The doctor

A basking shark, quite common in these Scottish western waters at this time of year, many years ago we counted about 25 in and around Port Logan bay and even saw a couple breach. They are an amazing sight, as your language on the vids indicates LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Cheers Doc

I haven't got a clue what you are waffling on about. Speak English man and learn to read, don't summise what you would like to think it says.

Well done Chris, cracking fish, bet Acko's as jealous as hell. Did you tag her, I presume you've still got that tagging kit, if not do you want some more tags and scale packets? Did you get anything else (becks, smuts etc.)? Best Fishes Doc.

you make a statement I ask a question based on that statement and your answer to my query is to ask me a question, your beginning to sound like a politician, answer a straight forward question with another question. If your going to make statements Wurzel you need to be able to respond with an answer to queries. Whats next? Do I answer your question with another question, and visa versa, ad nausuem. I thought it was questions and answers, not questions and questions or is that how you work, evade the truth.!!!!!!! Best Fishes Doc.

Wurzel, please explain to me where poor management of sea fisheries by recreational sea anglers has occured, and where sound mamagement by the commercial sector has occured. Best Fishes Doc.

Have to say I'm not convinced, with the long line theory. Thats quite a large chunk out of the lower jaw and if ripped of a hook I would expect a much smaller injury. Ians theory of a bite from a larger animal is possible, especially if young pack tope were competing for food, however, I would be more inclined to go for a genetic defect, mouth defects are not that uncommon in fish, and even in humans a cleft palate is relatively common. But hey what the hell do I know, just another stab in the dark. I'll make a few enquiries and see if anyone else has come across such a defect/injury before. Best Fishes Doc. you not answering your phone topey?

To be honest I don't consider that I represent any specific number of anglers, we are simply trying to secure a bright future for angling and those who earn a living from the sector, and it is to that end (more and bigger fish) to which we strive. To my mind its not a case of a number of us or percentage number of anglers against any particular sector, as this thread has shown, opinion within RSA is significantly diverse to the extent that by identifying individual problems or issues on a regional basis and trying to deal with them in isolation will not work under the present system of minimal funding. Far better at a national scale to deal with issues that affect all anglers (access, rigthts of way, rod licences, bag limits, effective representation and participation in management, strategies to enhance and protect angling and the development of recreational sea angling). The regional context will be critical when such arguments are being formulated, and again this is where regional associations or divisions will be so important. When I say that there has to be the will, this was in the context of charter skippers diversifying into alternative species as an aside to the more traditional RSA target species. Best Fishes Doc.

Glenn, just to reassure you, as I'm sure you are aware through YALASA, I personally would fight tooth and nail to oppose any measures that would bring about the demise of angling clubs or charter fleets, not just in the NE but anywhere in the UK. This stance is in line with that of the NFSA, who have not said at any point that they will support a broadscale bag limit, although in line with B.A.S.S, bag limits may have a place in future management practices for sea bass. However, the introduction of bag limits should be viewed as one component of a long overdue, structured program, aimed at restoring both the numbers and size ranges of the European sea bass stocks. I've neither seen nor heard anything from the NFSA that states they would support bag limits on any species other than bass, and personally I would walk away from it if they did other than for sound ecological reasons. I would refer you to the YALASA policy statement, why write such a statement of intent and then try to undermine it. I reiterate my earlier thoughts, bag limits may be appropriate for some species (rays, large flats, dogs etc.) but only if there are sound ecological reasons and or proof that angling is the principal cause of the population decline. As I stated earlier, there are signs that the cod recovery programme is beginning to work, angling did not cause the decline, neither has it deterred the recovery (thus far), therefore why introduce bag limits on a species which is clearly not impacted by angling pressure. Back in 1999, many anglers said we were crazy to target tope, it was a waste of time as they weren't around in large enough numbers, its a good job we persevered, otherwise we would have missed some awesome fishing with tope to 77lb, quite a few in the 70lb bracket, and many many fish over 60lb. These fish are not restricted to east Yorks, they are present throughout the area, Tut Utterly was catching them back in the late 80's and early 90's (Robin Hoods Bay and Tuts Garden). All it takes is a bit of effort and once identified, theres another string to their bow, the rise of the pollock on wrecks off whitby is a case in point. The problem is that there has to be the will. I guess you have spoken to Paul, the look on his face for a fleeting second, when I introduced myself was brilliant, if only I'd had a camera. Best Fishes Doc.

