Jaffa

If we stick with facts then its still the case that not a single species has become extinct due to commercial fishing (and by extension recreational fishing). Its also fact that what we choose to call a "species" depends on how we look at it; its a human attempt to classify and box something into a form we can use or understand surely? Its an imperfect system as (imho) its always going to be, yet for all the slagging off of evil skippers, crap management, and all the problems that are highlighted day after day on the news because certain groups have loads of cash to splash around, the fact remains that these" evil sons of bitches" have yet to remove one single species from this planet. Why is all that attention,money and legislation being thrown against seafishers for potentially doing harm, yet we hear/read/see next to nothing about all the species already down the pan ? Chris PS "Balanced Sea's?! " Where can i go read about what a balanced sea is please?

Thats a broad claim there Steve. Its clearly ridiculous to believe anglers have an effect on pelagic stocks like herring, maybe doubtful they do on cod or bass, but what about species like turbot and brill? Chris

Cheers Leon, had not heard about the appeal. Chris

No idea where Sevenoaks is and am struggling to remember sunny but have a good trip

Lets run for the firm ground then! According to the Salmon and trout Association petition its over that way.. According to the report summing up whats known after three decades of research its location is unknown and the salmons/seatrout decline preceeded the invention of salmon farms and declines in populations cannot be linked to the presence or absence of farms. Think i'll stand still and look at the plankton now overflowing me wellies Hope you find safe ground over their

No Barry, thats an arguement between two sets of guys working boats for a living.

Suggest you read this before you put to much store in what Don Staniford ( a career anti salmon farm protester) says : http://www.anglersnet.co.uk/forums/Anti-Sa...ion-t71675.html Chris

No problem Worms, Salmon lice have been a real problem to salmon farmers since the whole business started 4 decades ago; farms have gone to the wall or suffered big losses due to lice. The only thing "new" to the problem seems to be exclamation mark The first link is just a news story. Second link you give is just an abstract of a paper, so none of us get to see the evidence, unless of course we can nip along to the library of a Uni with a decent Marine department. One of the authors, A. Morton, is a well known environmental campaigner who for several years has campaigned against salmon farms in Canada. Forgive me if i'd actually like to see the paper, as some of the so called science that has emerged from the heated debate and money there contains howlers. The infamous Kabata et al paper for instance.. Last link is a straightforward description of a study attempting to understand the lice interaction between farms and wild fish. As much as it upsets those that KNOW what is going on, the truth is its still all up in the air and decades of research have yet to nail it. The report being attacked seems an accurate and fair assessment of where things are atm. Chris

Im happy to see things that improve the economy and leads to jobs; im unconvinced all chiefs and no indians makes any sense, esp if those chiefs have not a clue about about the subject and feel no pain at any changes needed. I think that the Scots reps, perhaps exposed to the realities of life up here, are being taken seriously because they are being serious and not representing some religous view, nor do they seem to "hate they neighbour" in the way so beloved by those "leading" the RSA charge down south to date I have no caution whatsoever about genuine "RSA" reps making headway. I worry far more about being denied historical access to a harbour wall because some green mouthpiece winds up the commercials by slagging them off in the Fishing news: Any angling rep, that does not grasp how important that paper is to the uk commercials, and wades in their with a load of hatred had better know what they are talking about. To date they don't, and we will all suffer as a result. Send the "more money for management" to me; I promise to spend it wisely! Nah, don't do that, you keep it and use it to very loudly tell all those guys that have been fishing for generations how to sort it out . Thats the best way we are told you throw money at it and solve it all Im actually pretty optimistic about whats happening up here

You have provided links to organophospates and salmon farming (I'll agree to differ on on "sogginess" grounds regarding the dates of if or when they were banned). Wheres the link showing the connection between salmon farm lice infestations and the decline of salmon/seatrout?

I've been lucky enough to not to have any reason to try and understand anything about Gulf War Syndrome so I know next to nothing about it. I used to know a fair bit about salmon lice and that industry, but the years pass , so im on soggy ground as to the question of dichlorvos being banned. Your response, in which you, imo anyway;) , spin what i said into the banning of all organophosphates (clearly a nonsense as i could nip down to the vets tommorow and get drops for a cat or dog), followed by a couple of paragraphs of your opinion , makes me very curious as to the sogginess under your wellies Your final paragraph is surely the one that its all about.

