steve pitts

Steve The whole point of my comments is that angling should not be banned from BNAs let alone making them no take zones, lure only, no live bait, etc, etc. so I don't know why you have introduced such hypothtical restrictions (ropes?) into the discussion when they do not even apply to existing BNAs. You seem to be taking a stance that if BNAs can't be proven to work, then they must provide no meaningful benefits. Rather a broad assumption, given that almost every example of measures introduced to protect species at vulnerable times in their life cycles has proven to increase survival and maintain species viability around the globe. The BNAs were introduced to eliminate the targetting of juvenile bass within estuaries where they could be (and were being) decimated by thoughtless commercials and anglers. I dread to consider what our bass stocks would be like now, if they hadn't been introduced. I think that they have played a major part in ensuring that we have any bass worth catching - commercially, or as anglers. I would have thought that the the effects of the free for all that you mention would be reduced if the boundaries of BNAs were reasonably extended, bearing in mind that many estuaries have a bottle- neck where they enter the sea, which is where most of the BNA bounderies are currently set. Extending the boundaries beyond where fish are concentrated as they leave or enter BNAs is a logical step in some cases. Allowing anglers to fish from boats (and shore) within existing and potential BNAs is what I'm talking about, but trying to ensure that juvenile bass are still protected by means of a workable system which obviates mass capture. 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. Cheers Steve

Steve, there are areas, (not designated BNA's), that hold large concentrations of juvenile bass that do endure commercial fishing pressure. Let's not create the illusion that only areas with no fishing pressure, (or designated BNA's), hold large numbers of juvenile bass, because that would be to mislead. Nothing in my last post was misleading. I didn't say that some areas that are natural BNAs (but not desinated as such) have no fishing pressure, or that only BNAs (desinated or not) hold large concentration of juvenile bass. What I said was - There are almost certainly areas which aren't designated BNAs which hold large concentrations of young bass and if these areas have little or no fishing pressure, then they may not need the added protection of official BNA status. What I'm thinking is - if there is little or no extractive fishing pressure in some areas, do they need to be designated as full-blown BNAs, unless we want to pre-legislate on precautionary / preventative grounds? I was also wondering if you had any ideas on how the future of BNAs would look. what terms and conditions would you like to see agreed that would allow boat anglers to fish BNAs? Based on your doubts that they have any real proven value, would you, for example, advocate the dismantling of the current BNA legislation? Would you perhaps see some benefit in ammending the existing order to accomodate the fishing for bass from boats with rod and line only in existing BNAs and anyfuture additions to the BNA list. How about the introduction of other measures such as slot sizes and / or bag limits for bass to control over-exploitation, or increasing the mls within designated BNAs? I'm sure that all of the above will be viewed by many as introducing restrictions on anglers where currently none exist (valid point) so the argument will be why introduce restrictions unneccesarily, which is what I was intending in my earlier comment. Just a few ideas to chew over. Cheers Steve

I agree with you that quantifying 'the benefit' of BNAs and comparing it to areas where juvenile bass are not protected, is all but impossible but I think that we agree that BNAs protect juveniles to some degree. There are almost certainly areas which aren't designated BNAs which hold large concentrations of young bass and if these areas have little or no fishing pressure, then they may not need the added protection of official BNA status. That's assuming that they will never be subjected to extractive pressure in the future., which is a big risk. I would guess that you are mostly concerned (rightly in my view) that identifying 'new' BNAs, as Defra have asked SFCs to do, will mean that any that any which are newly designated will exclude catching bass from boats as the existing ones do. Of course, it's the retention of bass within the BNA, not the actual catching, that is illegal. Now - if we can agree that BNAs may assist in some ways in boosting recruitment and increasing the chance of more and bigger bass in the long run, what terms and conditions would you like to see agreed that would allow boat anglers to fish BNAs. Worth also remembering that most BNAs and potential BNAs are also nursery areas for flounder, salmonids and mullet, so any protection from netting and other large-scale extractive methods may have benefits for other species. Cheers Steve

