Old Man of the Sea

Hear, hear! Spot on, Brian. A very good, accurate and fair minded post.

@AUTUMN@, There is a time to talk and a time to listen. Please bear with me. I am very interested to know Big Cod`s interpretation of a blinder; and who is using them these days. If blinders were being used, then that would account for a much larger percentage of undersized fish in the cod end. I await his reply. Over to Big cod.

Mr Big Cod, What you thought - or think - about me is of no concern to me at all. You are right, you are not a trawler skipper and probably never have been. From what you have said on this forum, it is obvious your commercial fishing experience is - at most - limited. Now please go back to my last posting. Read and then try to understand the last paragraph. If you can't manage that, perhaps you should ask somebody to help you. Over to you!

My apologies to Stavey for going off the thread again. As an ex-commercial fisherman, I just want to comment briefly on the subject of discards. I agree with what Binatone says about discards. I have never personally witnessed large quantities of undersized codlings being discarded, in the way the Whitby spawny fishing has been explained on this forum recently. A trawl designed for towing across a hard bottom is by no means as efficient as most people think, and only catches a small percentage of what is there. You shoot it, tow it over a given area where you think there might be fish, haul it and hope there is something in the cod end. You may have all these fancy electronic gadgets in the wheelhouse, but what you get in the cod end in the long run has far more to do with the skill, experience and intuition of the skipper. If I am wrong, and the trawlers are catching large quantities of undersized codlings off Whitby, then there is another way of looking at the current situation. To catch so many small codlings must mean there is a phenomenal quantity of small codlings about. Taking into consideration the inefficiency of the hard ground trawl, the handful of boats left, and the fact they can only fish fifteen days a month, the vast majority of small codling will not be killed. Although the situation may be far from perfect, and it is a great waste to kill these small fish, this proliferation of small codling bodes well for the future.

Very good posting, Michele and Mr B. Michele (unusual spelling!), I'm planning a trip to your New Zealand soon - looking forward to it. From all I've heard, it's a great place. Why did you leave it to come here? Mr B, good article, good post. I don't think a lot of the people on this forum are aware of what has happened in the central North Sea. As you well know, twentyfive years ago there would be in excess of 1000 boats fishing that area at any one time. Now the sandeel boats have stopped, you'd be pushed to find a handful of boats. It is understandable why people concentrate on the things that they see and are not aware of the greater problem that they don't see. You, like myself, are one of the few that have witnessed the sandeel slaughter. One point of caution: Excellent website, but I'm not so sure it was a good idea to post the address on here. If the "flog 'em and hang 'em" section of the forum look at your photo gallery and see the amount and size of cod that you are catching, they'll want a quota imposed on you. Over to you!

Hello, Leon, Apologies are in order. I misinterpreted your posting “Over in New Zealand they first decide how much stock can be taken. They then set aside a quota for the traditional Moari fishing. Then the work out how much is needed to satisfy the valuable Recreational Sea Angling sector. Then the commercials are allocated what else can be spared!”. I had thought that you were implying that the commercial fishing industry in NZ was left with the “sweepings up”, as if their stake in the fishery was considered to be of little importance; and that the whole of NZ’s excellent attitude towards their fishery was based on serving the Maori and recreational fishermen. With your second posting, the overall picture was made much clearer, and I realised I had made an error in my interpretation of your first posting. I apologise for this. I think we are in agreement that every aspect of New Zealand’s fishery management is far superior to our own. Like so many others, I thought that when we went into the Common Market, we did NZ a great disservice by greatly reducing trade with them. Overnight we switched our loyalty – and trading - from the Commonwealth countries to the European countries. NZ suffered for quite a few years because of this, but they got to their feet, solved their own problems, and ultimately excelled. And aren’t they showing us the way now! The interview transcript was a good, relevant posting. It was very enlightening, and shows what can be done with the right approach. Over to you!

