The doctor

Hi Glenn, don't forget the frogs, they've been hammering the whiting 12 mile off Flamborough Head during the sunmmer ( up to 15 large vessels at one point). There are still a couple there now, but I expect the rest of the fleet back shortly for the autumn/winter run. Doc.

Hmmmmmmmm. Thats the same lobster fishery that potting effort restrictions (pot numbers) are now being discussed, along with capping of unlicensed effort, restrictions on the number of new permits/licenses issued, a further increase in MLS, prohibition of landing berried hens etc, etc, etc. Sorry Challenge, but thats not what I'd consider a "fantastic managerial success". The crux of the matter is that due to the decline in the white fish fleet, many vessels switched to shellfish significantly increasing effort on the species's, and whilst last year was especially good (for lobster), this year has been poor thus far. For the last few years fishermen have been having to put more and more pots in the water to maintain catches, yes last year was good, so what happened, more gear went in, this year the trend is significantly down. The crabs are also in decline to the extent where those in the fishery can see themselves that there is a worrying downward trend. Again I reiterate, not a "fantastic managerial success". Doc.

yeah what ever

?????????????? You've completely lost me there challenge I thought I was responding to Wurzel's post (above) and your agreement of his principals. I've had a good look but at no point does it say anything about bag limits, neither do I condemn John and Michelle's business and activities (which I've participated in over the last 3 or 4 years (60hr trips)). Your agreement of Wurzel's dislike of any conservation measures that reduces commercial exploitation at an important reproductive phase is somewhat confusing. I can understand Wurzel's point because his issue is loss of income. John's season is apparently March to November, so there would be no financial impact from a 6 week moratorium on cod during January and February. The phrase antiquated live for today brigade relates to those within the exploitative sector(s) who fight and oppose conservation measures on the grounds that they MAY be impacted financially for a short period somewhere down the line, without fully understanding the principal of no pain no gain. Its very easy to make bold statements without understanding the problems and long term impacts (cause and effect). There are many who persist in the view that a number of important fish stocks are not in a poor state (notice I said poor state and not in decline Wurzel) and that all is relatively rosy in the garden. Others maintain that this poor state is not due to overfishing but as a result of environmental factors (GLOBAL WARMING etc.). The point is that there are far too many in denial and this extenuates the problem, by not addressing the important issues now we are simply reducing the potential to redress the balance in years to come. The rejuvenation of fisheries and resources is not going to happen overnight, it took many years to deplete the resources, its going to take twice as long to recover them, but to ignore the problem is tantamount to madness. At present we are at the very best, for most of the major stocks (one or two excepted) treading water, not making any significant headway in either direction. Unless further measures (radical if that is what is needed) are put in place we'll still be in the same place in 10 years time, with an ever declining commercial sector and a recreational sector that cannot achieve its full potential. When you talk about the 'world' what do you mean? India, SE Asia, the Pacific, or are you talking about regional/national or EU wide dictation of measures. If you fish as far field as your trips indicate then any such measures would need to be on a North Sea basis to be valid, and for cod that makes sense, so what are these measures that are being implemented from another part of the world? I haven't heard about them. Well what are they then? Don't leave us all in suspenders Completely taken out of context and bares no resemblance to the principal points made in response to Wurzel's original post and your endorsement of his views, in which I reiterate my point, that such a view is based on short term financial deficit (antiquated live for today sector), what is your excuse? Cheers Doc.

