steve pitts

I've just returned from 10 days on Cape Cod Steve Several sections of local beaches above the HW mark were subject to restrictions / no entry to people and dogs due to nesting terns. The signs were 'by order' of the local council, but also had the Massechusetts Audubon Society logo on them. My guess is that the Audubon Soc apply for 'protection' and when granted, they put up the info. signs, which were very informative with ID of the birds and nesting habits etc. These areas were not a loss to our fishing though, as access was still available to the water and there were dates on the signs indicating that the closures were only during the nesting season. Further around the Cape much of the coast is part of the National Shoreline natural reserve. There are no angling restrictions, but you do need a permit to drive onto the beach in most parts and there are no-go areas for ORVs. 3 brit visitors, who I'm sure you'll know of, had over 120 stripers (mostly well into double figure fish) off the beach in one day on lures from this area. Cheers Steve

Sometimes the preditors do have an unfair advantage

I think that most people would agree that the striped and grey mullet are similar in many respects and offer a reasonable substitute for our lack of knowledge on greys and in the abscence of any major tagging studies on greys having been undertaken here in UK. My view isn't that the cause of the decline is linked to something happening only outside of CH. The taking of mullet in nets outside and by snagging and some illegal netting inside the harbour may all be contributing factors. I get the feeling that mullet are being targetted as a food source more than they used to be, especially with the influences of Oriental cuisine and Hugh F-W crowing about what a sustainable resource mullet are. My own experience with open-coast thick-lipped mullet over the past 25 odd years is that the bigger fish that we used to experience (several 5-6lb fish with the odd 7 or 8lb fish in a 3 hour session) are not as prolific and the overall numbers of fish are certainly down, but experiences do vary from year to year. There now is undoubtedly more gill netting being deployed along the Dorset coastline that I fish and many mullet are taken over spring tides when they come very close inshore. On the subject of C&R of mullet, I would say that the mullet that we catch on fly gear recover and swim away just as strongly as the bass and wrasse that we catch in the same locations on lures with no evidence of any fatalities. Steve

Sorry Steve - I thought your questions were - 1. 'What is the mortality rate of mullet that are caught and released?' 2. 'Have there been any tagging studies done which may indicate mortality rates of C&R'd Mullet? If so, who has done it and what were the results?' I thought that these questions had been answered in my posts. Who knows? - but here's a few thoughts. A common theme from the results of mullet tagging studies, that I have been able to find info on, indicate that mullet favour specific locations (already known to mullet anglers and commercial fishermen) and they appear not to venture very far (20 miles seems like a long way for most mullet?) from these locations. This could make local populations highly susceptible to depletion through overfishing, over-exploitation, climate variation or whatever reason anyone wishes to attach to a reduction in numbers. WRT Christchurch Harbour, there is certainly netting conducted outside of the harbour, were presumably the mullet must venture from time to time and rod and line snagging (using a lead and several treble hooks with a rod and line) for mullet has gone on inside for donkey's years, despite the watchfull eyes of the EA (protection of salmonids) and club bailiffs. Perhaps the 'official' <10% figure for angler retention is the tip of the iceberg and the removal of resident mullet from within and around Christchurch harbour is actually at a greater level which is proving borderline in terms of what the local mullet can sustain. I can't point you to the hard evidence that this is the true picture, but to my mind there's a posibility that (if there is a decline) more 'resident' fish are being removed than are being replaced by natural processes. Now there's a familiar scenario. Cheers Steve