In reply to Newt (and to @Autumn@ also): Hello, Newt! I was a bit mystified by your message: “Your post wasn't really the problem but it provoked several responses that would have driven this thread directly into the ground (or into the sea, as it were).” Then the penny dropped: I think you have me confused with Colin W. Immediately after Stavey started this topic, Colin W posted a response which could have been construed as funny or offensive, depending on who was reading it. There were two quick replies to Colin W’s posting, and the thread immediately went off on a tangent. You quickly stepped in and removed Colin W’s message… and the topic got back on track again. Later in the thread, when Stavey asked what I thought of the reaction to the topic, I replied: “Good response so far! If I was comparing this thread to a fishing trip, it would go down in my daybook as a great start with good quality fish. I noticed Newt got rid of the discards straight away, returning them intact to fight another day.” The comment about you getting rid of the discards was an oblique reference to your removal of Colin W’s posting – something I felt you did very wisely, deftly and gracefully. At the top of Page 2 of this thread, Stan4Massey posted a message wondering about my intentions, with reference to a diary or databank. We then had a few messages backwards and forwards until we understood each other, with me eventually writing: “Hi Stan, now I understand your comment. My reference to my day book must have got you thinking along those lines. Most skippers of a boat/ship keep a log. So, like many fishing skippers, I kept a daily fishing logbook, recording tide/moon phase, weather, catch type and quality of fish, best fishing day or night etc. I found, over the years, that returning to the same spot on the same moon phase, in similar weather conditions, etc, produced comparable fishing. I was merely using the analogy of my daybook to answer Stavey’s question, with reference to the postings that Newt removed. I guess my sense of humour was a little too ‘in-house’ – sorry!” You picked up on the comments about your deletions and my sense of humour going awry, and obviously concluded you had edited MY posting, when it was actually Colin W’s posting. (Or have I misinterpreted? In which case, what have I done???) I hope that makes some sense? I’ll return the thread back to the original topic now… Over to you!

Hi Leon, I refer to your quote: "Over in New Zealand they first decide how much stock can be taken. They then set aside a quota for the traditional Moari fishing. Then the work out how much is needed to satisfy the valuable Recreational Sea Angling sector. Then the commercials are allocated what else can be spared!" The New Zealand commercial fishing industry, and the large amounts of money made from fish exports, is very important to the NZ economy. It contributes $NZ3 billion annually to their gross domestic product, and is an industry which employs 30,000 people – in a country with a total population which is approximately half that of London. This result can hardly be obtained from the allocation of natural resources which “can be spared” only after the anglers have had their share! I realise we get our information from different sources. With regard to commercial fishing, mine comes mostly from personal experience. I also have a large network of friends in the industry who I trust and rely on to give me accurate information. And I have never been afraid to ask if I don’t know something! My source in NZ is a man I went to sea with many years ago. He married a NZ girl, emigrated, and became a commercial fisherman there. He did very well, retired in his mid-fifties, and bought a small charter boat to enable him to stay at sea. (We old salts find it hard to leave the sea.) He visits “the old country” every two or three years and stays with us for a while - and guess what we talk about? My point is that he has experience with both commercial fishing and angling in New Zealand. My friend tells a different story to yours. He says the Maori traditional and commercial fishing interests are considered first and foremost. Secondly, all other commercial interests are taken into account. Finally, the recreational sea angling sector is considered. Both commercial fishermen and anglers are on a quota system. An angler’s quota is in the form of a bag limit. Strangely enough, the anglers break the quota far more often than the commercial fishermen do. There is a program on Sky TV about it - I think it is called “Coast Watch”. It shows NZ fisheries officers doing their job, and is mostly about stopping and prosecuting anglers and divers taking more than their bag limit. I’m told this programme is on prime time TV in NZ, and it seems to me that if this is true, it is excellent propaganda and must stop many people from taking more than their entitlement. According to my friend, NZ has a very well-run fishery, where everyone gets a good share. He says it is not perfect, but is getting better all the time. He puts this down to the fact that the NZ Fisheries department takes notice of, and works closely with, all parties involved in the fishery. So maybe that is a lesson from which we can learn? I realize that NZ is far better off than we are, because of their geographical location. They have a 200 mile limit and don’t have the inconvenience of the close proximity of other countries - with their dominant and unfair fishing policies - as we do. But maybe some parallels can be drawn? Over to you!