Can't give you any up to date catch info for that area as it is a while since I fished there. The Dovey estuary is an excellent venue, but better fished around low water (not sure of tides this weekend). To access drive straight through Borth to the end of the road (past sand dunes) there is a large stretch of sand flats park up at the top (usually a lot of other vehicles parked on the sand), walk straight out (provided the tide is outLOL!!!) towards the deeper channel and walk along the edge until you come to a few rocks on the edge of the channel. Fish here, you should expect bass and flounder, plenty of schoolies but we've had better fish to 4lb. Easy fishing in a great location, the flounders can be a good stamp as well (2lb). Peeler is important for the bass, but rag will catch too. As for Borth and Ynas Las, the open beaches should produce the odd bass, turbot and the inevitable LSD's, and depending on casting distance the odd ray may be available. If fishing this area with light tackle I'd be more inclined to fish the rocky area at the start of the Borth road, there is a small headland/promintary before the long beach starts (just before the sand dunes). This area used to produce bass, pollock, mackerel (on float) and LSD's, with the odd strap conger after dusk. Crab, rag, worm and fish baits should all produce but crab is the primary bait. Another alternative could be the beach in front of the holiday camp and Glan Y Mor, not sure of the directions but its sited in Clarach Bay. Doggie heaven after dark, with odd ones during the day with bass. Clarach Bay - Glan Y Mor Final venue would be Tan Y Bwlch at Aberystwyth, its a relatively steep shelving cobble beach at the south of the Harbour. Accessed from the road at the side of the Fire Station, drive down until you can go no further. You can fish right next to the south pier, or from it if you prefer, although I tended to fish in the middle stretch. Doggies, bull huss, wrasse, mackerel, whiting, rays and bass are all caught here, usual baits. Hope this is of use, venue of choice depends on how long you are fishing and tide times/states. Cheers Doc.

Yeah sorry Chris, it would be too obvious. I think there was broad agreement that it could be a good move, unfortunately the dissenters just couldn't seem to dot the i's and cross the t's (always the case when there are financial implications). Another issue was the timing of the Norway - EU agreement and discussions that take place each year prior to the Council. Doc.

I must be in a minority here because according to Wurzel and challege you don't catch cod from January to March, not my experience by any stretch of the imagination. Firstly because a fish has roe or melts in it in November it doesn't mean its in a heightened spawning condition, there are a number of maturation stages, the one that really counts is the one where its as Wurzel puts it 'bursting' or running. If you were to take literally what Wurzel was saying then you would need to not catch cod at all. That was not what I said, I agree once a cod has been caught it is never going to spawn, but to take it weeks before it does, helps nobody, not the fishery (anglers and commercial alike) nor the stock potential or SSB. The reason closed areas where disregarded was due to the fact that the fishing fleet fished harder around the periphery of the closed area, concentrating effort and intercepting fish as they migrated into the closed zone. The result was increased impact to the seabed and benthic fauna and a reduction in fish accessing the closed box. If nobody catches cod during this time what the hell were the fleets doing there. One of the points for discussion at a previous RAC meeting was the issue of changing the quota year, principally to alleviate the wranglings at the December council and ensuing gold rush and horse trading that followed, however, a major benefit would have been that if the quota year had been put back to April, come January, February and March, much of the quota would have already been taken up. Resulting in more fish spawning due to the limited quota left, as opposed to the present state where the principal spawning stage coincides with the initial uptake of the quota and the resultant headlong rush to catch as much as is possible. Unfortuantely the proposal got nowhere due to opposition from a certain position (which I'll not go into). But what is mystifying, if nobody catches cod ("they disappear") why the reluctance to change the quota year, which would ultimately benefit all in the long term. What I find even more mystifying is your persistant willingness Challenge to decry any measures that would benefit all (including fish populations) preferring instead to ally yourself to the antiquated live for today sector that is the mind set of some sections of the commercial fraternity. I take it these views are those of just yourself and not of John, do your anglers also share this short term negative position. What do you do during January to April if there are no cod to catch? I appreciate the weather isn't at its best but the fishing can be awesome. Al I can say is that if the charter boat sector can't see the green for the black then they'll find themselves in troubled waters Cheers Doc.