I'm more than happy to discuss any issue regarding angling or the fishery as a whole with anyone, although as stated the NSRAC is for the North Sea only, and whilst I can discuss issues relating to other RACs, it is not something I can take directly to the NSRAC. I can however, relate such issues to the other RSA reps on the other RAC's. Cod is an issue that regularly arises, however, the RAC can only comment on current measures and offer reasonable advice to the commission, although given that the RAC's are dominated (2/3rds majority) by the commercial sector, with the others (greens (WWF etc.), north sea womens network, coastal communities etc.), RSA is allowed one member to represent all the anglers in the EU. So don't expect to get too much if any benefits through the NSRAC, the principal idea is to be included and not sat outside looking in. best Fishes Doc.

To coin an often used phrase; 'you get the level of representation you deserve' or to put another slant on it, 'you get the level of representation you are willing to pay for'. If you are not prepared to pay for representation why expect anything in return, after all if you are not a member of a union, would you expect that union to represent you personally in an industrial dispute?? This is often where the problem occurs, in that those who openly criticise the NFSA are not members, have limited understanding of what the NFSA are actually doing, by being hypercritical are deterring others from joining, thereby reducing the funds available to represent the sea angling fraternity, and of course what the snipers tend to forget is that those who represent RSA in England and Wales are unpaid volunteers, who pay their own expenses (between £1,000 and £1,500 per annum), and have to use their own holiday entitlement to represent sea anglers. A vicious circle which is probably doing more harm to the aim of improving the lot of sea anglers in England and Wales, the likes of Wurzel, Binatone and Steve Gathergood must be laughing in their fish holds, or in the case of wurzel his net bin. All of this has been said before, yet the point seems to get wasted on those who persist in denigrating the efforts of a very small group of dedicated anglers who have the best interests of sea angling and anglers in general, at heart. Whether you like it or not, the facts and figures quoted are all we have at present to support the importance of our sector other than some anecdotal evidence, and given our limited financial income (NFSA Conservation Group), we have to be realistic in what we can achieve. There is absolutely no point in going to DEFRA and demanding that the commercial exploitation of cod be stopped with immediate effect, if ICES, WWF, Sea at Risk, Greenpeace et al are unable to achieve this then why do we expect that we can. We have to be realistic and give recovery measures time, there are certainly good indications that effort reductions are having a beneficial effect, provided effort is not significantly increased. Include technical conservation measures which will aid the recovery (discards etc.), and the plight of cod may not be so bleak in 5 years time, as was mooted back in 2000. Similarly, for anglers (NFSA) to push for a total ban on pair trawling would tie up all of our resources for the next 10 years with little promise of a favourable outcome. It is clear, to me anyway, that any proposal must be based on sound scientific fact (deleterious: to fish populations or localised stocks, habitat and environment, endangered species, etc.), if there are sound socio-economic reasons then this data may also be used to build our case, however, in the absence of such data we should not waste our efforts and limited resources by requesting for such restrictions on a whim. It is not just a case of saying we want this, now give it to us, there has to be a prolonged dialogue, we have to show why such a proposal will benefit the environment, the biological resource, our sector and not significantly impact any other user group/exploiter. The problem is that many anglers set the standard for cod as that of 30 years ago, this is never going to happen, the ‘Gadoid Outburst’ was a one off, it had never been recorded before, and is unlikely to happen again, it was a coincidence of high environmental and ecological values that produced optimal conditions leading to massive recruitment, significant growth due to high prey availability, and limited predation (low herring stocks), all of these factors led to a never before seen explosion in gadoid species (cod, haddock, coalfish etc.). It is unrealistic to try to restore stocks to this level again. Being a NE angler I understand Glenn's frustration, it was for that reason I got involved with angling politics and the NFSA; in other words there was no good reason to stand on a beach, rock ledge and or boat bemoaning the fact that there was very little to catch, and then doing nothing about it. I decided that I couldn't continue moaning about the poor state of inshore fish populations without being actively involved, and of course the perceived imbalance between the north and the south was also a key point I wished to redress. Having taken the initiative and joined the NFSA and ultimately asked onto the Conservation Group, it became clear that there is no North – South divide, there is certainly a stronger influence from the south, purely because they have a significantly higher number of members. The perception of the North – South divide appears to be one that pervades from the north, probably as an excuse to justify anglers lack of commitment to the NFSA, again, if you perceive a problem, work from the inside to change it, slagging off others from the outside will achieve nothing. The main problem we have is not just related to the lack of input or understanding of the issues by anglers, but more importantly it is a total unwillingness by those who ply their trade in the sector, to get involved or support the few who are responding on their behalf. The tackle trade have done very little if anything, to assist or support RSA in its dialogue with the powers that be, and they are the ones, along with other beneficiaries (charter boat operators, tackle shops, etc.) who stand to make either a benefit or loss on the outcome, surely you would expect these people to support moves for the integration of angling requirements into management principals. I guess it all boils down to if you are not happy with what’s currently going on in RSA, get involved, RSA always needs new activists, those who have a clear and coherent thought process and are capable of a bit of tub thumping. From a personal point of view, being actively involved has reduced my fishing by probably 4/5ths, I’d much rather be fishing than sat at a computer or in meetings with commercial fishermen/DEFRA officials. If we are making such a fist of it, as is being suggested, then I’ll quite happily stand down and go back to fishing, which is all I really wanted to do in the first place. Those who can change the world can happily take my place, one word of warning; you’ll need to support yourself financially to the tune of at least £1k per annum (without recompense), write off 2 weeks of your annual holiday entitlement, forget about fishing other than just the occasional trip, spend long hours reading boring documents, and at times writing even more tedious documents and finally be very thick skinned, because the flack that comes your way is unbelievable. We do what we do because we have a passion for sea angling, it appears we are in the minority because everyone else just wants to either put the boot in, or quite obviously doesn’t care enough. End of rant Best Fishes Doc.

