Captain Black

I note that Simon E. has posted and, as I don't want to 'flog this' anymore than is needed, I will try to be brief. I appreciate that your intention wasn't to moan, Sam. The trouble is other people might have interpreted it as such; i.e. that you had been waiting several weeks and hadn't had any response from BASS. Not good publicity for the Society. With regard to Paypal see my earlier post. Using Paypal would cost BASS money, not save us. Also a two speed route into membership - means two different ways of processing memberships. Additional work. Additional scope for error. To save BASS money and the Treasurer time (as well as the member concerned) the best form of 'joining' BASS is to use a Standing Order Mandate. One of our number spent a very long time the other day trawling through societies listed online, trying to find one that uses an online joining facility (where there are no paid admin staff) so we could see how they utilised the facility; British Conger Club, Catfish Club, England Youth Fly fishing Association, Barbel Society, and Shark Angling Club of GB, all societies similar to BASS, and couldn't find one. Most do not even offer a bank standing order arrangement (which BASS does). Apologies for taking over this thread at such length but the point needed addressing. Hope you enjoy your membership of BASS, Sam. Regards . . . . John

Hi Sam, Followed up your query as I promised. Had a reply this morning from our Treasurer. Your cheque was dated 23/08/06 which he received on the Weds 30th. He has forwarded this to the person who processes new members (should have it by this Saturday) - but I would imagine it will take at least another week before you receive anything. I suppose it could be thought that this is slow. In our defence I would ask you you take into account that we are all voluntary workers who run the society in our 'spare' time. We do our best. I notice you mention that you've commented previously about there being no facility to join on-line. There are various reasons for this (we have looked seriously at online joining) - our main concern is traceability of the monies. I don't want to go into the details, but it isn't a straightforward process. I'm sure you'll understand that any Treasurer has to be 100% happy that he can identify who has paid what. Also, because there would be a charge for administering the system BASS would lose a proportion of the membership amount in a fee to Paypal. Until we can resolve these issues we will not be offering an 'online joining' option. Hope the above helps everyone . . . Regards . . . . John p.s. I would be interested to know if there are any other orgs. out there, relying solely on unpaid, voluntary staff who have successfully adapted to "paypal" (ie strike out the NFSA who have paid admin. staff to manage it)

Hi Sam, I don't deal with the membership applications but as, as far as I'm aware, I'm the first person to hear of your query I thought I'd better act. Can you tell me when you posted your application form? I'll forward that information along with your details onto the Treasurer/Membership bods to follow it up for you. Probably best if you PM me your postal address and e-mail address and we can get straight back to you ASAP. If you had concerns the easiest, and best, course of action would have been to visit the BASS website Contact Page and e-mail the BASS Secretary or Treasurer. At the end of the day we can only address your query if we know about it - and we won't know if you don't contact us directly. Regards . . . . John

It's a big fish - no doubt about that but I don't think it's 35lb. A friend has a cast of the british record bass caught by Dave Bourne (19lb - 1988) and whilst the fish in the photo is certainly bigger than that it's not anywhere near as big as the 34lb striper I saw in October last year in Montauk (not caught by me). Unfortunately I didn't have a camera to hand to record the big striper - but then that would only have been 'another' photo of 'another' big fish. The only person who knows for certain the weight is the guy in the picture - at the end of the day its a magnificent fish whatever its true weight. John

Commercial fishermen will target whatever will make them some money: From a friend who fishes Anglesey (he's talking about green crab). From the June '05 South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee report: John

Jaffa said: It didn't say. Jaffa said: There was no intention to insult Wurzel - I apologise for the phraseology. Perhaps, I should have claimed that he was misguided (as he did about me) with regard to his views that no fishery collapses have been due to overfishing when they quite plainly have. Jaffa said:

Wurzel said: And has Steve G or yourself contacted BASS to help lobby the EU: EU Petition. The offer by the Chairman John Leballeur was carried in Fishing News in November 2005. To my knowledge despite all the protestations about 'Johnny Foreigner' not being affected by the proposals in the BMP no-one from the commercial sector has taken up that offer. As regards shoals of large bass I suppose it all depends on what is classed a 'large' shoal of bass. I have seen, what I would term, large shoals of over 45cm bass - not in recent years admittedly - but then for the reasons I've already stated earlier that's not surprising. However, I did see a shoal in Ireland in 2003 - covering an area slightly larger than an tennis court. They had corralled a shoal of mackerel in a cove and were hitting seven bells out of them - some of the bass were over 6lbs, their sides were coming out of the water as they overshot their prey. Unfortunately they were just out of range of my plugs and I didn't manage to catch one. But the sight was amazing. There was also a shoal of bass sighted harrassing another shoal of makerel along a local pier last year - one enterprising angler changed rods and flicked out a live mackerel and in three casts had two bass one was 5lbs the other just over eight pounds. I'm truly interested in this continual claim that all bass over 45cms immediately head offshore to be caught by the 'foreign' vessels. Numbers of over 45cm bass have declined inshore I don't dispute that, certainly I and my companions catch fewer good sized bass than we used to, but that hasn't always been the case. Is it seriously being claimed that bass have changed their habits. There's a similar echo from the commercials and their representatives. As my son would say . . .'Whatever' I can see this going round in circles. I'll bow to one of your previous posts. Let's see what comes out when the dust of the consultation settles. John

Hi Davy, We could all pick holes in each others arguments until cod stocks recover (that'll be a lot longer than the cows coming home). I'm not sure what directing 'contra to popular belief' is meant to mean to me - but I fully agree with you that everyone is entitled to their opinion. Therefore my opinion is just as valid as everyone else's - which is why I posted it - I don't recall saying that a bass anglers opinion is any more valid than anyone else's. Wurzel, With regard to your comment about an echo. I take it you're referring to a post I made in October last year. I never did get around to replying - mainly because trying to get you to admit that there is a problem with fish stocks is a lost cause - from the post I meant to reply to: I'd be interested to hear, as would many others I'm sure, Wurzel, your version as to why the fishery collapsed. For the benefit of those who might construe that my lack of response implied that Wurzel knew what he was talking about: Herring (Published in Pelagic News, July 2001) From the Cefas website: As I understand it the stock has since recovered - but my point is that it took a collapse to get them to take action. From Fish to Fodder Wurzel will now probably argue that industrial fishing doesn't count. And never the twain will meet . . . . Everyone one on this forum is biased to a greater or lesser degree and as I said at the top of the post we can argue and argue but not many will veer from what they believe is correct. For an as independant and unbiased a view as possible then I recommend reading: The Last of the Hunter Gatherers by Michael Wigan (ISBN 1-85310-771-9) or The End of the Line by Charles Clover (ISBN 009189780-7) John