Wurzel, you know that that is not the case, having been to a NSRAC meeting yourself. But for others information the other 'bloody stakeholders' as Wurzel so elloquently put it, comprise WWF, Birdlife International, European Anglers Alliance, European Bureau for conservation and development, Seas at Risk & the Coastal Union, oh and I forgot the North Sea Womens Network, representing fishing communities!!!!!!!!! There is no Greenpeace, RSPB, English Nature or Scottish Nature, they have never been asked nor have ever attended. So in the 1/3rd non fishing sector (Wurzels other bloody stakeholders) you have 1 angler seat, 5 Environmentalist seats and 1 seat for women in the fishing communities (NSWN). As opposed to 17 commercial fishing seats. There were 2 angling seats originally (EAA & European Fishing Tackle Trades Association), but they were unanimously voted off last year and replaced by another Environmental group, obviously the NGO's voted for the environmental group along with the fishermen (who probably feel, like Wurzel) that anglers shouldn't be there. Just to further highlight the crazy situation within the NSRAC, the North Sea Womens Network (representing women in the fishing sector) are placed within the non-fishing sector, why?, because its gives greater strength to the commercial interests to have a fishing sector seat in the non fishing group, but thats the EU, make the rules up as it goes along or as it suits. Most fishermens groups send at least two reps to the NSRAC meetings, so more often than not there may be 35 fishermen, 5 NGO's and 1 angler, even the NSWN send 2 reps, so thats 37 reps of fishing sector interests against 6 non sector. So Wurzel in response to your statement "I think you will find that commercials are well out numbered by other stake bloody holders". On what do you base this argument? as it bears no resemblance to the actual picture, as you well know. With regard to the big Question, 'Is cod recoverable?' that depends on what baseline you are using to assess cod recovery. If you are trying to recover to biomass levels found in the late 1960's, early 1970's (Gadoid outburst) (upto 1975) then no it is not presently achievable and possibly may never be, however, if the benchmark is biomass of the mid to late 1980's then yes it could be attainable. However, there are many mitigating factors which may affect the outcome. Exploitation may need to be reduced further in the short term, not specifically to maintain biomass, but to allow those few large mature fish left, increased opportunity to spawn. Fishing down the food chain has to be significantly reduced, if not totally prohibited. I'm not particularly in favour of closed areas for cod, as this tends to increase effort on the periphery of such areas, however, a short closed season during the optimal spawning period. These are factors that we can possibly do something about , however, there are a host of factors which are completely outside our control, effects of global warming, (if you believe the hype), North Atlantic Osscilation (NAO) etc. From a personal point of view I think the NAO is a bigger driver than global warming, as it is much more variable I expect a shift back into the negative phase shortly, if indeed it didn't happen last year. A negative shift is the ideal situation for cod recruitment as opposed to the positive phase we have been in for the last 25 years, which has overseen a significant decline in cod stocks. I am not saying that the positive phase of the NAO is responsible for the decline in cod, it has however, not helped the situation. Cheers Doc.

You couldn't weigh tope in anyway Dave irrespective of whether the competition committee allowed it. The local NESFC byelaw states that tope cannot be landed and have to be released at or as close to the point of capture as is possible.

I hardly think being called an a**e licker and tossers constitutes meaningful debate, similarly I have not seen any meaningful or constructive critisism, other than vindictive slagging off of a few people at the NFSA CG because we (as anglers) didn't get the decision many anglers wanted. If those at the NFSA CG were fully paid staff then anglers who are members of the NFSA have a right to critisise those personnel whom they pay to lobby on their behalf. I'm certainly not aware of anyone within the NFSA blaming the outcome on the number of anglers who responded, nor do I personally consider the verdict a 'good outcome', although it could have been worse. Sam's initial post says it all "I think the product (the bass managment plan) was miss-sold by the NFSA. I also think that at least some of the people in the front line, the same people who talked to Ben Bradshaw at the ANGLING SUMIT ( or should I say frowned and shook their heads) are not real bass anglers". Sorry I didn't realise that you can only become active in RSA if you are a dedicated bass angler (you know; eat, sleep, dream etc. etc. etc.), its funny but I was under the impression that there were other fish out there. I'm sure the anglers in the NE will be pleased to know that their activities are not worth a fart because only bass is important, what north-south divide is that then!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I especially like the bit about the NFSA miss-selling the BMP, this was a BASS proposal, not an NFSA proposal, to blame the NFSA CG for the failure of any particular component of the BMP is like blaming Bass anglers for the annual dolphin deaths along the south coast. The NFSA simply supported BASS in their proposal, funny I don't hear Sam condemning BASS for its failure to attain the preferred 45cm MLS. I agree that it would have been advantageous for a press release to have been released ASAP, however, as it was a BASS proposal!!!!!!!!!!!!! By the way can sam or steve direct me to the BASS press release I don't appear to be able to find it!!! No slagging off of BASS then chaps. No this is not about constructive critisism, its about lighting the blue touch paper and standing well back. By the way Steve, debait is what we use to catch fish Man!!!