depends on its girth, but at 82lbs probably between 70 and 72 inches.

My My aren't we a clever boy!!!!!!!!!!!! Dought My brain hurts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

16lb Dynon with an 8ft length of 15lb Amnesia. As good as out!!!!

Yup I totally agree with Wurzel on this, lets do away with all fisheries regulation, its pointless after all. we should have a total free for all, every man fill his boots catch and take what you can, after all who's cares about tomorrow.

I might be wrong, but wasn't the original term sassanach applied to the lowland Scots, I remember it was a derogatory term used by the highlanders against the lowlanders during the times of William Wallace. I guess as integration in those parts proceeded apace, it became a term to describe anyone other than the highlanders and ultimately the English, as Scottish nationality surged to the fore again. Wurzel; for goodness sake. calm down, calm down alreet la. I indicated no physical interferance from the commercial sector. The letter is solely directed at Ross Finnie and his complete and utter disregard for the social and economic importance of other stakeholders, in this case RSA. I state my concern for the commercial sector and their obvious plight, I appreciate that they have taken a bit hit in recent years, compared to other European nations, however, if we are to maintain recovery at a faster rate (over the next 4 or 5 yrs), as opposed to a trickle feed that may well peter out at present exploitation levels, finnie's present stance of all or nothing will impact not just the commercial sector. I think you will find that together the commercial and recreational sectors would be quite vociferous allies against the continued maintenance (and in some cases expansion) of the european fleets. Unfortunately, bigots like Finnie, do nothing to bring the two sectors together to enable a united front against european expansion and dominance of fish stocks. By maintaining the present status quo, he has widened the rift between the two sectors, not because they cannot get along or are unable to sit down at the table to discuss regional or national issues that affect both parties, but because he has increased the level of suspicion and accusations (from some in RSA) of profiteering. Closed shops never work, those on the outside don't trust those on the inside, and those on the inside are constantly worried about what those on the outside are doing. Trust built on open dialogue can be the only way forward, to belittle a sector, and work to suppress their value will in the longer term have a significant impact on some coastal communities that at certain times of the year may be heavily dependant on that activity. What is he so afraid of; a few anglers sitting on committees dominated by commercial interests are never going to bring down the industry, unless of course those committees are riddled with malpractice. Cheers Doc.