Hi Stan, Now I understand your comment. My reference to my day book must have got you thinking along those lines. Most skippers of a boat/ship keep a log. So, like many fishing skippers, I kept a daily fishing logbook, recording tide/moon phase, weather, catch type and quality of fish, best fishing day or night etc. I found, over the years, that returning to the same spot on the same moon phase, in similar weather conditions, etc, produced comparable fishing. I was merely using the analogy of my daybook to answer Stavey’s question, with reference to the postings that Newt removed. I guess my sense of humour was a little too ‘in-house’ – sorry!

quote: Originally posted by stan4massey: [Old Man of the Sea], you say "I believe you have a National Federation of Sea Anglers." Given the concise and knowledgable nature of your posts I would have thought you would know for a fact that a NFSA exists. Hi, Stan! You may be crediting me with being cleverer than I am! I am interested in all aspects of the sea. My saying, 'I believe...' was just a figure of speech, really. I do tend to speak carefully (hesitantly?) like that when talking with people I don't know personally. -------------------------------------------------- "So, come on people, negative or positive, let’s be knowing about it. I do not believe this is a subject for abstention." Just another innocent request for input or additional information for the diary or data bank. I`ve never denied being a cynic and if I am being over cynical I apologise in advance but now and again you have to wonder. [/QB] I'm not sure what you mean by 'the diary or data bank'. What were you wondering? I am intrigued. But yes, it was just another innocent request for input. However, I do wish that I were a young student doing a thesis on this, knowing what I know now about life! (Actually, come to that, I'd be happy just to be young!) Over to you!

quote: Originally posted by stavey: Hi old man of the sea, what would be the right aproach? and how do you like the way the thread is being received so far? [/QB] Hello, Stavey. Good response so far! If I was comparing this thread to a fishing trip, it would go down in my daybook as a great start with good quality fish. I noticed Newt got rid of the discards straight away, returning them intact to fight another day. May I say I like the attitudes of a lot of the posters with a positive (or even just an open-minded) approach. Of course, this thread must also have negative views on it. If we all go around patting each other on the back, nothing will be achieved. You ask what I think is the right approach? I’m not altogether sure. The debate might inspire some good ideas. One possibility: I believe you have a National Federation of Sea Anglers. If someone from that organisation made a provisional approach to someone from a commercial fishing organisation (possibly the NFFO?), that might be a start. But as I’ve said before, if they go in with guns blazing, they’ll get shot back at. At first contact, I think we need to tread as carefully as we would if we were dealing with aliens from another planet. There are similarities! Back to the thread: I would like to see everyone who is a member put forward their views on this subject. So, come on people, negative or positive, let’s be knowing about it. I do not believe this is a subject for abstention. But please, let’s try to keep it constructive. Over to you all.

Gentlemen, it might help if we understand our commercial fishermen. We have already established that successive governments have treated him very badly. Consequently, it is quite understandable why he has no faith or trust whatsoever that our politicians will ever look after his interests. Along with most of the self employed people in the UK, he is fighting for his livelihood. But the difference for many commercial fishermen is that fishing is not just a job to them, and it’s not “all about money”. A commercial fisherman often carries more passion in his blood for his vocation than members of this forum do about the sport of angling – and I have seen much passion on this forum. Therefore, if he was told, as some members of this forum have said in the past, that “fishing is not working, so get another job!”, it would be like telling you to burn your fishing rods and get a set of golf clubs instead. For many years now, he has been taking a massive gamble. He knows the state of the industry. He believes that if he can hold on, others will get out of the industry, and at the end of the day only he and a few others will be left. And those that are left will do well. He has all his money, all his life and all his passion invested in this plan. It is like the game of musical chairs. When the music starts, they all go to sea. When the music stops, the government makes yet one more rule to put yet another fisherman out of business. It may not be a good plan but it is the only one he has. Many of the forum members read the Fishing News. Some of the content implies that there is plenty of fish – “so leave the commercial fishermen alone”. This is propaganda intended for politicians, to try and stop them interfering and making the job even worse than it already is. Unfortunately, members of this forum seem to think that the commercial fishermen truly believe this propaganda. But I have yet to come across a commercial fisherman who is not as concerned for the future of the fisheries as any angler on this forum. Nevertheless, as I have said in the past, the commercial lads have been shafted so many times they trust very few people. However, given the right approach, representatives from both the commercial and recreational sectors could form an alliance - and make progress.

Hello, Binatone, Being an old bull, I generally do things a bit slower... but I usually get there in the end!