Hi Brian, The last time this topic was "aired" i got threatened with legal action for saying what i thought, so I hope you can understand i'm a bit worried about going near the subject. Im not a scientist but i've seen just how close to home some of the anti brigade are prepared to go in their personal attacks. First you need to identify what "lice" your talking about. Sorry if that seems a cop-out but its like talking about "fish" when angling has split that down into areas it can understand and talk about from carp to high sea swordfish. We are both talking about the "Salmon louse" Lepeophtheirus salmonis ?

Agree with almost everything you say there Worms, but the bit about lice developing resistance is a new one on me; is that genuine comment based on something you have actually read or done about salmon lice or is it just your assumption that since its been shown plenty of times before in intensive farming, then it must be true for salmon farming? Chris

Hi Brian, In the middle of several days of very long shifts, so apologies for not replying as yet. Try going to have a look for this "wealth of evidence" if you want Worms, thx for the heads-up. Chris

It may or may not be true that salmon farms are causing the decline in west coast stocks. What is true is that this piece from the article is spin; There has indeed been a lot of research done in Western Scotland by UK scientists; which have not found a link, but there has also been a "wealth" of "research" by interested parties in North America which claim to have proved one. Its a nice spin to merge the two for political gain but thats about all it is IMHO.

Hi HA, Thanks for your opinion but fwiw Defra are not the people to contact on this, as they cover England and Wales. The legislators you refer to are who ? MY understanding is that it depends on the issue; some can be decided locally (eg the Scottish parliment, some at UK level, some at the EU palace). Which legislators should i make my view known to about Sea anglings contribution to the Scottish economy? The "under tens" is a term i understand but was born through regulation, and imho is about to pay the price for past wooley thinking . It aint a term/class, whatever, that i imagine having a big effect on the politics of areas genuinely dependant on fishing. Fluffy nonsense. Just mo like.. Chris

Copy and paste?

Ian, Ian, the fact that most porgies have been taken on the east coast just reinforces how this is not legislation to to good but just more legislation. The Faroese you speak about do indeed land in East coast ports from time to time (and take sheeps heads back which raises an eyebrow or two) but they are here to land not fish. Wheres your evidence for some kind of problem with the Faroese? Most every porgie i saw caught on the east coast was a rare incidental bycatch; a very rare thing indeed. Easy enough for some to spin that out. You maybe need to rethink your view on what a 25 % bycatch limit actually means. To someone sitting in a warm office its one thing but might be different if if you have the family home tied to its meaning Either way it aint gonna work. Chris

Sad to see Newt have to lock the original thread; been on here a few years and rarely seen him do that. The parties involved (not one of which actually live in Scotland or are effected by whats being discussed) should imho take a bit of a deep breath and wonder if all the personal abuse of people with different views might just be getting in the way of thinking about the topic? News Release From The Scottish Sea Angling Conservation Network (SSACN) Click here to view the full article

Hi Ian, Every species in your list is an Elasmobranch; the preservation of which you clearly hold dear, but they do not feature in my fishing world at all, nor are they of very much importance to the Scottish fishing industry on the whole. Zero bycatch on porgies? I don't know of a directed UK porgie fishery, so all that means is the odd porgie that gets caught in a net gets dumped instead of being sold? i can remember short lived directed fisheries 20 years ago that took (to me ) frightening numbers of female porgies, but that was 20 years ago.. 25% by catch limit on "Rays". What does that mean in the real world? I know you have worked your socks off to do good Ian, but these victories mean little than i can see. Chris

Maybe we won't need too. Its fluffy nonsense, likely to be blown away on the first real breeze.

A "keen angler" ? Thats hardly any kind of qualification surely? I've read his CV. No science, No fisheries experience , No obvious seafishing knowledge or interest, representing a community that has no stake in sea fish but holding court with groups equally distant but with a moral conviction they know whats good for people better than those people might perhaps know for themselves.. You could not make it up

Sea anglers atm can pretty much go where they want, do what they want and make their own choices. Laws and regulation tend to take on a life of their own, and given the massive funds available to those groups, that baseline actually hate angling, then its just a noose that will get tighter by the day. Just MO like Guess i should be grateful that all these clever people are getting paid to organise my life and tell me whats right and wrong.. Chris

Whatever legislation is, or is not, passed and whatever the merits or problems their reintroduction brings, its going to happen imho; hard to see how any laws can control what a rich dreamer chooses to do on his piece of Scotland, unless of course you take their secret magic gardens away and replace it with something else? Can see both sides to this one, but i'd love to see a beaver dam for real instead of on the telly.