Well you would think so Steve, but for some reason he seems to forget, in his zeal to slagg off anyone or anything to do with the NFSA. The usual response of 'Its just frustration is beginning to wear a tad thin', do we not get frustrated, I know I do, which is why I am offering Steve and Sam an opportunity to practice what they preach, especially given that its relatively easy to acheive, apparently!!! We are suffering from a real lack of active members who are prepared to put themselves out, the back biting and stabbing from a vocal few is reducing those active members (Tom and Malcolm both taking time out) and the vicious circle has to end somewhere. Cheers Doc.

Having read the recent vilification of those proactive members of the NFSA conservation group over their apparent poor efforts, non committal attitude and total ignorance of both what UK RSA's want and an understanding of the issues, notwithstanding their alleged a**e licking and general unwillingness to react in a childish manner (not unlike some commercial representatives) and being called in general a 'tosser', I wonder if, as has been intimated, we have the wrong people at the helm. I am, after all the slagging off recently now willing to step down and let Steve Coppollo and Sam Cox take over, they seem like they know exactly how to get what all anglers want. You simply have to go in all guns blazing, kick in the door and banging your fists on the table demand that the bass MLS is increased to what ever you want, and while they are implementing this DEFRA may as well remove all the gill nets within a mile of the coast, then DEFRA and the Minister had better listen up because this is only the start. If the minister doesn't give us everything we want then we are going to put out press releases slagging off him, his officials and everyone else involved in the process. That should do the job, it worked for the pro-hunt lobby, its certainly worked for the commercial sector (66% white fish fleet reduction), it worked for the steel and coal industries and firemen, why should RSA be any different. I have over the next 6 weeks, 7 meetings to go to related specifically to RSA taking up 8 week days and 1 Sunday. I live in East Yorkshire and the meetings are in York (1 dy), Leeds (1 dy), Newcastle (1 dy), Peterboro (2 dys), London (2 days), Reading (1 dy) & Hull (1 dy). I suggest that Steve Coppollo and Sam Cox take on these meetings to push forward the cause of RSA and acheive what the NFSA CG have been allegedly completely unable to do. Cheers Doc.

Sorry to say Steve and this is a gut feeling that the news will not be good, in fact I suspect the usual response = Option 1 : do nothing. I hope I'm wrong, but too many comments I heard today from his advisors indicate that the minister has been assured that; 1). Bass populations are healthy (in terms of numbers) 2). Effort and therefore exploitation/harvest is sustainable 3). Recruitment is good All this suggests that BB will look to maintain the status quo, with a probable commitment to reappraise in three years time. I hope I'm wrong, (I feel a bit of a doom and gloom merchant at the moment), but we'll soon see. Doc.

BB makes his decision tomorrow and will announce by end of week or early next week at the latest.

