The doctor

I hope your right Glenn, it would be nice to have some means of assessing how many visit this forum as opposed to the sea fishing forum.

It just occurred to me Glenn. do you remember a certain meeting in Scarborough in May I think it was. Both you and Paul were there, along with DEFRA, MFA & NESFC etc. Do you remember someone prompting either of you to ask DEFRA about bag limits on Cod? Do you remember who actually asked the question in the end because nobody else would? Do you remember the response from DEFRA? Do you remember who probably asked most of the questions and made most of the comment during the evening? Not trying to score points Glenn, simply trying to make the point that if you go to meetings simply turning up is not enough, you have to participate, this is what your unelected representatives do, they ask the questions and push for the answers whilst making their own sectors concerns clear. I will be contacting the MFA and DEFRA shortly to try and organise the next meeting (which they committed to 6 months from the initial meeting). Perhaps you could put together a presentation on the concerns of Whitby and NE anglers in general have regarding the intensive harvesting of cod during the herring spawning period.

Your not kidding there Glenn, they don't need to pay people to do it, many are doing it willingly. Lets face it your not going to beat 1.5 million anglers on an individual basis, but what you can do is undermine the leadership, sow the seeds of doubt, cut the head off the snake, pull the tigers claws, which ever phrase you wish to use, either way 'divide and ye shall conquer'. Its a trick that has been used before and one that is now being used against RSA. These tactics are going to be used more widely as we've seen on AN, the proponents have already managed to get conservation issues and discussion on the future of our sport separated and marginalised so that just a few now have input. The rest of the sea angling fraternity will continue blissfully unaware of the dangers. Isn't a bit strange that those who were most vociferous in their need for a separate forum because they didn't want to get involved or read about conservation and politics are still posting in this forum. Unfortunately Elton was duped into this move, and that has simply marginalised the issues and removed for some, one of the few opportunities to remain informed.

Having worked on a few netters, been involved on a number of scientific surveys using nets, I would like to think that I speak from experience, obviously no where near Wurzels, but enough to make more than an educated guess. The amount of debris depends on ground, soak time and recent weather conditions. Gear put in just after the first northerly gale of the autumn is likely to be full of all sorts of crap, predominantly weed, if there is a bit of swell, the net may have a good few edibles in, if there are velvets in the area, they can be a real pain, especially if the gear has been left for quite a while (24hrs!!). I've seen a range of methods used, depending on offending item and number of fleets to be worked during the tide, obviously the greater number of fleets, the greater the urgency to get nets cleared. As a rule of thumb, unwanted shellfish are smashed up, Edibles clear more easily without their legs and claws, these are removed, the shell can then be cleared quite easily, some times a bang on the gunnel will do the trick, no need to get a mallet or hammer out, just swing the net with offending item onto the gunnel, the impact does the rest, remember most fishing vessels will have a SS or re-inforced gunnel to either shoot over or to haul heavier gear onto (pots etc.). Sea urchins can be cleared very quickly with a swift bang on the gunnels, saves time trying to tease out and no cuts to hands or holes in gloves. Velvets are no so lucky, being feisty little critters they usually get no more than a size 8 and then the remaining debris is rubbed together complete with net until the majority falls out onto the deck. Not such a problem for drift nets like Wurzel uses, but bottom gears with lead line and or no false bottom can sometimes be a real pain to clear, especially if the velvets have tried to walk off with the gear.