Hi Glenn There is some good background information on why and how the Bass Nursery Areas were introduced in the book Sea Bass by Pickett and Pawson. See pages 292 onwards at http://tinyurl.com/686aol It was estimated at the time that in some esturaries 50% of juvenile bass were subject to mortality by netting and it's been said that trawling within a few of the larger South coast estuaries was responsible for 90% of the catch. Just how successful BNAs have been (compared to if they hadn't been introduced) over the past 20 years is probably impossible to quantify. Assuming though, that if mortality on juvenile bass was reduced, and more juvenlie bass recruited to the adult stock as a result, then BNAs would have benefitted anglers and the commercial sector to varying degrees. As Steve says, there can be no question that BNAs have unfortunately benefitted the offshore pair trawl fishery too, which is almost certainly having a detremental effect on bass stocks as a whole. But it isn't just those few boats who reap the benefits. They certainly get more than their fair share though. If a proportion of small bass, which are protected by the BNAs as juveniles, mature and contribute to the breeding stock, or even grow to be big bass ( a 10lb bass will almost certainly have spent its first few years within a BNA) and I catch a few, then I'll be very satisfied and consider that they are working. Cheers Steve

Hi Barry The objective was that, as part of a management package for bass, it could be good for the stock. As part of a package of measures, bag limits for anglers, to which you refer, was one of several proposals and I've underlined the terms for you (from the BMP). Bag Limits For Recreational Sea Anglers Subject to the other management mechanisms being in place, a daily bag limit for the retention of bass is proposed as a measure to control sea angling fishing mortality and to facilitate enforcement. Useful management information may also result through a managed voluntary catch return system. As it happens, the status quo was maintained when Shaw pulled out of the MLS increase. Cheers Steve

Not that I'm aware of Glenn. Cheers Steve

Macro stores are doing the Pentax Optio W30 for around £80 +VAT from Wednesday 27th August. They sold off the Optio W20 for the same price around a year ago and stocks went like that. If interested, don't leave it too late, or you'll be dissapointed.

Steve As you said in one of your earlier posts - life's too short. Cheers Steve

Steve Here's your proposal - 'No individual who holds office within BASS, or who represents BASS in any official capacity, shall be permitted to hold office within, or represent sea anglers on behalf of, any other sea angling group or representative group, body or organisation' You are right - it would not affect anyone who was an official or representative of a shooting club. My mistake. However - the key word 'National' was not in your original proposal and if this was a fundemental point of your proposal then I agree that it was not clearly worded. As I've said Steve, the wording of the ammendment escapes me, but it will be on record within the minutes of the AGM. You're giving the impression (well more of an accusation - a committee member played around with the rules etc.) that you were stitched up by 120 BASS members who voted against you on the day. I think that some found the proposal unworkable and others found it dictatorial. That's why it wasn't carried and was voted against unanimously. Bearing in mind that the AGM was in March, this is the first time that you've publically mentioned any irregularity or dissatisfaction with the proceedings. Time perhaps to take this over to the BASS forum where we can ask for other peoples' recollections of the day's events. Cheers Steve

Hi Steve I've have to respond publically to you on this for the benefit of other forum readers (if anyone is following this). Your proposal to the AGM was to put into practice a new rule, which would have precluded any member of the committee or restoration team from holding any other office with any other representive group or club if I remember rightly. This was presumably to avoid a potential conflict of interest as you saw it . It would have meant that, if sanctioned by the membership, several members of the committe would have either had to stand down and relinquish their positions on the BASS committee or resign from posts that they held elswhere with (as an example) other angling clubs, shooting clubs and as appointees to SCFs. I'll be honest and admit that I can't remember the reason for, or the content of the proposed amendment, but it is the prerogative of a proposer to withdraw his counter-motion if it is considered and discussed and then he or she feels that it is not a solution to the issue at hand. The normal process is to ask the proPoser of the ammendment if he/she wishes to see the ammendement go to a vote. This was done the ammendment withdrawn and your original proposal, having been seconded was voted on by those present. Nothing sinister or under-handed in any of that Steve, just normal proceedure as the formal part of the AGM. The problem that has been highlighted here and upon which we can both agree is that Defra send out complex documents only a day or two before the meetings, which are planned well in advance and then expect some sort of rational concensus from the meeting delegates. Your guess is as good as mine whether this is intentional but it has nothing to do with secret squirrels or withholding of info. by BASS which you are implying. Jesus - I sent you and others a copy of the document 5 minutes after I finished reading it. It does strike me that some of the 'loss of credibility' of which you speak may perhaps be due to the way that some people incurrately portray BASS on these internet forums. You know the usual crap about 'elitist fluff chuckers who only care about one species'. It's rubbish Steve- you and I both know that and you should also know by now that if I suspected any undemocratic behavoir by those who represent BASS, I would be the first to holler 'foul ref' Cheers Steve