Sorry Brian but I've had a look at my post and cannot see anywhere I suggested that they 'drag you under the water'. Now I have had personal experience of chest waders filling up with water in the sea, and what happens is that the flooding water can force air to be trapped around your feet, this makes your feet buoyant pushing your head below the water, in other words you become inverted. It can be a real struggle to get your feet below your waist to allow displacement of water, if you are unfit, or the water is extremely cold, or elderly other consequences may arise. By the way I'm sure 'everyone' who goes angling is fully intimate with Hugh Faulkus's demonstration on how to float correctly. By way of interest is there anyone out there who isn't. Cheers Doc

A good few years ago, I seem to remember a skipper in whitby having a problem with an angler who hurt himself on his boat, said skipper was ploughing through a heavy sea at a fair old lick of knots (as was his want), said angler was not feeling too good. After taking a few heavy bangs on a couple of big swells the angler dropped to his hands and knees and started to scrabble about the deck, can't remember if he was being sick at the same time. Skipper after being alerted by the other anglers slowed down and came out to see what the guy was doing. Turns out the chap had a glass eye, and after a particularly hard bang, his eye had shot out of its socket and was somewhere on deck. I seem to remember the angler threatening legal action as the skipper was allegedly not acting in a responsible manner given the conditions, but can't remember if it actually got to court. Your neck of the woods BC and Glenn, can you shed any light on this. I would say it was about 91-92, just after said skipper had got his new boat. Around the same time (give or take a couple of years), a skipper in Bridlington had a party out at the gas rigs, they were having a good day, but the weather changed unexpectedly, and he decided to make for home. Unfortunately he lost his rudder, and had no steering, a local trawler picked up his call for assistance and towed him into brid. Unfortunately just at the pier end the tow parted and the charter boat (now in a heavy swell) got swept down the wrong side (outer) of the pier. She quickly overturned, and all went into the water, most got out quickly but one chap was not so lucky. I don't think he drowned, but had a heart attack in the water, same result though and he lost his life (he was actually wearing waders!!!!!). The skipper went to court (private case brought by the family) where he was cleared of any fault, the judge said he had done everything humanly possible to prevent the accident, but the factors were against him. nevertheless, it destroyed him, and he never really recovered (in terms of charter angling). All in all, experience is everything, chances should not be taken, whether charter boat skipper, private boat owner or shore angler, no fish is worth the loss of life, and when thats all been said you can still never fully account for the unexpected. Cheers Doc

A couple of three years ago we were doing some of the environmental work in the Thames for the London Gateway project (Shell Haven); we were working Outer Thames to Tilbury PS. We used a local vessel INA-K and saw quite a few small under (10m) shrimp/sole trawlers, mainly 3 - 4m beamers, trawling throughout the Thames. We went alongside a couple on a few occasions and on occasion managed to get a few slips from them, however, they nearly always had boxes or baskets of green crab, these they told us were for the tackle shop in southend as he shipped them all over the country. I think they got 25 - 30p each, and the hardbacks they dropped off over the sands and creeks near Leigh on Sea, they did say it was a reasonably new thing and didn't start until the sole were starting to thin out, but for a few weeks it was really worthwhile, as they could make more from the crabs than from the sole. Cheers Doc

Hi Peter A difficult one this, might sound simple, but to my mind its not that straight forward!!!!! Hypothetically speaking; if you are a 16m beam trawler towing 7m v-rigs and your sole discards are 30%, and using techical measures to reduce your discard rate, lets say to less than 10% (I don't think in trawl fisheries that it is possible to totally eliminate discards), you are reducing the impact of your activity. However, given that in certain conditions (shallow water and moderate tow duration) survival of released sole can be relatively good (25 - 35%+), so in actual fact your overall benefit is a reduction in mortality on sole of 15% per day. I don't know what a 16m beamer targetting sole, can reasonably expect to catch in a 24hr period, but if we say (hypothetically) 200kgs, of which 30% is discarded leaving a landable catch of 140kgs (4 boxes), 60kgs is discarded of which 20kgs survives which equals a loss in sole biomass of 180kgs. If by implementing technical measures that reduce the same discard catch by 20%, we are still looking at a landable catch of 140kgs, discards of 20kgs of which 6kgs survives which equals a loss in sole biomass of 154kgs, an overall saving of 26kgs of undersized sole. If you give an extra two days a month to a vessel for implementing these measures to reduce discards, then the increased effort, landings will almost outweigh the benefit, but even more so in that a greater amount of spawning fish or fish with the potential to spawn are removed from the SSB, the increased effort would also affect other species caught as bycatch (plaice, lemons, brill, cod and rays). So I'm not totally convinced that a reduction in discards coupled with an increase in effort/quota would be that beneficial, although that is not to say that fishermen should be discouraged from improving fishing practice and any impacts of their activity. Where there is real identifyable benefit with no discernable knock on impact, I would agree that mitigation measures such as more days at sea or increased quota for certain species may fully justify the end. Of course I may be way out with my figures wrt just how much such a vessel might reasonably expect to catch, do you have any better idea on likely catch. I would have similar concerns over similar proposals within the static gear fishery unless there were suitable increases in MLS for all target and likely bycatch species, as you will know, there is no one-size fits all solution, a suite of measures are required, not the least, better prices from the first sale of fresh fish. Cheers Doc.