But we have Glenn, we have said we are against Bag Limits per se, unless there is something worthwhile accrueing to anglers, the only species that has been given some consideration for as a potential candidate for a restriction in take is bass. If a proposal for bag limits on cod came up we would fight it unless there was overwhelming evidence to state that cod will crash unless angling and commercial effort is capped. There appears to be this idea that the discussion of bag limits is at such a forward position that individual species are being targeted, it is not, we are not. The position hasn't changed WE ARE OPPOSED TO BAG LIMITS Without being sarcastic, if it makes you feel any better; we are against Bag limits for cod. For the Conger anglers; we are against Bag limits for Conger (only had 1 and I can't say I was that impressed, but each to their own) For the Flounder anglers; we are against Bag limits for Flounder (who needs Led Zep or Ted Nugent - enough Heavy metal for everyone in these) For the Mullet anglers; we are against Bag limits for Mullet (you gets your bog roll already built in!!) For the Pollock anglers; we are against Bag limits for Pollock (does anyone actually eat this stuff) For the Bass anglers; we are against Bag limits for Bass (until benefits accrue to anglers, and or the stocks collapse) Which is as far as we have discussed. (but its in the BMP, and in any case will go out to consultation prior to any decision being taken). For the Ray anglers; we are against Bag limits for Ray (although they of most species could do with protection and therefore some sensible control would be advisable, but that is up to the individual angler, and in any case my own opinion not a national position) For the Wrasse anglers; we are against Bag limits for Wrasse (but lets use a bit of common here guys they taste like ****) For the Bream anglers; we are against Bag limits for Bream (tooo tasty for their own good, sorry thats not very PC is it, what the hell I like bream, especially on the Barbie) For the Haddock anglers; we are against Bag limits for Haddock (being a cod head I prefer cod anyway) For the Smoothhound anglers; we are against Bag limits for smoothhound (I have to admit I wouldn't need much convincing to go the otherway, why knock a fantastic fighting fish like these on the head). For the Ling anglers; we are against Bag limits for Ling (You can keep em!!!!) For the Turbot anglers; we are against Bag limits for Turbot (Other than the Channel Islands try catching one never mind putting a bag limit on them) For the Brill anglers; we are against Bag limits for Brill anglers!!!! For the Tope anglers; I am all for no take for Tope (call me radical!!!!) For the LSD's anglers; we are against harsh treatment of LSD's (if you've never had an LSD they can be a bit rough at times, but you wouldn't want more than a couple in a night anyway - not if you didn't want nightmares anyway) For the shark anglers, those days are long gone. Sorry if I've missed any other target species off, e-mail me and I'll make a public statement tomorrow. Sorry Glenn, just a bit of light-hearted banter, with a bit of a serious side that shows, to say you are against bag limits on one particular species means you have to go through the whole range, far simpler and less time consuming to say, in short you are against bag limits and when a specific issue arises, dealt with it at face value.

Thats the problem Glenn, a number of people on AN are saying that the reps have said or committed to such and such but they are not quite sure, only trouble is that they don't add the last bit, the bit about not being sure what, where or when the dastardly deed was committed, in other words putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 44. The perception of the term bag limits is being taken to its most extreme format, and similarly the perception that some angling organisations supported bag limits. I've seen all of the responses from the major angling orgs and none say that they favour all out restrictions on the number of fish (any spp.) anglers should take. We (YALASA) say we are against bag limits, but accept that were there are severe implications for a stock/population, bag limits would possibly be necessary. This position is difficult to argue against, in fact, many clubs in recent times have instigated their own voluntary bag limits, of a type, by introducing larger size limits on whiting when they are abundant in order to reduce the number of whiting brought to the scales. If flounder where in significant decline in the Esk, would you be against say a maximum number of 2 flounder being weighed in in club matches. Horses for courses Glenn, there are many shades of grey. It doesn't exactly say much other than there is some support for bag limits from angling orgs, what we don't know as yet is who else said what, whether some of the less higher profile orgs (regional clubs, divisions and or individuals) supported these, it also says others supported bag limits and licensing, that could commercials and environmentalists. Or maybe cod has never been discussed, proposed. Again, a number on AN have lambasted the reps for discussing bag limits, we've been told that if we hadn't discussed such and such a species it wouldn't be in the limelight. Its a case of the devil you do the devil you don't. I have never discussed bag limits for any species other than bass, this was in direct response to a consultation or questions asked at meetings by officials, I would if cod was raised as an issue be totally against such a proposal (my personal opinion). You can't have it both ways, critisise for not raising it as an issue and critisise if it is raised and there is no prior evidence of any opposition. We'll cross that path when it comes to it, which after the fishing news article would appear to be a lot closer now. Glenn, I can't remember, but some of that may be attributable to me, I don't know. But the truth of the matter still is that with so many pressing issues, effort has to be directed at either what is achievable or specific pressing issues, of which there are many. If ICES can't achieve the desired outcome/effect for cod, do you honestly believe that YALASA, NFSA, etc. can, it doesn't mean to say that it is a fight we shouldn't/wouldn't enter in to, I've seen first hand how important cod is to the EU fleet (some but not all member states), and rightly so. It is however, something that we as anglers can contribute to. The EU member states have many scientists working out the best way to manage the cod stocks and the cod fishery with minimal success and no consenting agreement on the optimal strategy, for 4 or 5 angling volunteers to sit down by themselves and construct a cod management plan that Europes best scientists cannot attain, is possibly asking a little too much. At the present I don't know what we (as anglers and reps) can do to change the current status of cod and its availability to anglers, for the NE its maybe not as significant an issue as it was 5 yrs ago, there is certainly some level of recovery. The size of fish is also an issue, but these are not going to materialise overnight, again as you posted a week or so ago, is it too early to determine whether the cod recovery plan is working. To my mind another 5 yrs or so should give us a better indication, not just with the stock abundance (SSB etc.) but also with the stock demographics.