Hmmmm . . . interesting. Let me think. I'm just trying to remember when exactly the commercial sector ever even considered RSA's and asked for their input. The BMP was produced by BASS - good for them - because I'm damned sure the Commercials wouldn't have got round to asking to put in place measures to ensure a future for their fishery and larger bass for anglers. If BASS were in it for themselves then they wouldn't have taken into account the ramifications for the commercial sector. As for input all you've got to do is reply to the consultation process. As for calling 'foul' on not having 'input'- having read the Consultation Document I note a highly biased document which makes much of the 'negative' effects on Commercial Fishing but not much about the 'negative' or 'positive' effects on RSA's. In addition to your input, Steve, there will of course, be the highly influential but totally 'unbiased' responses from all the SFC's - 'Not'. There are anglers on quite few SFC's now and whilst they have no chance of influencing the outcome (as they're heavily outnumbered when it comes to a vote) they witness the 'antics' employed to ensure that the proposals are watered down or rejected. One or two SFC's have actually gone for option (a) No Change but others have recognised that the 'facts' cannot be disputed and have gone for a compromise. Seeing as I've started I'll carry on - though the following might jump around a bit as topics occur to me: I've also been following the reports in Fishing News. If it wasn't for the fact that some people reading the commercial claims probably believe them it would be laughable. I constantly have to remind myself that many of the contributors to the letters and columns purport to make a professional living from fishing. Much of what they claim is at best misleading at worst deliberate lies. With regard to Davy Holt and others concerns over the possible transfer of effort from the bass fishery to ‘a.n. other’ species. I’m not going to claim its not going to happen, quite possibly it will. However, everyone is treating this as if commercial anglers are being stopped from fishing for bass. They are not. They simply cannot retain bass under 45cms. Yes, there will be a short term impact but ultimately there will be benefits for everyone. And contrary to commercial claims it will not take as long as they say. I have a scenario which should cause Davy and others to seriously consider their stance on the BMP. First some biological background – I’m sure it’s been covered before but just in case. . . Facts: Male bass mature at around 35-36cms whilst females mature around 42cms. The current mls is 36cms (except Cornwall & South Wales where it is set at 37.5cms). I have heard the argument put forward that “Well, that’s Ok the males will be mature so we don’t need an increase”. Great, wonderful, bar for the fact that it’s generally accepted that without enough of both sexes the future for any species isn’t particularly bright. So on that point alone we should be increasing the mls and mesh size – it is madness not to. It is also generally accepted that the current bass fishery is a recruitment fishery. That means that as the juvenile fish mature they immediately become available to be caught and sold commercially. The benefit to the commercial system is something called Maximum Sustainable Yield. They are cropping the fish. In their eyes there is no benefit in letting the fish grow on because, as long as there are enough juveniles reaching adulthood, then the lifecycle is, to use the buzzword, ‘sustainable’. And there lies the ‘rub’. Sustainable – it’s sustainable just as long as the recruitment to the fishery stays stable but that isn’t guaranteed and continuing to fish on the basis of ‘It’ll be Ok’ isn’t my idea of good fishery practice. At present there are plenty of small bass but the fishery for these juveniles has been buoyed by a succession of favourable climactic conditions. In particular mild winters. Biologically bass larvae end up in nursery sites, generally shallow estuarine habitats. The critical stage is the first year when they are what is termed ‘0’ group. At this stage they are vulnerable to low temperatures. Following the hard 1962/63 winter there was an almost complete absence of the 1962 year class around England and Wales – nearly all the over wintering 0-groups had been killed off. So what – I hear you ask, that was ages ago. Maybe, but that susceptibility to cold is as applicable now as it was then except . . . there may not be an adult population to act as a buffer? The best recent year class is 2002 and this is the critical spawning that the introduction of the 45mls (and 110mm) mesh (provided it is introduceed as quickly as possible) would protect. Subsequent year classes have not been so good: 2003 was reasonable; 2004 was average/poor and 2005 was poor. In the cold snap in the winter of 2004/2005 it is estimated that the year class was reduced by 30%. All it would take is two or three cold winters (its cold this winter - 2nd winter in succession - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3266833.stm) and the ‘recruitment fishery’ could dry up. The bass fishery is currently being run on luck – at some point that ‘luck’ is going to run out. If the bass stock crashes, Davy, it won’t be a matter of whether the commercials will re-direct their effort – I can guarantee it. The commercials have made a great deal of fuss that all fish over 45cms go offshore where the French and Spanish will reap the benefits. Any angler or commercial fishermen should know that this is (I’ll be polite) patently not true – historically adult bass were certainly available in numbers to inshore boat and shore anglers. However, there certainly aren’t as many quality fish inshore as there used to be. Why? Well it isn’t because they all move offshore, it’s because they aren’t there anymore – they’ve been cropped (see above). Prior to the early seventies bass was almost exclusively an ‘anglers’ fish, commercial fishermen weren’t interested in them, they had other species to catch, but then due to over fishing other species started to suffer and the commercials started to look for alternative species. From Sea Bass - Biology, exploitation and conservation. Pickett and Pawson They weren't really interested in bass 'til they 'swear word-up' their mainstay species. The Commercials also claim that the increase will 'devastate' livelihoods and cause hardship blah, di, blah, di blah . . . . Now where have I heard that before. Well, oddly enough, its near enough exactly the same guff that was being spouted prior to the 1981 increase in the MLS. Whilst there may well have been a bit of hardship in the short-term in the long term they've come out better off. As it happens the common denominator in any 'conservation' measures proposed for any species is the certainty that the 'commercials' will oppose it - and in the process demand compensation. I have to say that, personally, I'm not certain that the vociferous opposition to the BMP has as much to do with the proposals as to do with making sure that RSA's don't get to have a say in fisheries management. Look at it from the commercial fishermens point of view, for years they've had a monopoly on fishing; they've done near enough what they liked when they liked. If scientists have made recommendations they've howled and screamed, and, without anyone else to have to take account of, the politicians have backed down and allowed the scientific proposals to be watered down. It's only recently that proper action to try to save fisheries is being taken and it's not going down well. Now theres an even bigger change afoot anglers have got their act together and politicians are starting to take note - and the commercials don't like it one little bit. Anglers have a choice to make over and above whether they support the BMP and it is a choice that may arguably prove more important. Without other stakeholders to oppose the commercial sector then our fishing (as Recreational Sea Anglers) will continue to decline. Those who see the bass mls and the accompanying mesh sizes as something which is of no interest because they fish for other species should remember that the BMP also includes: Proposals for inshore gill net restrictions within 1 mile of the shore. A closed season - to protect bass when they are ready to spawn. Stronger laws for nursery areas to further protect immature bass. The introduction of COMMERCIAL licencing and the use of carcass tags, to reduce the current high level of illegal netting and sale of 'illegal' bass. Obviously of most interest to anglers who fish for other species is the proposal regarding netting. Arguably this will indirectly benefit other species. It was not BASS's idea to split the BMP into two separate consultations, that was done by Defra. Call me cynical but I do wonder as to why it was deemed necessary to split a 'package' of measures deliberately designed to support each other. It wouldn't be because they thought they could reduce support would it? Make no mistake a poor response by anglers to the MLS & Mesh consultation will send the message to both Defra and, more importantly, politicians, that anglers can be ignored, that we don't matter. In which case whilst I don't doubt that the secondary consultation will go ahead it will be very much a case of going through the motions. And in case anyones wondering I fish for mullet, smoothhound, tope, rays and bass. I used to fish for cod but its now simply not worth the time, money and effort. The cash saved gets put to one side and takes me on trips to fish elsewhere, like Ireland, where amazingly, considering the commercial claims, there are quite a good number of large bass to be caught within 30yds of the shore. Well, I think that's my lot. Apart from saying if you haven't written in support of the MLS & Mesh increases please, please do. Don't forget, whatever you read on hear from the Commercial side, they're not interested in what you as a Recreational Angler want, only what is best for them. I don't have a great deal of time to read or post on forums but this thread has been quite educational - for my money listen to Leon Roskilly, Ian Burrett and Sharkbyte they've got anglers at heart and know what they're talking about. John