Mister Big Cod, Just over a year ago I was listening to a radio program. It came on just after the shipping forecast on 198 Radio 4. It was comparing the EU countries and their common fisheries policy with Norway and their fisheries policies. They interviewed a representative of the Azores fishing community. He said that they had a small subsistence hand line fishery and they were afraid that the Spanish trawlers were going to go into their waters and wipe out their livelihood. Then they interviewed an EU fisheries minister who talked a lot of twaddle about the CFP and “no boundaries” within the EU and how fishermen should be allowed to do what they liked, using whatever method they liked, wherever they liked. Next, they interviewed a Norwegian fisheries minister, who said fish was a very important part of their economy, and that they valued their commercial fishermen as much as their fish. Therefore they worked together with their fishermen to maintain and improve their fisheries. He also said their fishermen had insisted strict rules be imposed to protect their fisheries. Most countries have had problems with their fisheries, but I think the ones that are making the best job of improving their fisheries are the ones whose governments recognise the need to consult and work with the men who are doing the job. You don’t have to agree with my views on Ted Heath, the EU or the CFP. But the next time you are talking to your commercial fishermen friends, ask them if they think they are valued by our government; or if they have ever been consulted about fishing policy; or if they know of any fisherman who has ever been taken notice of by our government. When I first entered the fishing industry, it was an industry full of proud, decent men doing a good job – feeding the country. They were respected by the people of our land and valued in their community. They even appeared to be respected by our government. I was proud to be a part of this industry. But now it seems that commercial fishermen are considered to be social pariahs – even by some members of this forum. And the government treats them like villains – even tagging them like criminals. I believe if you treat a bunch of men like criminals for long enough, and pay them no respect or heed, some of them will start acting accordingly. But if you treat them with respect, and consult them on a subject they know a lot about, then they will excel - and progress can be made by all. I know that there have been commercial fishermen on relevant government committees. I have met most of these fishermen, and they all sing the same song: Yes, the government has fishermen on all the relevant committees, but their presence on such committees is just a token gesture to demonstrate political correctness. Their views are never considered, as the findings of the committees were already set in stone long before they sat down at the meeting tables. This appears to me – and to them – to show further disrespect and contempt for them and their profession. I believe in ultimate responsibility and accountability. For example, if an angler on your boat starts acting stupidly and you don’t check him, and his behaviour causes an accident, ultimately it is not the fault of the angler, it is YOUR fault. He is just acting stupidly in an unfamiliar environment. But by not taking control of the situation before any harm was done, you are to blame. As skipper, it is your job to maintain control and enforce basic safety rules; and your responsibility to keep all your customers safe. Using that analogy, our government has been in control and making rules that affect our fishing industry since the 1700s. If we hadn’t entered the Common Market/EU, they probably would be getting it right about now. But Ted Heath traded our fishing industry as part of a package to gain membership to a club to which only politicians seem to want to belong. He abdicated all responsibility to look after what was then a healthy (and apparently sustainable) industry. In modern day politics, politicians don’t consider accountability for their unwise decisions to be necessary, and, as a nation, we appear to condone this belief. Nevertheless, I personally hold Ted Heath accountable for the sorry state our fisheries are in today. From the day Heath signed that dotted line, he hurt every one of us who catch fish. You included! Over to you!

Hi Stavey, I am in full agreement with your point of commercial fishermen and anglers trying to find common ground. I am new to this forum, but my impression is that there are some genuinely concerned good people on it – and some very intelligent ones too. Do you think there is any value in finding out their views on this subject? Should another thread be opened to find this out, or is there another way? Over to you!

Hi, Stavey! I don't think that either nets or anglers’ monofilament lines stay intact very long in such an environment. When we have retrieved trawl nets, bits of gill nets, and even angling gear from wrecks, after a relatively short time - say, six months of being on the sea bed - the growth rate on them is tremendous. I would think anything on the bottom for two years or so would be hardly recognisable and probably do very little damage to the fish population in that area. Nevertheless, I commend you for your attitude towards this matter, and the fact that you are prepared to forego some of your fishing areas in order to make a better future. I’ve read a lot of what you and others have said recently, in the different topic threads. I think a lot of what you say makes sense. You are obviously genuinely concerned about the future of the sea, and not just concerned because you have a financial interest and/or personal agenda. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think one of your beliefs is that anglers and commercial fishermen should try and tackle this problem together. I also think that this is the only way forward. However, it seems some of the contributors to the forum appear to want every fish in the sea just for themselves – as anglers, or as charter skippers taking anglers to sea. I can’t help feeling these contributors would like to get all the commercial fishermen in the country to a meeting - and then go in like Al Capone, and annihilate them. Some of the more moderate members of this forum may find that they have success with a more diplomatic approach to commercial fishermen. Our British commercial fisherman is a strange animal. For years he has been let down by one lying scumbag politician after another, since the biggest one of them all took us into Europe and gave away our rights and our industry. So naturally he is now very cautious. But, in time, forming an alliance with anglers would pay off. For both factions. And you could unite against your common enemy. I don’t think the commercial fishing in the UK will completely die out, although it is on a steep slope of decline. Why? Because the politicians and DEFRA will not let it go totally under. After all, if there are no potential criminals, then the policemen will be out of a job. My prediction is that anglers will have to face more and more seemingly unnecessary stupid rules and regulations in the future, just to give DEFRA lots of ‘busy work’. You may think that I am cynical, but believe me, my cynicism comes from bitter experience of being shafted – as all commercial fishermen have been in the past. Maybe we should start a new thread (or a poll?), to establish the opinions of the members of the forum as to whether it is a good idea to go down the road of communication with our fellow countrymen, the commercial fishermen. But if you go in with guns blazing, they’re going to shoot back! Over to you!

