seaside

How about forced rhubarb ??

The biggest dab I ever caught was taken on 2 day old de-frozen black lug which was itself over a year old - aye short of bait and scraping the bottom of the bait freezer - that said, I have noticed dab aren't the fussiest of eaters. There are times of the year when the flounder up here seem to only favour herring, mackerel, worm, crab etc won't do, and it does appear to cut down bites if you re-use/leave on old stuff yet when they are taking any non-fish baits, they don't seem to care if you re-use stuff.

Isn't that the way of it, read the mags or talk to the pros and they'll all tell you that you need £300+ worth of gear and that bass are elusive, but wander off and leave any gear with your better half and when you get back, lo and behold !!

20 to 25% seems to be the received values for cod in the north sea. Have a look at http://epaedia.eea.eu.int/page.php?pid=516 and http://epaedia.eea.eu.int/page.php?pid=415 The UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reports that, on average, 27 million tons of unwanted fish catch are thrown back each year. Most do not survive (FAO's estimated range of bycatch/discards is 17-39 million tons/yr, but does not include marine mammals, sea birds and some invertebrates killed in fishing operations). Twenty seven million tons represent more than half of all fish produced annually from marine capture fisheries for direct human consumption. http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/T4890E/T4890E03.htm gives a global view of the issue of bycatch and discards - long and detailed and not encouraging reading.

As it is the beginning of the French fishing season today there are rumours of a major event off Essex / Kent, see http://www.geocities.com/foldingca/Swami/poisson.htm for details.

Could it just be that fish being imported is cheaper and doesn't carry the negative tag of being from ' the UKs threatened stock ' whilst landing in foreign ports allows UK vessels to land fish that would be outwith the size/quota limits of the UK.

Teignmouth Sea Angling Society held their dinner and trophy evening recently when around 60 members and guests were welcomed by chairman David Rowe. Principal guests were Wyvern Division chairman Alex Parker and his wife who later presented the awards for 2005. However a sign of the decline in fish catches was illustrated by the fact that 25 trophies were not won because certain relevent species are no longer being found around the South West. see http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/displa...e=sidebarsearch

I'd say there is certainly a change in population - for certain species, generally the economic ones, decline is very evident. Herring and cod populations are greatly reduced since the 60s. However, there are species whose numbers have increased, dogfish, whiting and triggers spring to mind. The cause of these variations is most probably a complex combination of commercial fishing pressures, RSAs, global warming, geographical location, normal fish year class variations, availability of food etc. for which there has been very little truly independent and effective research performed. Too many self-interest groups proving someone else is to blame. The real problem, as far as I see it, is that the government has no real interest in understanding the overall issue, because as a result of signing up to the CFP, it's hands are more or less tied in what it can realistically do to facilitate change and there is insufficient political pressure to force a focus - ie :: there's not enough votes in it. Without government creating the necessary laws, incentives, marine parks, de-commissionings etc., etc., there is no incentive for change by any of the groups so it just leaves the various conflicting interest groups to keep slugging it out to ensure the waters remain muddy and only then appears to take action when a 10 second soundbite stands a chance of glossing up the image of a politician. For many RSAs there is also somewhat the problem of the lack of acceptance of change or unrealistic expectation of their fishery.

I agree with Orca & others, catch and return is probably the biggest single conservation policy practiced by the majority of anglers. There have been terrific achievements made by focussed and specialised groups, because they are exactly that, focussed, but you are looking at the overall RSA population, so, rather than generalisations, can you identify a specific 'conservation' activity that you think would be equally acceptable to the vast majority of RSAs and how such could be implemented. Of course, any activity must be one that is actionable by anglers, as no other group has a vested interest in improving our environment. BTW, the offer of the M25 challenge still stands.

Stavey - I think it's quite self evident that anglers in general are not doing enough, but I don't think that should come as a suprise to anyone. The population of this forum will, in general, be a reflection of the poulation of the UK as a whole and conservation is not the number one issue for the general population - pick any bridge on the M25 and count the number of cars with 1 person in and those with more than 1 - you give me a £1.00 for each of the former and I'll quite happily give you £1.50 for each of the latter. No I am not about to say that conservation doesn't matter or that issues can't be addressed or moved forward, but 'conservation' is too broad a brush and unless specific actions are identified anglers on this forum, or in general, cannot identify with them, discuss them realistically, or even practice them. To try and illustrate my point, can anyone identify a 'conservation' activity that you think would be equally acceptable to all of the four types of fishermen identified by DoubleShotDamo ( I may not totally agree with them but they are near enough ) and how such could be implemented. Of course, any activity must be one that is actionable by anglers, as no other group has a vested interest in improving our environment.

The trouble is 'all interested parties' do not share a single common objective and each will, to paraphrase yourself, often be economical with the truth, have a tendency to exaggerate for effect & not be shy of trampling over other peoples considerations.

Just a couple of points Conservationists on this forum are not only interested in bass, tope, hound and thornbacks; there are those of us who tend to look on conservation in a much broader context. Proper question, not an attack - but why if you can catch hundereds of thornies and hounds do you use bass and cod as a benchmark of your fishing pleasure ? We do catch enough cod from the shore to keep us happy but I don't feel I'm missing out because we never get any hounds. < Humour On > If cod and bass are essential to you, perhaps you'll need to move to Yorkshire ( Humour Off )

Fishing from the shore for Pollock into 40-60ft of clear water I either use simple spoons or jellies. I find the darker colours from shad greeny brown through to purple seem to do better; as for line I only use smoky coloured having convinced myself (probably for no good reason) that yellow/red etc coloured lines are too visible.