No-one is claiming that bass are near to extinction, wurzel. That is one reason why BASS formed and named the 'Restoration Project'. Note RESTORATION. We want to restore the population of stocks of bass in both numbers and size to pre-war years. BASS recognises that there are numbers of juvenile bass - but a) They are being cropped at a size below which they spawn. Where is the sense in that? They are only sustaining their numbers because recent winters have been mild and there have not been any large losses of '0' group juveniles. Believe me it is perfectly possible to wipe out a complete year class with a prolonged cold spell. The key word above is 'juvenile' - fish which have not spawned. Anglers wish to catch mature fish; preferably large, mature fish. We are being prevented from doing that by the pressures of a greedy commercial fishery which has no interest other than to make as much money as possible in as short a time as possible. Now, I don't have problem with people wanting to make that money as long as it doesn't impact on others. But in this case it does. It impacts on me and my fishing (and every other angler); it impacts on the environment and ultimately it will impact on the very people who are currently prosecuting the fishery to make that money. Personally, I'd quite happily let you all go to the wall - but the phrase 'we told you so' would be bitter on the tongue. Then the people you are listening to haven't got a clue what they are talking about. Try getting hold of factual first hand data instead of repeating hearsay. Ditto, JRT, the more I read wurzels posts the more I am convinced that it is a waste of time even bothering to respond. I'm a bit baffled by your signature, wurzel 'I fish to live and live to fish' - a sentiment I have some empathy with - yet you seem singularly uninterested in ensuring that you have reason to continue to live. John

Sorry, Simon, I know you mean well but please check your facts. With regard to the bass caught several times the below is taken from the ukswff site. It has the correct weights - I should know I posted it. Billy (or more probably Betsy) is quite possibly a 'double' but I don't know about over 12lbs. quote: With regard to the recaptured bass referred to earlier in this thread you might find it of interest that the fish (tag no E416756 - a.k.a. Billy) has been recaptured and released yet again. For interest, and to provide some background, the initial capture and tagging took place on the 24th May 2001 at which time the fish was weighed at 6lb 4oz. On the 21st August 2002 the fish was first recaptured by the original tagger - this time the bass was 7lbs (40yds from the spot where it was originally caught). 17th September 2003 and Billy turns up again, this time 9lbs 3oz, by now the captor was slightly concerned as to his credibilty! However the coincidences hadn't finished quite yet as on 21st August 2004 I fished the mark with the original captor - but this time I caught Billy - 9lbs 4oz. Not only has the same fish been caught four times but it has been caught three times from the same gully and once within 40yds of the gully. With regard to the rest of your post, the '0' group research has, as you say, been taking place for many years. In the main by Donovan Kelley and various helpers; latterly BASS Chairman John Leballeur has taken over the reins. I think it should be pointed out that the sampling has taken place at various points in various estuaries in the south-west and not at a singular point - at least when Donovan was sampling. John