Looks like you have a less than secret admirer Peter, perhaps Challenge should be Challenge'd, as to his former existance, who knows!!!!! Who cares!!!!!! I think Ian's original question was a reasonable one, I don't think we need to go back over the many threads were anglers have critisied the commercial sector, this is after all an angling forum and both sectors are competing for the same resource. I may be wrong, but the threads which do critisise the sector are usually in response to diatribe posted by the person formally known as Binatone (who was somewhat challenge'd in these matters), steve good (is it weathergood or goodweather?, I can't remember) who has so much time that his only apparent R&R is to come on an angling forum and try to wind anglers up (in a very poor and predictable manner I might add), or some instance of regulation breach (the whitby 10). Similarly where poor angling practice has been highlighted it has also been vehnemently condemned, strange that the commercial sector are unable to take a similar even-handed approach. You yourself have made it plain that you support in many instances the breach of fisheries legislation and regulation on the basis that fishermen have no choice and that they are honest and hard working, unless of course its Johnny foreigner who has breached regulation. You say on the one hand that fishermen have no option due to the need to manage brigade (DEFRA, EU etc.), that the scientists have got it all wrong and that there is plenty of fish, very few stocks are overfished, and where they are this is due to 'global warming' and not over-exploitation, strange that everyone else but the industry holds a diametric view on this. Can I take it that as a hard working and honest fishermen trying to make ends meet, with masses of fish in the sea, you are not averse to breaking fisheries legislation as and when required, or do you feel that there is no need to do so due to your intregrity, as this is nothing more than common old garden theft, from not just UKPLC but your fellow fisheremen. You say the only fish that are yours are those in your boxes, I take it then that you would endorse this from an RSA point of view and that anglers should be able to go out and bring back boxes of fish without bag limits (which by definition I assume you will not support), despite steve good's assertion that the industry are wholly behind and at the forefront of plans to introduce bag limits on anglers with the ultimate goal of complete no take for angling in the future (silly boy Good, go and stand in the corner). Something which is news to your industries leaders, or maybe they are as full of sh** as some of the commercial fishermen (and some anglers I might add). But enough of the repartee, for what its worth, both sectors need to work together, we are the only two extractors of marine biological resources, and we both have many detractors, why stand alone separately against overwhelming odds when a united front (following agreement on each others legitimate access to those resources) may make the difference between making a stand and maintaining ones right to harvest, and falling divided.

It was proposed by the NESFC officers themselves when they drafted the second draft of original byelaw, one of the problems they could envisage was a problem with species of crab and they wanted to lump them all together so as to avoid confusion!!!!!!!! However, I would like to think that most anglers can tell the difference between a shore, velvet and edible crab, although the fact that many can't tell the difference between a dab, flounder, plaice and or brill/turbot hardly fills me with confidence on that one. Best Fishes Doc.

It hasn't gone before the committee yet so other than the officers themselves it hasn't been discussed fully. The meeting of the 25th will be the first opportunity to do so. Cheers Doc.

We use 12lb to 20lb class rods, with SL20SH's loaded with 40lb Dynon (to counter chaffing against the wreck), fishing 6oz to 8oz norweigian style pirks for all our wreck fishing, be that in 100ft or 250ft and have no problems at all. We,ve (topecatcher) had cod to 25lb on this set up, and I can't remember getting snapped by a fish in recent times whilst using this set up. For those with any doubts as to whether light tackle fishing is viable in deep water, John Brennan should confirm as we've used these tactics to great effect on Chieftan when booked for the 3 day trips and fishing well offshore, generally outfishing the heavier gear 3 to 1. The additional beauty of such a set up is the substantially better fight from the fish, which happens pretty much all the way to the top, no matter what the depth, and also if you wish to put your cod back then you can, as the pressure changes that occur are not as debilitating than would be the case if heavier gear is used, the fish brought to the surface much more slowly and can then be released (if you so wish) and they don't flounder on the surface ultimately feeding the gulls. Cheers Doc.

Hi Neil, thanks for the image. The species you have there is the snake pipefish and without pre-empting later findings (which is usually a death touch), this is the species that is considered to be more offsdhore and therefore rarer than other species, however, this contradicts anecdotal evidence I have been able to collect thus far, as the predominant species inshore does appear to be the snake pipefish. Many thanks to all who have responded thus far, it would be good to keep this data flow going. Cheers Doc.

Thanks for that Dale, looks like its not just a localised thing and more wide spread. I've had cod that have on occasion coughed up a pipefish, but never to the extent where they are stuffed with them. Cheers Doc.