Stoaty - In part I would say this is another facet of conservation and education. In many cases worm is not the only bait and in certain cases alternative baits will catch fish where worm will not; secondly, no-one needs 200 for a days fishing, though I've seen/heard anglers dig/order that many. Similarily with peeler crab. In our neck of the woods there is very little bait digging given that ours is a very rocky coast, though there is soft ground within casting range. I'd love to say that all those hungry fish from your place had made a dash up to Rocky McDonalds, but not really the case, our general fishing has declined over the past 20 years but now seems to have levelled out over the last 5.

As for distance I'd say it really depends on how good a caster you are - the competition guys go 300 yds+ and for them I'm sure it makes a difference; for me as most of my fishing is done in water that is quite deep close in, I never need to go more than 70yds. I've got reels with and without levelwinds and at that range I've found it really doesn't make any difference, so I generally stick to my ABU level winds and don't have to think about laying the line correctly etc when bringing a sizeable fish.

Maybe the case Steve, but why start a potentially interesting thread asking people what they consider to be 'Good Angling' and then bring in the usual narrow areas of interest. The continual flame wars between parties on this forum are doing nothing to address the issues - it's just so much hot air. If people just want to attack commercials for destroying all fishing or Bass, why not just start topics with those names - as if they hasn't been beaten to death already - and then at least some topics may get through without being hi-jacked.

Argument and opinions are fine ( generally ) until they become unsunstantiated/untrue personal attacks. The thing about some people in Chat rooms, is that they say things they generally wouldn't ( dare ) say in normal company - in far too many cases they go on to make serious and defamatory personal remarks thinking that they are protected because its the Internet. But they and their ISP are not. If people want to make personal comments regarding someone else, then they should do it privately rather than 'showing off' on a public forum - it's about time people grew up when posting.

http://www.aubi06.dsl.pipex.com/law/libelcheck.shtml gives a whole load on this. As far as I can see the whole thing's a minefield and those that benefit most are the lawyers (allegedly). One thing is for sure, if one restricts one statements to what is the truth and conducts arguments respecting others views and opinions, then there'll be naught to worry about. Can all members of this forum be untroubled ?

I'll let you off this time

Unfortunately BC that's not quite true - the following is extracted from the NewsDesk Uk, and independent site for journalists, guide to Libel Libel is all about words which must be taken in the context in which they are used - the test of what those words mean is the test of the reasonable man - not the meaning intended by the person who wrote the words Example: Radio City in Liverpool were sued for calling a travel agent a con-man -- They said it meant the agent deceived "some at least of his customers" -- The travel agent said the words meant he was habitually dishonest or cynical -- Radio City produced 19 witnesses who said they had had lousy holidays. The travel agent produced 21 who said their holidays were fine. The travel agent won £350,000 damages plus costs. When weighing up a story think of words as three-stage rockets. Stage One: The literal meaning. Be careful not to rely solely on proving the defamatory description was literally true. If you call a man a thief in screaming headlines and his conviction was for stealing a packet of biscuits a couple of years ago you could be in trouble. The words have to be commensurate with the offence. A Liar has to be a serial liar, a mega-liar, not a fibber like you or me. Beware of raking up a long buried past which may suggest that a stain on the person's character still exists. What is at stake is the person's reputation today and not the reputation he has since lived down as in the case of John Profumo. Stage Two: The inference a reasonable person would draw from the word. Example: 'Tory boss Archer pays off vice girl.' Literally true and the News of the World could prove it. But they couldn't prove the inference that Archer had had a sexual relationship with the prostitute. It cost the paper £50,000. Stage Three: Innuendo the words may not be defamatory to everyone but they are to a smaller group of people who are aware of additional facts or circumstances. Example: To say Mr Smith is a socialist is not obviously defamatory but if readers know that he is member of the Conservative Party it might be defamatory because it imputes he is politically dishonest. Also pertinent to this forum If there is a defamatory statement on a webpage then "Each 'hit' is a new publication of a defamatory statement. It is, therefore, essential to remove an offending statement from the electronic archive as quickly as possible." Start looking out for Libels_R_us adverts on daytime telly

How about any permutation of Wrong Day/ Wrong Port / Wrong Boat

There you go - none of what I said was specifically aimed at Wurzel, or anyone else for that matter, but your response highlights exactly the attitude so clearly expressed above by zziplexboy. You dislike it intensely if someone disses your posts, yet here you are trying to waft up the flames and create an unecessary argument. I'd like to see this site move away from blinders, kill off all commercials, RSA only etc and recognise ALL sectors depend on the common resource of fish stocks and given the past plus global warming plus whatever else, creative not negative, thinking is required - this forum COULD be the catalyst for major change.

Not exactly a startling conclusion but how come so much energy is burnt on this forum waffling on about wether or not such and such a technique was used in the past by such and such a group - it strikes me like fiddling whilst Rome burns - the resource issues are here now, only actions taken now and in the future will affect them. I believe all the acrimonius stuff on this forum is preventing members of this forum from raising innovative proposals / points for discussion.

Part of the fun of being a dictator is you can remove all participants in failed coups - so please do us all a favour and sh**can this idiot.

Probably that the 70 odd folks who've voted have each looked about 10 times just to see how the score is going.