The Striped Mullet (Mugil cephalus) is not exactly the same as the thin and thin lipped grey mullet (Chelon labrosus and Liza ramada) but they look pretty similar and have the same habits e.g. frequent shallow inshore and estuarine habitats etc. It could be that the striped mullet's grow fast, die young lifestyle is down to the warmer waters around Florida, Texas and the Carolinas that it inhabits. I think that, a bit like bass, grey mullet around the UK are pretty much at the northern limit of their range and if the growth rates of mullet from say, the Med, were compared to 'UK' mullet, the Med mullet would grow faster and mature earlier / live shorter lives etc. Growth rates apart, the striped mullet studies appear to indicate a high survival rate for tagged fish, however they were caught - net or hook and line. 15,000 fish would be easier to catch in bulk with nets and I would have thought that this method of capture would be more likely to dislodge scales and protective mucus as C&R by anglers. Another striped mullet tagging study was conducted by the Marine Laboratory of the University of Miami on behalf of the Florida State Board of Conservation. A total of 1,050 tagged fish were released the first year. The total recovery of tags was 26.5 percent, and the maximum recovery for one location was 50 percent. Most tagged mullet were recaptured within comparatively short distances from the place of tagging, 89.8 percent having travelled not more than 20 miles. The longest migration was 150 miles. In another Florida-based mullet tagging study, there were 2,779 recoveries from 12,647 tagged mullet revealed that 91% were recovered with- in 32 km of the release point. The NMC carried out some mullet tagging (with MAFF approval) in the late 80's and 90's but the numbers of fish tagged were relatively few and the sample of returns was difficult to interpret. However, most recaptures were very close to the tagging / release sites, even when recaptured the following year. Mullet appear to be fairly sedentary. Once they've found their ideal location, they don't stray too far, so localised populations may be at risk of depletion, especially as here in the Uk they are slow growing, late maturing and form tightly-packed shoals inshore at times. Cheers Steve

Hi Steve As I understand it - very little is known about mullet, compared to other species. I did a quick Google and came up with a tagging study conducted on striped mullet mortality where 15,000 fish were tagged in N. Carolina between 1997 and 2001. http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16659073 The study résumé, which appeared in the North American journal of fisheries management, contains the following - Concomitant holding tank experiments suggested that tag retention and post-tagging survival, two central assumptions of the tag return model, were extremely high for adult striped mullet. Cheers Steve

I remember making my first pilgrimage down to fish the Royalty and Christchurch Harbour when I was 15 or 16 (which is 40 years ago). The Hants Avon and The Dorset Stour, which converge at Christchurch, were nationally famous back then and anglers (freshwater) used to travel from one end of the country to the other for the variety and quality of species. You had to buy a day ticket (around £3 if I remember) to fish the Christchurch waters from Davis's tackle shop back then and nothing has changed in this respect, although the under 12's can now fish for 'free' to encourage take-up of angling by youngsters. Getting your day ticket at Davis's, a couple of pints of maggots, a few new Avon floats and staring at the photos of record-sized fish posted all around the walls was all part of the ritual. Of course, not everyone bought a permit and you would often see the bailiff in his patrol boat asking anglers to pack up and leave. The term 'illegal fishing' probably refers to those who do not buy a day ticket, or who fish without an EA rod licence i.e. they are not fishing legally. I continued to fish from Christchurch town pool (as in Leon's photo) all the way down to Mudeford Quay over the next 25 years from a variety of hired punts, small inflatables and GRP dingies, so I know the area quite well, although I haven't fished the harbour since the mid 90's when the fishing was already showing signs of deterioration, especially for the big roach that we used to catch in the Stour. We also used to catch lots of big thick lipped mullet, 40 - 50 thin lips in a session and some surprisingly good bass on the baited spinners, whilst we were fishing for the thin lips. So, IMO, If the Ringwood & District AA, who have run this water for decades, consider that these new rules, including C&R, are how best to manage the fishery, then that's fine by me and it wouldn't deter me from renewing my aquaintance with Christchurch Harbour sometime in the future, in fact it might just temp me back. Cheers Steve BTW Barry There are thin lipped mullet in Radipole lake, above the sluice gates in Weymouth Harbour, along with some bloody good carp. I have no idea how they got in there, but there's a possibility that they could get through the sluices and into the fresh water lake when the sluice gates are open on spring tides, as I've seen thin lipped mullet running up and over a weir in the River Frome, several miles from the open sea and in pure chalk stream water.

Could it have been Inshore Sport Fishing by Alan Wrangles? I'm a big fan of Hugh Stoker's writings and was very pleased to bump into him one evening some 15 years ago on his local beach near Charmouth. He was spinning for mackerel, just like a page out of one of his books, which I avidly devoured as a teenager. A charming gentleman angler. Cheers Steve

Having considered the science and evidence, and having listened carefully to the concerns of anglers and commercial fishermen, I have decided not to increase the MLS for bass. Bass is important to the inshore fishing fleet, which would have borne the brunt of the cost of increasing the MLS. I could not justify introducing a measure which would have had such an impact on those fishermen given the current pressures they face and the healthy state of the stock at present Jonathan Shaw MP 25th October 2007 I know who I'll blame Steve and it won't be the guys you refer to as RSA mouthpieces.