Hi Steve I agree that circulating an email so close to meeting is not the ideal way to get considered feedback. I'll emphasise again that Defra sent this out late Friday afternoon to one individual, so blame Defra. I don't now the reason why it wasn't forwarded to me until Monday, but it's not beyond the realms of possiblility that the recipient didn't open it over the weekend. What I do know is that it would have been forwarded at the earliest opportunity. Yes - it was a cock-up when more notice should have been given, but that's Defra for you. They do it all the time. I'm not about to disect your answers to my reply to you, but I stand by my original statement that the BASS committee and restoration team have a renewed mandate to represent BASS and this is what has happened wrt the meeting. The committee and restoration team are fully accountable to the membership and relay information in a variety of formats, so that the membership are kept fully informed and involved. At a cost of £800, BASS circulated a newsletter earlier this year, to all members, which devoted 4 pages to the RSA strategy consultation - http://ukbass.com/downloads/news8.pdf pages 7 - 11 Whatever your opinons of the NFSA and SACN and how they keep in contact with their members, I fail to see how you can continue to argue that BASS is in any way being secretive by withholding information and not seeking opinion from its members. Another example Steve - You put a proposal to the AGM and you got a lot of time allocated to your proposal. The proposal was then voted on. You were then genuinely congratulated and thanked for having the balls to raise the subject (a round of applause as I recall), but no-one called you a trouble maker, an idiot or a hybrid, or any such insult. You got a very fair hearing and that, as I see it, is an indication of the fair and democratic process that prevails within BASS. You're confusing the name-calling that breaks on on this forum, with the respect for other people's views, that BASS members (on the whole) afford each other. Its well-known that there is no love lost between you and the NFSA and SACN and now you have chosen to lump BASS in with your accusations of secrecy and under-handedness within this post. I find that unfair - hence my reply to your post. Your portrail of BASS, as some sort of clandestine, self-centred group, headed by unaccountable mavericks is not recognisable to me and I'll end my contribution to this thread at that. Regards Steve

Don't know Glenn, but I assume that both have a constitution or similar set of agreed proceedures where the protocols for group representation are agreed by the membership. It is not unusual for groups to appoint members of a committee to act on their behalf during the committee members' term of office. Sometimes there will be limits to this authority or an unconditional mandate is given. The NFSA conservation group are answerable to the NFSA board I would imagine and I understand that the NFSA has canvassed its members in issues surrounding the RSA strategy, by a postal survey. The NFSA has a website and forum, so I imagine that news will be disseminated via these. Cheers Steve

Steve As you attended the last BASS AGM and the one before that, you'll be aware that a good deal of time is devoted to disscussions on what the BASS restoration team and the committee has been doing and what it is likely to do in the forseeable future. One item on the agenda this year was the sea angling strategy consultation, to which this summary document relates. During these discussions a mandate has been given by the membership for the committee to sanction the actions and the direction of the restoration team, without having to refer back to the membership for every decision that needs to be taken. That, after all is one of the functions of a committee. You'll also be aware that I am a member of the restoration team, not a committee member. A copy of the draft responses was circulated on Monday to the committee and members of the restoration team by the BASS chairman, who asked for comments relative the meeting of the inshore working group of which BASS is a participant. I picked up this email late Monday afternoon. I then forwarded a copy of this document to you and several other BASS members early on Monday evening. I also copied Glenn in for info. Your post infers that BASS has not consulted its membership or fed back information. This is the part of your post that I find difficult to accept as anything other than contraversial. As they haven't, to my knowledge, done so; maybe they don't consider themselves as representative of anglers in general and have consulted their respective memberships instead? If that is the case, are there any members of the NFSA, SACN or BASS who have been consulted by their representatives? You appear (to me) to be implying that BASS is not conveying relevant information to its members and its representatives are acting without their authority. It also appears me that you are having a poke at BASS for the sake of it and I find that contraversial. You know me well enough to know that I hide nothing from you or any other BASS member. So if I may re-phrase my answer to your question - are there any members of the NFSA, SACN or BASS who have been consulted by their representatives? Yes Steve - you were. OK, so an 11th hour email from me is admittedly not enough time to get sufficient feedback, but with the draft of responses only being circulated by Defra late Friday afternoon (blame Defra not BASS), I hope you'll agree that practical steps were taken to get a concensus on the draft. As to what was said and what the outcome of the meeting was - I expect that a report will be forthcoming from the BASS representative as soon as is practical and you'll be kept informed via the BASS forum, the BASS magazine, the BASS Newsletter and by email as always. I know you have a beef with the NFSA and SACN and certain individuals, but I don't see how you can suggest that BASS is not democratic and does not keep its membership informed. Regards Steve