Hello, chaps! I take it from your comments that a lot of wreck netting goes on in the English Channel. How many wreck netters are there? And is this method of fishing on the increase or decline? In the area of the North Sea with which I am familiar, wreck netting is now almost finished. On the grounds within forty miles of the land there are probably only two or three boats operating, which net the very occasional wreck. Their catches have proven to be worth less than the cost of the damage they do to their nets, so this method of fishing is no longer economically viable. Maybe Wurzel can tell us the state of wreck netting in his part of the North Sea? (By the way, thanks for the welcome, Wurzel.) Wreck netting has almost vanished from the wrecks the anglers work between Hartlepool and Grimsby, and out to forty miles from land. The wrecks have now had several years' rest from this type of fishing. However, there does not seem to have been an increase in cod catches from those wrecks in the years since the wreck netting finished. At least, this is what I am told by my angling and chartering friends. This tallies with what the wreck netters say. I realise you cannot always compare different areas, but at least, on the surface, what I have just stated may prove to be a relevant factor. Over to you!

Hmmmm! The current crackdown seems to have come from pressure by the EU when it singled out the UK (and Spain) to get its act together on enforcement. See: http://europa.eu.int/comm/fisheries/news_c...inf03_50_en.htm Which led to the 'Bradley' report. See: http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/...h-env/index.htm Meanwhile, the EU is keeping a close eye on the enforcement regime of all the EU countries. See: http://europa.eu.int/comm/fisheries/scoreb...rd/index_en.htm http://europa.eu.int/comm/fisheries/scoreb...03/index_en.htm http://europa.eu.int/comm/fisheries/doc_et...m_03_344_en.pdf And of course the EU now has a new Enforcement Agency tasked with ensuring that the rules are applied the same throughout the EU. http://europa.eu.int/comm/fisheries/agency...cy/index_en.htm http://europa.eu.int/comm/fisheries/news_c...inf04_15_en.htm Tight Lines - leon Food for thought, Leon! Maybe you are right. Although, judging by past experiences, the practical application of rules and regulations is not always the same as the intended application. Hopefully things will be better - and more just - in the future. Again, only time will tell. Over to you!

You are quite correct - I am anti-EU. We only joined EFTA and were conned into being a part of Europe. However, I think I can hold an unbiased view on all things to do with the sea, which is mostly what this forum is about. I guess time will tell. As far as I am aware, no document has been produced by the Navy or DEFRA with regard to the second incident mentioned. I bumped into the skipper of the vessel about a month ago and we discussed the matter. He has not been charged with anything as yet. He keeps making requests to DEFRA to either charge him or apologise to him. To date, at that time, they had totally ignored his requests. One thing both these cases have in common is that when the skippers of the trawlers asked for the name of the Navy skipper, this information was refused them. It gives the impression that, unlike the rest of the British justice system, fishermen are presumed guilty until proven innocent. Over to you! (But no more tonight, please!)

Gentlemen, thank you very much for all the information provided - I'm grateful for your time and efforts in answering me. As time permits, I will investigate all the links you have kindly provided. I will then be able to form a more well-informed opinion on this matter. Once again, I thank you.

Is it true that articulated lorries were filled with Black fish? Lets hope those days are over. Shame they werent stopped 5 years ago then the cod situation may not be as dire as it is now. The grapevine is certainly a lot quieter than it was 2 years ago. I hope this means the activity stopped rather than they just learned that shouting about huge over quota hauls was bound to bring trouble. Yes, it is true. But now that there is a deterrent, UK fishermen are realising they must obey the rules. It is time DEFRA gave instructions to the Navy not to single out British boats, but to board and check all other EU fishing boats. Hopefully the rest of the EU fishermen would then come to the same realisation.