Examples of where RSA reps have offered up in the first place or did'nt argue against such a proposal in the hope of achieving other measures that could have been seen as beneficial to some sectors of the RSA. Its not an attack Glenn Just trying to work out what RSA reps have given away or more to the point what benefits we've recieved.

Examples please Glenn and Brian????

Challenge for RSA representative status Sorry he's already doing it isn't he, silly me Looks like cod bag limits are on the radar now, he must be pleased with the way that panned out.

Diving will be carried out within windfarms, as part of the monitoring package within the consent. We are already in negotiation to provide these services which will investigate the degree of attachment and growth of epifauna both on the turbines and rock armour. It is a critieria stipulated by the MCEU and DEFRA in the UK and similar bodies throughout the rest of Europe where offshore renewables are being built or already constructed.

Nah, not a chance, not at Flamborough anyway, nearest one is about 35 miles south. The Wash, now thats a different matter. Seems a tad strange to be building turbines on shifting sands, especially after the experience of Scroby Sands. Why invest millions of £££'s in a wind farm only for them to fall into the sea, I think there is a slight amount of over exaggeration going on here. Wurzel I'd be interested to know where you are getting 55ft to 65ft of accretion, is this offshore or inshore, I'd keep it quiet before Hanson or Westminster find out, you'll have even less grounds then!!!! There are as yet no specific total exclusion to static gears, I've not heard of any bans on sea angling within the wind farm sites other than the recommended 50m exclusion around the turbines. I know that there is exclusion for mobile gears on H & S grounds, which obviously makes sense. I doubt however, that even Wurzel could catch and land a multicore power cable from a fleet of nets, apart from the fact that he mostly uses drift nets anyway, so I guess he will be excluded from windfarm sites and compensated accordingly. The cables will be trenched and backfilled, including the landfall cable and offshore network (to hub). The depth of the cable sub-seabed will depend on the substratum and erosion profile, hard compact sea bed types may only need to be trenched to 1m, softer beds may be required beyond 2m+.

Absolutely Glenn, but the last option says it all. There was no need for the hystrionics, a simple "I don't take fish so all my fishing is catch and release" would suffice, instead of the Swampy etc. etc.

In essence yes, but how do you get back through the 6 mile limit without breaking the regulation. Outside the 6 you could keep as much fish as you want, once in the 6 its a breach of the regulation if you were to have more than your limit. That is assuming the legislation would be under SFC byelaws, if its national legislation then it doesn't matter where you fish 4, 6, 8, 12 or 30. Doc.

For a brief second I thought that was a serious poll then I read the options!!!!!!

Binatone doesn't need evidence, Glenn you should know that.