I had a quick look at the 2005/06 ICES advice and on the whole the actual TAC given is higher than the ICES advice, however there are a few anomalies going back over the years to 1995. There are a number of instances were the TAC set is lower than the scientific advice, just not recently. I'm not sure why that is, possibly as you allude to, that the scientists are becoming more and more conservation minded, thats possibly true, although I would take the positionn that they are trying to avoid the Grand Banks scenario and learning from mistakes made by fishermen, managers of the fishery and the scientific community in general. To be honest it doesn't matter which side of the fence you come from, be it industry, scientific, recreational or management, not to learn from the Grand Banks and similar incidents would be classed as gross negligence. The reason tax payers money is spent on monitoring and acquiring fisheries data is because its a legal obligation we have under the CFP, besides how would we know if stocks are at or above/below Bpa or Blim or MSY etc. How do we know what F (Fishing mortality) is if no-one is collecting data. Whilst the data are frequently ignored, and there is a train of thought that tells you that it is such an in-exact science, and as a consequence what is the margin of error, the present day fisheries models are the best we have and the only ones we have to work with. The alternative is total ignorance, as opposed to the present educated estimate. If I over-estimate the lobbying powers of the NFFO & SFF, then I think you under-estimate them. The likes of Mike Park, Bertie Armstrong and Barry Deas are skilled lobbyists with a high degree of knowledge of their industry, and fisheries science also. The only critisism I would have is that they are not totally aware of other stakeholders and user groups, but hey what the hell, they could argue "why should I", as long as I look after my boys!!!! Cheers Doc