Hi Steve If you want to shell out £19.15 for the annual report you can get a copy from HM Stationary Office, or you can download a PDF from - http://www.cefas.co.uk/media/133187/cefas_ara_2008-9.pdf. Pages 36 to 43 may answer some of your questions e.g. Defra contracts accounted for 67% of 'turnover' = £38,446,000 (up from £35,375,000 in 07/08) Can you remind me - Who funds Defra? Cefas have a 'High level' contract with Defra until 2016 - I'll let you do the maths. I'm sure you'll be interested in the pension liabilities figures on page 38 and the renumeration report on pages 42 & 43 Ahhhh - Bisto

Hi Steve With hindsight - 'Who are the members of this group?' would have been an ideal question to put to Mark Lloyd at the BASS AGM last Sunday. As someone with the ability to inform significant numbers of RSA readers via your monthly piece in BFM, how about contacting Mark Lloyd or Stuart McPherson for an answer. A quick phone call or email to either of the above gents should clarify things. Cheers Steve

There was a guy from the AT out on a charter boat from Falmouth on the BBC South West news at 6:30 this evening. It looked like the AT arranged the trip to get the subject on the telly. I didn't see all of the report (mowing the b****y lawn) and by the time I got back in the house the AT guy was telling the reporter that the plan was nonesense and would damage the sport fishing industry. The reporter quoted £3 million is spent in the West Country over one bank holiday by visiting anglers. They then went via a video link to a EU fisheries spokeswoman who said that article 47 was necessary to quantify how much bluefin tuna, eels and cod was being taken by recreational fishermen in order to protect the resource from overfishing. Once they knew how much was being taken from the stock, the scientists could advise the managers how much could safely be taken from the fisheries. She left out the bit where the managers would routinely ignore what the scientists advised.

On a scale of 1 - 10, I'd say a 4

The point of the AT is that you pays your £20 and they do the fighting for you. That's why I've joined - not for the competitions, or the reward scheme or even the £5 mil insurance. If I can rely on the AT to fight my corner on the issues that threaten my enjoyment of our sport and I can get out fishing and catch more and bigger fish as a result, then they can rely on my £20 a year. Having said that - if they ask me to write letters to my MP or to sign a petition or two, then I'll do that if it gets things done, as it can do e.g. the Article 47 debacle. If they carry on as the previous governing body did, then I'll find something else to spend the money on, like another new plug or a few packets of hooks.

Don't worry Glenn - Elton and I are both members and we'll watch 'em like hawks. I've recently saved myself 20 quid a month by stopping my daughter's pocket money. Well she is 23 I've put the money I'm saving towards the AT membership and with the £220 a year left over I've promised myself a trip to Ireland, but I might have to cut the son's pocket money too for a few beers whilst I'm there - He's 24!!!

I didn't see anything on the AT's agenda re. compulsary C&R or bag limits, but if anyone is against either or both, they can tell the AT so, whether they cough up the £20 or not. All it costs is the price of a stamp

Mark Lloyd's presentation indicated that tackling commercial overfishing and article 47 were at the top of the sea angling agenda. He rightly pointed out that this ain't going to happen without a serious number of members (voting clout) and the financial backing to fund a team of representatives who can match the commercial's (paid) reps. Much of what he said made sense and if the AT's management can gain the trust of sea anglers by some early successes then perhaps the membership will grow as hoped. It's a catch 22 though, for without the regular membership funding they are restricted in hiring good reps, like say the RSPB have access to. Many are experts in their field (pun intended). WWF have put up some grant aid and other commercial sponsorship is being sought from the tackle trade. The reward system looks quite interesting, where spending money in some of the high street stores and on-line with a credit card automatically registers for discounts off of a freshwater licence and may be extended to tackle retailers, so that it may be possible to offset the AT's annual membership by getting a discount on other purchases. I think it equates to 4p in the £. This may sound like a gimmic, but a lot of clubs and membership groups offer rewards points and it works for them. I think that this does indicate a more modern approach to angler representation, where members get tangiable ancilliary benefits as well as (I hope) some serious professional representation. Cheers Steve

Hi Glenn Sorry - but your post was made after the AGM finished and I was on my way home However - I did ask Mark about how anglers could communicate their concerns over issues such as Art 47 and his reply was along the lines that they are developing several lines of communication, including regional representatives, email, via AT's website. I feel confident enough that a punt for the next three years is a reasonable investment for a decent representative body and will review my subscription based on what has been acheived in 2012. Cheers Steve