Until relatively recent times the predominant pipefish present along this stretch of coast was the lesser pipefish (Syngnathus rostellatus), these where commonly caught at low water in shrimp nets and for a 10 minute tow/push you could expect on average to see 1/2 a dozen. We commonly caught them in surveys along with the very occasional greater pipefish (Syngnathus acus) but they were the only two species we ever saw or recorded. Then a couple of years ago we started to see more species, the snake pipefish (Entelurus aequoreus) and worm pipefish (Nerophis lumbriciformis), in conjunction with this increase in diversity I noticed a decline in the abundance of the lesser pipefish which appeared to be significantly less abundant. The majority of pipefish species are in general terms inshore, or more specifically nearshore species', which is why I was surprised to see a pipefish at the surface when we out fishing a wreck 30 miles off last Saturday. However, the snake pipefish is considered to be more open water orientated in its distribution, which is why I'd be interested to determine the species type or range of species present. The obvious explosion (in terms of numbers) of pipefish is extremely interesting from an ecological point of view and could be an indicator of change or things to come. I would be interested to know if any other areas are experiencing similar high densities of pipefish and where. Similarly, I would like to know what species', are we seeing a population explosion in just a single specie or a number of species', also are cod feeding on a range of pipefish species or just one. If anyone is out and about up at Whitby or along the Yorkshire coast and they see any pipefish would they mind keeping them, freezing in a plastic bag and passing on to Glenn K (if he doesn't mind) and I'll pick them up from Glenn. Big Cod and or Darlick, if you get any pipefish that cod have spat out (in good nick) would you mind doing the same, and I'll pick up from Glenn next time we have a meeting. There may be a number of interesting theories as to why pipefish have suddenly become so prolific, I'm not so sure that increased water temperature is the main driver. My own theory is that it may be linked to a decline in predatory fish (cod etc.). Velvet crab have increased significantly over the last few years and as a consequence the availability of crab larvae in inshore waters has increased significantly, there is anecdotal evidence that suggests that shore fish are also on the increase, blennies, gunnel and gobies etc. so there is also an increased abundance in small fish larvae. Pipefish, especially the worm pipefish feed predominantly on crab and fish larvae so there could be a link in the availability of food, which lets face is usually a pretty good driver for the successful recruitment of any fish species. Anyway just a theory.

I remember similar occurrences of horse mackerel or scad as they are also known, when the huge shoals of spurdog were present along the coast we used to get mackerel, then horse mackerel at the back of the shoal and then the spurs mopping up behind, but I haven't caught a horse mackerel on rod and line for many years. However, last summer we did some scientific seine netting about 100m from the shore looking for sandeels all we caught were 3" to 4" horse mackerel with a few similar sized mackerel, which shows somewhere they are breeding relatively close by, we had the same sized mackerel the year before, loads of them when fishing for launce, but no horse mackerel on that occasion. Since then I've done a few trawl surveys both around Bridlington Bay and in the Wash, and on each occasion we have caught juvenile horse mackerel (2" to 5"), but no adults.

The problem is Glenn, that the principal agencies both in the UK and EU consider that there are two sectors of the fishing industry, the commercial sector and the recreational sector (hobbyists). as the commercial sector are licensed, all others fall into the recreational sector, including those unlicensed vessels/fishermen. The problem is that in some countries, france and Denmark especially, unlicensed fishermen tend to use gill nets and then sell their catch. This is were the problem lies, because they are not recreational sea anglers, but for ease of reckoning they are lumped under the name of hobbyists in with RSA. It was the need to differentiate between these two segments that I referred to last night, because all the while that unlicesed fishermen are considered as recreational sea anglers, our detractors can use this against us to bring in stringent regulations that bear no resemblance to the true facts. i don't deny that there are rod and lines fishernmen out there that do indeed sell their catch, my argument is that it is they who should be regulated and or have their activities prohibited and not the rank and file sea angler who goes fishing for pleasure and or to have a few fresh fillets to put on the table/in the home freezer. Its this differentiation that needs to be made and once this is done true recreational sea angling activity can be promoted in a different light. Wrt the registration of buyers and sellers, the point I was trying to make with this was, that if there is still a problem with the capture and sale of fish from unlicensed boats or fishermen, then the legislation is not working. Better to solve the problem at source rather than trying to backtrack through grey and hazy dealings. Cheers Doc.