Ken Davison said: quote: What do they want them for? I have visited the site and they don't say. Ken, there are two links within the text on that section which will take you to: BASS members notice. This should answer your question. John

There might not be a French fleet working six miles offshore, Wurzel. But there is a healthy homegrown commercial fleet which has benefitted from stringent controls on it fishing effort (starting originally with a moratorium). quote: The recent status of the striped bass fishery in the Chesapeake Bay tells a relative success story, after more than 10 years of steep decline. Commercial landings in Maryland and Virginia portions of the Bay generally increased from the early 1930s, culminating in a record commercial catch in 1973 of 14.7 million pounds. Thereafter the striper harvest fell steadily to 1.7 million pounds by 1983. Sport fishermen reported a similar pattern. The decline translated into a loss of about 7,000 jobs and $220 million in 1980. In response to this dramatic downturn, Congress passed the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act in 1984. Maryland and Delaware imposed fishing moratoria from 1985 to 1989, and Virginia imposed a one-year moratorium in 1989. Although the fishery reopened in 1990 following three successful spawning years, it remains tightly restricted. I'm heading out to the East Coast of the USA later this month. I used to fish my area at least three times a week, all year round, until about seven years ago, when the winter fishing for cod became so dire it simply wasn't worth the expenditure of time, money and effort. Now I fish only during the spring, summer and autumn (bass, mullet & smoothounds). Once or twice a year I'll head somewhere for a week. Up until last year it was Ireland in the Autumn for the bass fishing. Last year I splashed out and went to Tobago for a week. This year, as I've said it's the USA. My point. Last years Tobago trip cost me somewhere in the region of £1500 this years trip is going to be at least £2000. That is cash I'd far rather spend in this country because it would enable me to have more trips but with less travelling. But the fishing in this country is going downhill and until angling starts to be recognised for its 'value' to UKplc then it will continue to haemorrhage cash as anglers head 'abroad' for decent sized fish to catch. I'm fed up with commercial fisherman holding up their hands in horror at the mere suggestion that they are in any way responsible for any part of the decline in any fishery; and at the same time pooh poohing the suggestion that RSA has more value than commercial angling does. sam-cox said quote: Now Im not saying we area at the point yet, but there must reach a point where there are so few commercial fisherman that the fishery becomes substainable.If that's what we're waiting to happen then God help us. No, I don't think that's what happens sam-cox. What happens is that the fishery crashes and cannot recover - look at the Newfoundland cod fishery. And what will the commercial fishermen do? Well, they'll turn their attentions to another species(see the Lowestoft chap who wanted to target Tope & smoothound). Believe it or not there are actually commercial fishermen not only arguing against the increase in the mls for bass but seriously suggesting that the mles should be reduced because there is a better market for small plate sized bass. I really cannot get my head around such total shortsightedness. John p.s. There are six of us in total going to the USA - that's £12,000 (admittedly that's including flights) [ 02. October 2005, 06:24 PM: Message edited by: Captain Black ]

Simon, Yes, I can see the entire point, which is why I 'pointed' out that you can sail all year round from Swansea! The only drawback with SCF is that in previous years, as Autumn set in, there was an ever increasing risk that gales could cause the sailing to be cancelled. However, usually SCF would get you onto a sailing from Pembroke or Fishguard, so you'd still get across (unless it was really bad and those ferries were cancelled as well). Having said that the last cancelled sailing I was booked on would have been about three years ago Anyway, Simon, couldn't you paddle across on the 'Yak' John

Guys, Swansea Cork ferries now sail year round see: Swansea Cork Ferries. However, they aren't doing the late deals you used to be able to get (£105 return). Couple of mates sailed last Friday night and paid something like £275 + I think there was a supplement on top(Ouch). But it beats the hell out of the drive from Rosslare. John [ 02. October 2005, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: Captain Black ]