Yes Steve. As a member of BASS I have been consulted, as have all of the BASS committee. As a member yourself, you'll appreciate that the committee have a mandate from the membership to act on such matters. Democracy and all that, so bringing BASS into the equation, for the sake of controversy, is not required. If anyone wants to know when the summary will be out they could email Anthony Hynes of Defra anthony.hynes@DEFRA.GSI.GOV.UK Cheers Steve PS Draft summary circulated by Defra at 17:38 on Friday the 8th August.......meeting held on Tuesday the 12th

This practice has been going on for 35-odd years, since the likes of 'Artilleryman' started long-distance wrecking trips and selling the anglers' catch on return to port. If I remember, there was a personal limit for each angler and then all the additional fish (usually the majority of the catch) belonged to the boat. Anglers (irrespective of their job) aren't fishing for profit in this scenario, it's the skipper who is selling the fish and if his boat is licenced, then he's not breaking the rules or doing the commercials out of anything, because he is a commercial himself i.e. he is involved in a commercial activity centred around the capture and sale of fish.

This was an Owner High carbon steel hook and cutters wouldn't touch it. Off to casualty I went (feeling rather foolish). Turned out the doctor was fish-phobic and he ran a mile when he saw the plug. After 10 mins of sawing with a surgical circular saw, it had hardly made an impression. Time for the scalpel to come out. I have rather a neat 1cm long scar on my thumb to remind me whenever I think about unhooking a fish and now always wear a pair of pliers on a belt for the job. Oh.... and it DOES hurt

Surprisingly easy as it happens

Hi Rick I expect you've realised that bass have all sorts of spikey bits. Keeping your hands away from the dorsal fin and gill covers will lessen the risk of getting progged or gashed. The spines on the dorsal aren't poisonous but getting stabbed can lead to infection. Someone was telling me recently that a friend of his had a bass dorsal spine break off in his thumb while handling a fish. Several months later the spine emerged from under the skin on his elbow having travlled up his forearm . The gill covers have serrated plates which lie flat when the fish has it's mouth closed, but when it opens it's mouth and flares it's gills they stand proud of the gill cover and can inflict several nasty gashes at once. Bass have a tendency to thrash about when you're trying to unhook them, often the cause of transfering the hook or treble to the angler's hand, but if you turn them on their back, they tend to lie still. Using a Boga grip has the same effect (any large bass should be supported under the belly if you're using one of these jaw-grabbing devices). Berkely have a pistol grip version, which is much cheaper than the Boga, but I don't think that it has the integral weight scales that the Boga does. Using a pair of pliers to extract the hook is often quicker and safer than using cold, wet fingers. You can safely hold bass under the head and belly to return them. Sometimes you can use you thumb and forefinger to grab the lower jaw whilst waiting for the fish to recover. Try not to let it go untill you're sure that it is strong enough to swim away. They will often give a couple of kicks when they are ready. If you have to release them from rocks or a pier, a drop net or landing net is best, rather than launching them from a hieght. If you're going to kill one, do it quickly by smacking it hard over the top of it's head, just behind the eyes. Three sharp taps with a priest or the handle of a knife should do it. Cheers Steve PS I'm not sure if Glenn's suggestion was serious, but a gaff tends to bounce off the scales of a bass and if you do manage to get a gaff into the belly, the bass is bu**ered for a release, or the flesh gets tainted by blood and other gunge, although you might get a big bass to open it's mouth to slip a gaff though it's chin I suppose.