Hi Glenn, I agree in principal with what you are saying, however, RSA is not all whiter than white, although the problem is not as great as some would have us believe, and this was the point I was trying to make wrt the differentiation between genuine sea anglers and those unlicensed fishermen who masaquerade as recreational sea anglers. As the commercial sector of the industry becomes more regulated and diminishes in size (compared to a decade ago) the instances of malpractice will diminish. Many anglers have the firm belief that noncompliance or breach of regulation, in terms of those caught, is just the tip of the iceberg, the problem is that there is no indication of how large the iceberg is, it maybe large, it may be relatively small. I may be niaive (I don't think so to a huge degree), but the situation is improving, although I hate to say it, more as a result of increased enforcement and stiffer penalties rather than a willingness to stay within quota etc. I think more can be gained from highlighting breaches of regulation and the sometimes inappropriate penalties delivered as a result rather than resorting to name calling, in other words take the moral high ground (light the torch paper and stand well back) You are right, the industry do not like the thought that 'now the bloody danglers are screwing it up for us, on top of the environmentalists, who's next!!!!!', the situation is improving, as they now realise that we are a genuine stakeholder, and to be inside fighting their corner, is better than outside complaining. Which is why we are also inside and sat at the table, and not outside bitching and throwing the preverbial. Its a strange notion, and possibly untenable to some, but there may come a time in the not too distant future (post marine bill) where the recreational and commercial sectors have to sit down together under an alliance in order to fight off a much bigger threat to our existance and their way of life. In a world of increasing conservation, the issues of rod licences and bag limits may pale into insignificance, if the right or freedom to fish anywhere is challenged. Cheers Doc.

One of the points made at the meeting last night by anglers was that it was now time to stop throwing the preverbial brick bats at a particular sector, what had been, had been, and that no good could come from persitant condemnation of that sector. Unfortunately your intimidatory comments Binatone make such statements difficult to justify to anglers. I am not aware of any occasion where Leon and his "power seeking brigade" have lobbied anyone to enable rod licences and bag limits to be implemented as soon as is possible. As one of those "power seeking brigade" we were acutely aware that both the Drew report and Bradley report discussed the potential implementation of rod licences, where the revenue could be spent, and what the potential revenue would be from those that complied (so not just a passing pipe dream by the Government or DEFRA or a highly educated professor, as was intimated last night). To ignore the potential of such a wide ranging impact on RSA would be negligent, bordering on criminal. That is why we opted to discuss openly the issue as opposed to burying our heads in the sand, as some may have done. Wrt rod licences, the current thinking is one of opposition under the present climate, there can be no justification for charging anglers a fee to fish in waters where the chances of catching are low, however, and it is a big however, if the powers that be implement a range of enhancement measures, that over time have significantly increased the availability and size of marine fish (particularly all those targeted by sea anglers), ensured sustainability of these stocks/populations, then the implementation of a rod licence may be not too difficult to argue against, with the proviso that monies generated be put back into maintaining that position, be that through further enhancement measures and/or enforcement. Bag limits is another issue by which much has been made of. Much of the discussion has occurred on internet fora such as AN, and I suspect that the initial driver was the bass management plan (BMP), which stated that as a tool (in conjunction with a range of other tools) bag limits for bass may be appropriate. Nicola Clark was correct in her comments last night, that "other than for bass, bag limits for other species have not been discussed", that is not to say that they aren't on the radar, but for now it is not an immediate issue. However, we cannot afford as an industry to be idle and must ensure that when the issue does arise we are already running with it. For what it is worth, the only voice calling for bag limits and restriction on anglers catches, is coming from outside our industry (no prizes for guessing were). With both issues (Rod licences and bag limits) we can stick our head in the sand and simply say 'no way, end of discussion', however, the responsible position would be to discuss and prepare a strategy, with the opening gambit of a resolute NO, a position to fall back to would afford us benefits as and when the government decide to implement (bargaining power to make the best of a situation). Still if the sector would prefer no discussion on either issue and maintain to the bitter end a negative stance, it would save a lot of time and effort, unfortunately when implemented (2-5 years time) we would lose an awful lot and gain nothing. Binatone, you say you are also an angler, yet for some reason you seem determined to disrupt, undermine and divide anglers, and appear to have set your stall out to alienate those who are working (on a voluntary basis) towards a brighter future for all recreational sea anglers. Hardly sounds like someone who has the best interests of sea angling at heart. Finally, regarding pair trawling, there are many within your own industry who would like to see pair teams prohibited, I never realised just how many fishermen actually blame the pair teams for the status of many fish stocks, especially in inshore waters. I am surprised you are not aware of this given that you are in the industry, so Leon is not alone in his dislike of pair teams.