For those who like to portray the NFSA and other RSA representative bodies as the anti-christ or see no value in bag limits, closed areas etc. I suggest you take a look at the following and have a look at the website. I’m not condoning any of the above, but it does provide food for though as an alternative to the Doom and Gloom brigade. Equally gives an insight into a recovering fishery that is managed sustainably for both commercial and recreational utilisation. The MLS for cod (same species as we get) is 23” for recreational and 19” for commercial catch. Anglers are allowed a daily bag limit of 10 cod and or haddock, all fish over this are released. In addition there are closed areas throughout the fishing grounds and no cod can be brought ashore between November 1st and April 1st. The text below is lifted from the following website http://www.bunnyclark.com/ The picture is a shot of John Watson (NJ) holding the largest cod that has been caught on the Bunny Clark in fourteen years. This 67.5lb Maine state trophy was caught on the November 3, 2006 marathon fishing trip This isn't the greatest picture I have ever taken of a big cod but I had limited time as we were trying to get this whale cod back into the ocean alive. I am less sure about its survival than I should be. Why the sudden interest in returning cod? Starting November 1, 2006, private recreational and charter/party vessels are prohibited from possessing or retaining any cod caught from the Gulf of Maine Regulated Mesh Area until April 1, 2007. The outer boundary of this area extends far enough (from Eastport, ME to Cape Cod, MA out 100 miles) that, if I started now, I would run out of fuel on the Bunny Clark before I would ever get there. This hasn't changed the way I fish as we don't usually see that many cod at this time of year anyway. However, it just so happens that I have been running into our largest cod of the season around the time this new regulation went into effect. I am in favor of this regulation and have encouraged the release or tag and release of these fish by our anglers for years. I have even gone so far as to have a special tag and release t-shirt made up ("Protect and Preserve, Maintain the Reserve") so that anyone who releases a cod over 30 pounds receives one of these t-shirts free when we get back to the dock. The released fish is weighed, a quick picture is taken and it's weight counts for the boat pool - if the angler has entered the boat pool. Of course, the shirt deal is now off as the incentive value has disappeared with the onset of the new regulation. The problem I had on John's marathon trip was that I was unprepared for catching so many big fish at once. And it doesn't take many big cod to get bogged down with work. I found myself denying photos to let some of the less remarkable fish go alive and extending time out of water on two fish that were exceptionally big, John's fish included. I feel slightly bad about this but I keep telling myself that I have successfully released hundreds of big cod (mostly tagged) for twenty-three years. As for John's fish specifically? All I can say is that we tagged and released a 54 pound cod in 1985 or 1986 that had pink gill and floated belly up with a flock of sea gulls pecking away at it. I gave the fish the benefit of the doubt and wrote in my log: "floated away, probably dead". We got a return on that fish two years later. It was caught in a gill net at the mouth of the Saco River just inside Tantas. It was 49 pounds gutted before going to market. Special fish like John's are absolutely the kind of fish we like to see caught on the Bunny Clark. Other big doubles caught on the trip include; 54lber 49lber 42lber And a baby pollock of 27lb I wonder if chieftan can get to maine on a 90hr trip!!!

Yes most people are not bothered about your petty attempts at wind ups or snidy remarks, even when faced with a bit of humour, you can't resist resorting to type. Well consider yourself switched off, so I won't be expecting any purile responses from you in the future. HAGD Doc.

Take it whichever way you fancy Challenge, theres only you that cares

you should have read the preceding post Steve Is that why you aren't involved at a national level now Steve, or do you just fundamentally disagree with Tom and Leon on principal?

The point is Leon the minute you get involved, there are those who on here who will call you from a pig to a dog for sticking your nose in, if you'd not bothered being a member of the SFC in the first place there wouldn't be a problem. Its only the fact that you pushed your nose in, that up set the fishermen in the first place, they should be left to do what they do best i.e. catch fish to feed the nation. The minute you 'attack' them by sitting down at a table to open dialogue and getting involved in fisheries management then that is when the problems occur. After all we should learn to know our place and crawl back under the rock from hence we came. If its thrown out some anglers will question your motives, impartiality, impacts to the commercial sector etc., if its carried they simply call for your head, the devil you do the devil you don't. Anglers are predictably unpredictable, last year Glenn K was asking everyone to support his cod petition, and many many anglers from across the UK did, even those who rarely if ever caught or targeted cod. This week Glenns response is to tell anglers (many of whom supported his cod petition) to go and take a running jump if they wanted his support on Tope or Bass proposals, purely and simply on the basis of a couple of peoples interpretation of a DEFRA summation. Unfortunately some anglers can't see beyond the end of their nose whether its the rose tinted glasses or the spite that is blocking their view I don't know, but we (RSA) are still in a situation whereby angling factions (be it BASS or Whitby or the Tope anglers) struggle to get broadscale support, there are too many detractors who sit on the fence sniping without anything concrete to add. As stated on many occasions its easy to post a few lines of condemnation on a sea angling forum, its much more difficult to put a cohesive argument forward, have the conviction to pursue it and take it to the relevent authorities, or alternatively put forward an argument against a particular proposal. Nowadays simply saying the anglers won't like it is sadly not enough, a thorough sound argument has to be applied not an emotive statement.