Mark Lloyd is attending the B.A.S.S AGM tomorrow (15th March) by invitation, so if anyone has any questions, post them here by 09:00 Sunday 15th and I'll ask them on your behalf. Cheers Steve

I think that's a very good idea Steve. If you look at the attendees of that last meeting, several angling groups were represented (a consortium?). I have attended several similar meetings over the past 10 years and the number of participants on 'our side of the table' has grown to include charter skippers' reps, anglers' reps from clubs and regional federations, national angling groups, nation-wide representative bodies, specialist angling groups, reps from the tackle trade and angling's political supporters. I cannot remember anyone representing their own members, and the RSA sector, as a whole without a great deal of guts, determination and integrity. I have been there and witnessed how well some of these guys stand up to career civil servants and politicos. The majority of these reps have given up more that just a day's pay, covered their own travel costs and mostly given accurate accounts of the meeting's proceedings - I know I have. The constant reference to RSA's 'mis-representatives' is too easy a cliche to use and is an insult to those who I have had the honour to work with over the years. You'll know some of the people I'm referring to Steve and I think that they deserve better than the term 'mis-representative', but if Wurzel floats your boat then you vote for him. Cheers Steve

I'm pretty sure that BASS is a club member of the AT. So if Steve C and Ryford have renewed their membership of BASS, as I have, that could make four of us so far Elton. I will also join as a PM. Cheers Steve

Hi Glenn Firstly, I see no real value in bag limits for anglers as a management tool, where there are no reciprocal restrictions on commercial fishermen. Notice that I didn't use the words CONSERVATION tool, because angler bag limits (for bass) on their own would have little if any conservation benefit imo. However - when combined with other management measures, which do have a conservation value e.g. BNAs, MLS set at or above adult-size, then I think that bag limits could be used in specific areas such as BNAs to provide anglers with the opportunity to catch and take home a reasonable number of fish (bass) for the table. My opinion is that bag limits have some management value in drawing a line between the genuine angler who wants to take fish home and the chancer who decides he'll fish a BNA and take large numbers of fish, perhaps for back-door sale or for sale through his business. As to the actual number? I would suggest that 4 or 5 legally takeable-sized fish would constitute a reasonable feed for a family, with a few for the freezer or to give away, whilst this sort of number may make it commercially unattractive enough for the cowboy to bother. I guess that there will always be those who will fish and sell small numbers of bass, but someone in posession of say 30 bass in a BNA could be more easily identified and be prosecuted. Cheers Steve

Not at all Wurzel My local trout resevoir is Chew Valley Lake. Bristol Water stock it with several thousand trout each year - I'm not proposing that anyone should stock BNAs Chew is 'fly only' (with the exeption of a piking permit in season) - no such restrictions in my ideal BNA Anglers need a rod licence to fish Chew - I'm not proposing that either They also need to buy a day or season ticket Ditto Anglers are subject to a bag limit on Chew and when they've caught their limit then they must either stop fishing or buy another day ticket - no such proposals in my posts and there never will be. I see a reasonable bag limit as an upper limit on take for personal consumption, not a limit on catch. And they could hardly be called 'Angler only sites' when swimmers, boaters, dinghy sailers, windsurfers, ramblers/ hikers, birdwatchers, photographers and anglers can enjoy BNAs Cheers Steve

If I had anything to hide (which I don't) then do you really think that I would be posting my personal thoughts on here Steve? I'm a life-long angler and like you Steve, the sport is one of the most important things in my life. You must be mad if you think I'm condoning any commercial access to BNAs Steve! (BTW I know a good psycho-analist)

Thanks for taking the time to provide such a detailed analysis of my last post Steve. If I ever need a psycho-analist, I'll know where to come . You've mis-interpreted my words again Steve. I'm not suggesting any commercial rod and lining within BMAs - just the opposite in fact. I wrote - My thoughts were that perhaps a slot size for takeable-sized fish i.e. over the MLS will ensure that juveniles must be returned (as they are now, so no change) and a realistic daily limit per angler, so people don't take the pi$$ and commercially rod and line for bass inside BNAs would open up existing BNAs to boat anglers and not impose draconian restrictions (ropes) on anglers fishing proposed BNAs. We're clearly at opposite ends of the spectrum on this one. Cheers Steve