B.A.S.S. would work to encourage other IFCA’s to follow your lead.’ http://ukbass.com/2011/11/10/southern-ifca...n-the-bass-mls/