Having seen who wrote the letter all is becoming clear, it was the same guy who proposed a cull on 6" bass because there were too many of them and they were eating everything, in his opinion!!!!!!!!!!! Same with some of the Thames Shrimpers who target peelers during the summer and sell to the tackle shops, quite a lucrative sideline, even if only for a short period of time.

Can I suggest Leon that as an unelected representative you should not be responding to such proposals. I would further suggest that until you have the full backing of all anglers within the K&E SFC area that you decline to make any comment, further to this it is your responsibility as unelected RSA representative to ensure that all anglers within the K&E area are aware of the proposal and that they have an opportunity to speak to you personally, this is because without a majority position you are representing, as an angler, your own personal opinions, which may not be the majority view of the possible 100k anglers in the SE. I would expect you to make representation to all anglers through the local press, radio & television, sea angling clubs, tackle shops and where anglers are not members of any of these outlets use the local telephone directory. This should be completed by next Wednesday to enable all the anglers to put forward their views, this then allows you 2 days to assimilate all the points and then send them out to every one for final agreement, you can then as an unelected RSA representative put forward the majority view on the meeting of the 20th November. Unless you have done this I, as a reasonable angler, can see no justification for any response on behalf of recreational sea anglers. Oh and by the way what right have you to suggest such a proposal?

Steve Weathergood is sadly very correct in his assumption, although somewhat misguided in his zeal to point it out. The childish attempts to wind anglers up over bass discards are............... well just childish and not really worth getting wound up over. However, he, and others of his ilk appear to believe that once they begin to show the general public the amount of dead bass they are discarding because DEFRA have increased the MLS and created an unlevel playing field, that Joe Public will side with them and force the minister to lower the bass MLS back to 36cm. I'm sure that *********, ** ******** and the rest of the pro lobby from ****** will applaud such a move pointing out that such waste is being destructive to the fishing industry. Time will tell. However, I am not so sure that they aren't opening up an even bigger can of worms, a little bird tells me that certain NGO's are almost hoping that the SW and S coast fishing industry does take this line as it will be an opportunity to push through technical measures via increased mesh sizes. This is the position that the NGO's will take stating that the industry 'does not give a damn about conservation, only profits', their willingness to be destructive in order to prove a point shows that clearly. The general public will be asked to consider (in the light of the recent Science report) what course of action best suits the fish and ecology in the waters along the south coast, A) mass discarding of adolescent fish in order to reduce the minimum landing size below that at which the species can reproduce, or widespread compulsory increases in trawl mesh sizes with a retention of the present MLS. From the general publics view point its not rocket science, as for Steve Weathergood, leave him to it, he's loading his gun, in preparation to blow his own toes off.

Now then Peter, Would I be wrong in assuming your diametrically opposed position is just a case of reversed psychology, in other words their 'State of fear' tactics are as inappropriate as your 'don't worry, be happy - everythings fine and dandy' attitude. The fishing may be brilliant off the Thames and southern North Sea, but this is a global review and things are certainly not all rosy in the global marine garden, despite what others on here will say to the contrary. You weren't a communist in a former life were you, your hatred and or mistrust of anything to do with government is unerring By the way thanks for the gill net doc. I'll have a read through tomorrow and send on my penny's worth. Cheers Doc.