Old Man of the Sea, were my commas and full stops in the right place? No, but I noted there was a definite improvement, Big Cod. Keep up the good work! And please forgive me if I offended you when I wondered if English was your second language - I was trying to be politically correct, just in case you were a foreigner. These days, being PC is considered to be very important - but it can be a bit tricky navigating the pitfalls.

Unbiased you claim? Like many you appear too anti europe to be unbiased. You claim that DEFRA and the Navey are having trouble interpreting the rules. Please would you provide me with your proof of that statement. Everynow and then they bite the wrong man for the wrong reason?? Could you please elaborate on that too? CAn you give me an example of the wrong man being bitten? If you are ‘pro-Europe’, @Autumn@, I think you are probably in a very small minority in this country – which you are, of course, perfectly entitled to be! I have a comprehensive circle of friends and acquaintances from all walks of life, not just seamen, and I’ve never heard any of them display ‘pro-Europe’ sentiments. I would be interested to hear what other forum members feel about the British participation in the EU. For example, does anyone think it was a good thing for angling when Edward Heath signed that dotted line? A lot of the forum read the Fishing News. The headlines of the 26th August 2005 issue read: “INSPECTION NIGHTMARE Top DEFRA inspector and Navy get codend rules wrong”. The story on page three has the heading “FIASCO OVER CODEND RULES COSTS SKIPPER THOUSANDS”. Briefly, officials boarded Willie Ritchie’s trawler, ‘Headway’, wrongly informed him he had illegal codends, and made him destroy them. There followed much haggling and lost time and consultation with DEFRA Head Office and the Navy (the captain of the ship once again refusing to give his name – as he did in the ‘Success’ incident of a few months ago). Skipper Ritchie stated, “… I was read my rights as a criminal for no reason, as no offence had been committed.” He was also threatened with arrest. Ultimately it was established that there was nothing wrong with the nets, and that both the DEFRA and the Navy were in error in their interpretation of the regulations. I realise that newspapers tend to write what the readers want to hear (angling publications written for anglers, Fishing News written for fishermen, and the Sunday Sport written for people who like a little bit of sport), but in this case I feel that this account is fair and accurate, as was the report of the incident involving Andrew Leadley and his trawler, ‘Success’. Neither of these two skippers have political agendas. They both come from a proud fishing lineage and do a similar job – prawn trawling. Both mind their own businesses, keep their heads down, and work hard and professionally at their jobs. Both incidents were shameful on the part of the authorities. That’s all for now. Over to you!

Once again, apologies for taking so long to get back to you. Don't believe that you get lots of spare time once you retire - it is a myth! On the topic of over-quota landings, or ‘black fish’: In the past, I think that most white fish vessels in the UK, at one time or another, have landed this ‘species’ of fish. In a few cases, some boats have landed more black than white fish. (Apologies to those who have never landed black fish!) Every crime needs a punishment, or at least a deterrent. As I see it, when the guard dog of DEFRA is a Chihuahua and merely yaps a lot, then you learn to ignore it. But if it’s a Doberman, you tend to take notice. For years our EU partners didn’t even have a Chihuahua, they just had a moth-eaten stuffed dog to guard the fisheries. Rules and regulations were openly and flagrantly ignored. For example, we had a five year herring ban. Only the British stopped catching. The rest of the EU countries completely ignored the ban and landed herrings on the open market - and nobody said a word. When our fishermen saw what our EU partners got away with, naturally they wondered what was the point of their trying to toe the line, when no-one else was? I know two wrongs don’t make a right, but I guess our men were just trying to keep the playing field level, and thereby pay their mortgages. As I said in my earlier posting, I believe DEFRA is getting to grips with the problem of policing the rules and regulations, and black fish landings by commercial fishermen have come under strict control. There will always be black fish – the odd fisherman may fillet a bit of cod when he is off, and sell it to the local fish and chip shop, or take the occasional lobster or crab to a hotel; and I believe the same thing happens with bass - but I don’t know enough about this to correctly comment. I do know that the days of a trawler filling an articulated lorry with boxes of black fish is a thing of the past!

Pair trawling, single trawling - swings and roundabouts. Depends on time of year, type of fishing, and water clarity. The main reason pair trawlers presently pair trawl for most of the year is for fuel economy. If fuel was cheaper, they'd probably only pair trawl when you are known as '@Summer@'. All for tonight, must go...