Not a BASS press release this time Steve

Hi Glenn I paid £99 for my Optio W10 a couple of years ago when the W20 came out and the W10 was being discounted. The latest incarnation is the W30 and there is a pretty comprehensive review here - http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/default...entax+optio+w30 It is fully waterproof to 3 metres for 2 hours / sprayproof / slashproof /dustproof /shockproof (can be dropped onto a hard surface from 4ft without damage). You may be able to pick up a W20 at a discount if you shop around, but I think the W30 retails at around £125

Hi Glenn Don't confuse the disposable Kodak holiday jobbies with the Olympus and Pentax digital compacts. There's a lot to be said for being familiar with your camera and what it can do, so maybe you would be happier sticking with your Panasonic. My Optio W10 has a lot of very easy to use presets so you can be creative and the macro facility is stunning. I am very happy with the ease of use and convenience. Mine is 6 mega pixel but I think the latest version has 8 mil

Hi Glenn I only have second-hand experience of the Aqua-pac range, having never owned one, but a couple of friends have used them for cameras, hand-held VHF units and other stuff like passports. The only problem that I can feed back is that if you seal the pac in a humid or damp atmosphere, they act like a mini-sauna and condensation forms on the inside which can be a death sentence to digital cameras. This could probably be overcome with desiccant gel / granual packs, which draw moisture out and trap it where it will do no harm. An Aqua pac for your camera looks like it will cost around £80 being that it's an SLR and for that sort of money you could buy one of the waterproof compacts from either Olympus or Pentax. They are so small and light (fit in a jacket pocket) and give good resolution (6 to 8 mega pixs) and can be used down to around 3 metres without any housing or other paraphernalia. I'm sure that these will have been discussed elsewhere on the anglersnet photography forum, but I know several anglers who have both makes (I've got the Pentax Optio) and they are dead chuffed with them. Worth considering as an alternative to exposing your SLR to the salty environment? Cheers Steve

Hi Elton I don't want to turn Glenns' post into a recruitment advert for BASS, but in answer to your question ~ no, it isn't all about conservation, conservation and more conservation. Perhaps the 'moto' of the society ' Dedicated to the Conservation of our Premier Game Fish', is a bit grand, but that is only ONE of the aims of BASS. We are very much into helping each other catch more fish and sharing the wealth of knowledge that exists within the group, which is freely and widely shared on the members' forum and in the quarterly magazine. I can honestly say that BASS has members from all around the UK and from all walks of life and as in most forms of angling the sport is a great leveller. I have never met a prima donna or someone who felt that they were better than any other member in the 20-odd years that I've been a member, yet some of the finest bass anglers in the country are members. That's not to say that it's an 'experts only' club either .... far from it. I know from some of the names or handles who post on anglers' net that bass-related questions get answered by some forum members who are also BASS members, so it isn't all press releases and bad news. For an example of some info that is available from BASS have a look at the fishing bits (righthand side) on this page from the BASS website -. http://ukbass.com/fishingbits/index.html There's articles on all sorts of bass fishing styles and techniques and the magazine is packed with such articles, catch reports and stories each quarter. Cheers Steve PS The lad from Redcar is called Andy (say hello if you're out there Andy)

Mike often does a talk and slide show at the BASS AGM, which always goes down well. I'm not taking the pee Glenn and I know that you have had some reservations about BASS, but I really would recommend that you check it out. We've just had a lad from Redcar join, so that dispells the myth that we're all a bunch of bass-hugging Southern softies too Cheers Steve

Hi Glenn Really pleased that you're fired up with catching bass and have caught the bass bug. By the way ~ there is no cure for it It's great to see such enthusiasm and excitement. It's like being introduced to fishing as a kid all over again isn't it? When you move onto fishing surface lures, then that's a whole new level of adrenalin Steve's advice is spot on especially as fishing for bass with lures is probably fairly new to the North East. I expect that someone has done it in the past and caught fish too, but they are likely to keep any major successes close to their chest as is the way with finding a new method that works, so you'll need to do your own homework and find out what works in your neck of the woods. If you are doing most of your fishing from a kayak, then perhaps there is a lesser dependance on the state of the tide. Fishing from the shore is often very tide dependant, but having said that, any movement of the water (either ebbing or flooding) is often a signal for bass to feed. If this co-incides with dawn or dusk and some structure like a reef or headland rip then so much the better. If you don't already keep a diary, then start now and go back over your past few trips and note down the state of the tides, time of day, clarity of the water (water temp if you know) wind direction etc. anything you think is relevant or that you noticed will all help to form a picture that you can refer to in the future. As Steve says, a pattern may emerge which gives clues to the ideal conditions to try for bass, although as in all forms of fishing, no-one tells the fish the rules. Cheers Steve PS you can join BASS via the website www.ukbass.com and make use of the members' forum where there are many members who own kayaks and small boats and who are very helpful with advice and tips.