This is the second time I’ve posted a response to this, spent over an hr last night and as I pressed post message my internet connection failed…… lost the f*****g lot, not a happy bunny. I have learnt my lesson, from now on every post is typed in word then copied and pasted. Anyway here goes again, although not as explicit as last nights response. Firstly DEFRA do not decide or set quotas, this is the remit of the council of ministers, who when setting the annual TAC take three things into consideration  The EU – Norway agreement  The Scientific advice  The economic impact to their own member state industry The latter consideration is usually derived from lobbying by the NFFO and SFF (in the case of the UK). I’m not totally sure on how the TAC allotted to individual members states is divied out to fishermen/companies, however, I assume that the PO’s distribute quota to members based on historical track record, vessel size, gear type (fleet segment) and a willingness to pay for more (in the event of surplus being available), this last bit is a bit of a grey area to me so if I’ve got it wrong then I apologise. The level of discards for individual species, fishing area, fleet segment, gear type (mesh size, trawl thread type (single thread or twin thread etc.)) is so variable that there is no way of determining a specific discard rate for individual boats, therefore, discards are usually applied to all fishing fleets (member states) for a particular area (e.g. Subarea IV (North Sea)). Discard data are derived from a number of sources (member state research surveys), in the UK this is the English and Scottish ground fish surveys (EGFS & SGFS), independent and fishermen’s surveys also feed into the knowledge loop, as do fisheries science partnership studies (FSP). However, in the same way that spawning stock biomass data and actual landings data (including the assessed unreported and or under 10m component) are estimated from the limited verifiable data, then so are discards and as a general rule discard data (as with most fisheries data) is considered to be under-estimated, although there is no definitive figure to state at what level (1%, 2%, 5%, 10%, 15% ??). Binatone, you ask “Do they take into account the amount of discards that they estimate the said fishing boat will catch and discard”? By they I presume you mean the scientists. The answer to this is yes, unfortunately, because of the way the system works, the discard assessment is 12 months late, as there is no way of knowing what level of discards are produced until all the scientific and fishermen’s surveys have been carried out over the preceding 12 month period. As an example and using the haddock data I gave in an earlier post (derived from the 2005 ACFM report). In 2000 the North Sea haddock quota was set at 73,000 tonnes, the actual landings for human consumption were 46, 084 tonnes, the industrial by catch was 8,134 tonnes and discards at 48,841 tonnes, this gave a total removal or catch of 103,059, which is 30,000+ tonnes above the TAC, but actually the landings were nearly 27,000 tonnes below the TAC. In 2001 the TAC was reduced to 61,000 tonnes, unfortunately this year coincided with the strong year class recruited in 1999 moving onto the fishing grounds. At this point the 1999 year class was still undersize (immature adolescents and juveniles). The landings (despite a TAC of 61,000) were down to 38,958 tonnes, with industrial by catch at 7,879 tonnes, but because of the strong presence of the 1999 cohort, the discards for 2001 were 118,320 tonnes, giving an actual catch of 165,157 tonnes. As the haddock 1999 year class moved into size, discards fell significantly and subsequently for 2004, with a TAC of 77,000 tonnes the landings were 47,253 tonnes, with industrial by catch at a low level of 554 tonnes (probably as a result of the collapse in sandeel and Norway pout fisheries). Discards fell to 17,226 tonnes, giving a total catch of 63,033 tonnes, which is lower than the TAC and includes discards. TAC’s are based on the capture of fish within the spawning stock biomass (SSB), and as the EU and UK government still sees fit to prosecute the majority of target species at a size by which they have yet to spawn, in other words anything below the MLS and therefore by definition discards are over and above the landings. In summary, the TAC and as a consequence landings, are based on an acceptable percentage of the spawning stock biomass, which by their removal will not inhibit the spawning stock from reproducing or increasing the biomass. As fish below the MLS are generally juveniles or adolescents, they are therefore immature and not included in the spawning stock biomass, therefore all discards are not accounted for in the TAC, they are in addition to. Binatone, you state that either the scientists have got it wrong or Big God (I assume you mean Big Cod) is right, and I quote “If they do then surly they are telling us all what discards the fishing industry catches or they would not issue the said quotas in order to maintain a sustainable fishery”. Simple answer to this; the scientists do not set the TAC, they make recommendations which are on the whole ignored by the fisheries ministers who set a TAC that limits impacts to their respective industries following the intensive round of lobbying. The scientists have recommended a zero TAC for a number of species in an attempt to return species specific fisheries to sustainable levels (Cod, rays spurdog & sharks etc. etc. etc.), why accuse the scientists of getting it wrong. If there are problems within a particular fishery or a species, the people who got it wrong are those who ignored the scientific advice and those who put short term economic benefit above long term sustainability. Finally, I remember a similar situation along the Newfoundland coastline 20 years ago; a news team interviewed local fishermen and their wives over the declining cod stocks, the fishermen along with their wives all stated that the scientists had got it wrong, there was a lot of fish on the historical grounds and even more juveniles (so much so that they could afford to reduce the MLS). 10 years later the same news team went back after the stocks had collapsed and interviewed in a studio, during a live broadcast, the same fishermen and their wives. On this occasion they blamed the scientists for not giving them ample enough warning over the dire straits the cod stocks were in. The programme went to a commercial break and when it came back they went straight into a rerun of the documentary filmed 10 years earlier, by the time the documentary had finished practically all the fishermen and their wives had left the studio, those who were left refused to comment any further. The Canadian public lost their sympathy for the fishermen over night, along with any chance of compensation. Hope this helps, its not a biased opinion, just a re-iteration of the facts, with a few examples of similar and actually occurring events. Cheers Doc

Just a few Official figures (weights in tons); Haddock; 2000: 2001: 2002: 2003: 2004: 56,975 126,199 49,609 24,648 17,780 (55%) (76.5%) (49%) (37%) (27.5%) Whiting; 32,100 23,845 24,836 26,836 No data (57%) (55%) (60%) (70%) Plaice (28%) (45%) (48%) (50%) (49%) The above figures are for the North Sea as a whole, and include all member states fishing not just the UK fleet. There is no actual discard data on cod, ICES/ACFM have included discards within the general dataset, however based on the Scottish and English ground fish surveys and other official surveys, cod discards may bebetween 20 - 25% and occasionally as high as 35% (individual trawls). The plaice data are misleading to some extent, as within the Dutch sector (Plaice box) discarding on plaice and sole is between 70% to 85%. You can make your own mind up as to whether these are acceptable numbers, however, discarding is STILL an issue, especially where stocks are attempting to rebuild. Cheers Doc

Are fish stocks in significant decline around the UK coast, if so, what is the reason, if you believe that they are not, why not'. Please only post recreational responses here;

Are fish stocks in significant decline around the UK coast, if so, what is the reason, if you believe that they are not, why not'. Please post only commercial responses here