Bob Jerunkel

The needs of commercial fishermen and anglers don't vary very much. But their attitudes towards achieving it are miles apart. Commercial fishermen first need to acknwledge that there is a problem. Until they do they will never take the first step towards changing anything. Its global warming. Its seals Its anglers. Its anything but overfishing. When commercial fishermen start talking properly about how we can work together it might have some merit but you can only listen to so much nonsense before losing interest in what they have to say. They are not interested in anything we say so they will know where I'm coming from on that point.

Are any of them ever going to do anything though? Or is talking all they are capable of?

I agree stavey. It's a waste of time.

Source of revenue/stakeholder. All one and the same.

Because of all the fuss and resistance from commercial fishermen probably. Don't forget that there weren't many anglers campaigning back then and anglers hadn't been recognised as valid stakeholders. Things have changed since then as a certain amount of common sense is being allowed to prevail over the rantings of commercial fishermen.

Obviously the commercial fishermen still fishing deny that there is a problem. They have managed to keep fishing by doing whatever they have had to do. What do you think the ones who were forced to give up would say? Would they say things are still ticketyboo or would they admit there is a problem?

I don't believe it would be much different Jaffa. It certainly wouldn't be any better without "management" and it probably wouldn't be any worse either because most commercial fishermen flout the rules as it is.

I've read Grimms book of fairy tales. Grimm has nothing on you wurzel

I'm of the Stoaty school of tackle care. Rods get left made up on the boat till the next trip. I do sometimes take the bait off the hooks at the end of the day though. Bass tackle gets a clean up in April when I take what's left of the treble hooks off the plugs and replace them. Beachcasting gear gets a clean in November whether it needs it or not

I've never had to change a set of bearings in any of my Abu's. Every now and then I take them out and soak them in lighter petrol. Then I dry them out and add a few drops of rocket fuel. That seems to keep them running nice.

If no one else read the conservation and political threads what would be the point in posting them? The people who post these things already know whats going on and most are in touch through phone or email anyway. The info is posted to keep people informed and to get others opinions.

Same as what Cranfield says. Leaving it motionless for a few seconds can do the business.

I suppose it is pretty sad when you think about it.

The general standard of angling ability amongst this forums members is probably higher than average. Therefore there is less need for the sea angler/total sea fishing type beginner Q&A sessions. Those that fish regularly on the same marks probably know what's what.

Another good way of making a rotten bottom is plenty of guiness and onion bahjees

Trouble is many people moan when they think they aren't being kept informed. Look at the bass management plan thread. That plan was a long time in the making and a lot of people had some input. Getting the opinions of your everyday sea angler is important. If people aren't interested in the conservation and politics ionvolved then they won't have the opportunity of getting their points across. Boring as it is conservation is an important subject. Equally as important as catch reports etc. Everyone has the choice whether to read or get involved in the threads. The choice is keep up with developments and have your say or ignore it and accept what you get without whinging. If you think reading threads about conservation is so boring just think how boring it is for those people that have to read 100 times more stuff and attend meetings etc on your behalf. It would be sad if people weren't allowed to post conservation and political threads on this board. By the way fisheries politics and conservation are really the same subject.

No one would look at it. Conservation and politics might be boring but its important. At least on this board people get to see whats going on.

No one is attempting to get wurzle onboard with anything. I doubt whether any angler give a XXXX if wurzle or any other commercial fisherman is onboard or not. It would be nice if they chose to embrace the benefits that there will be for them and to look on the positive side for once instead of just opposing every single change just because they dont like change. As has been pointed out the BMP is a plan written by anglers for anglers. It has been done following promises from the government to give us certain species as purely recreational starting with bass. There are benefits there for commercial fishermen too because when the plan was written commercial fishermen were taken into account.

From my limited knowledge I believe that fishermen will have to show that they have been catching bass commercially for a period of time. They will probably have to prove it too by providing proper paperwork and not stuff that they've got the missus to fill out or their mates in the pub Just heard another rumour. To bring commercial fishing up to date every commercial boat will have to employ a female an ethnic minority and someone disabled to represent the community they feed. Anyone who doesn't comply gets their licence taken away.

It does seem funny someone saying what we should and shouldn't be doing At the end of the day we can all sit here putting the world to rights but its not us that make the decisions. Even if we all agreed on a failsafe plan for the future its not our decision to make. Unfortunately its down to politicians and I for one dont trust them slippery f***ers!

So if some always survive where are all the cod that used to be in the thames estuary? They seem to have disappeared into thin air. If some survive climate change there would still be a fair few about.

If global warming was to blame for the collapse of the grand banks cod fishery, explain this. The water pemperatures in the 1950s were far higher than they have been for the last 30 years on the grand banks. I haven't heard of any slump in the fishery during the 50's. And I haven't heard anything about a moratorium during the 50s either. Since 1970 the sea temps on the grand banks have been pretty constant with peaks and troughs every few years. No real significant changes anywhere that you could point a finger at. In fact the temps have dropped over the last few years yet the cod still haven't come back. Do you think someone ought to tell them that its O.K to come back now? Or could it be that the scientist and local fishermen are actually right and its over fishing that caused the collapse. wuzel might be wrong on this one?

Well because if the watewr was too warm for cod then they would have all moved away together. The fact that some have stayed (and I believe that the ones there are all thats left) means that the water isn't too warm for cod.

You are probably right in as much as there is a definate imbalance. I dont buy the thing about global warming so my theory is that the imbalance has been created from overfishing. Maybe we should look at an overall fisheries plan and place restrictions on all species. That would sort out the imbalance created by man. If I'm wrong and it is nature that has caused the imbalance then we had just better get used to it because nature knows best.

There are fishermen who are paid to handline cod on the grand banks and record the length and weight for the scientists. The cod are also tagged. They are supposed to catch 100 cod a day I think. 100 cod a day is a fraction of what they used to catch. Most days they cant catch 100 and the ones they do catch are a fraction of what used to be the average weight. This is where the scientists get some of their information. If global warming was responsible for the fisheries collapse then there wouldn't be any cod there at all. Sort of blows that theory right out of the water so to speak.