steve pitts

Hi Barry You must have missed the questions just before the long list of consultees You don't have to stick to answering the questions (politicians never do ) - they are there to make it easier for people to respond. Questions – •What are your overall views on the Strategy? Does it miss anything? Which part would you change and how? •How often do you go angling? Where do you mostly go angling? Do you go on angling holidays? •What sort of angling – shore, own boat or charter vessels? Why do you go sea angling? What are the key reasons for your participation in the sport? What is the biggest issue for you affecting your angling? •Do you agree with the aim and objectives of the Strategy? Which objective do you think is most important? •How do you think angling needs can be reflected in fisheries management decisions and policy? What do you think is the best way to achieve this? •Which species do you value most? What action would you like to see taken to improve these stocks? •If a sea angling licence were introduced and the revenue spent to provide benefits for sea anglers, would you be willing to pay and how much? •Would you support a bag limit for certain species where there is a conservation need and there are controls on commercial exploitation of the same species? •What would you spend money on to improve your enjoyment of sea angling? •What new sources of information are you aware of that are available to build an evidence base? E.g. data on catches, social studies, angling business turnovers, numbers of people going on charter vessels year on year etc.

That would make him Ringo then? Sorry Peter - couldn't resist it.

Some of what goes on Barry A gill net set across one of the best bass marks in Dorset Well – it used to be one of the best marks Confiscated catches from nets set illegally in bass nursery areas Illegally set net in the Tamar Nov 07 Courtesy - The Environment Agency

John S I must apologise for my outburst. It was a classic case of hitting the send button before considering the content of my post. Regards Steve

I give up! This is perhaps the most important discussion topic, potentially effecting all sea anglers and the post has been moved to an area that very few frequent. This aversion to anything with a polictical or conservation bias, which is seen by some as polluting the general sea angling section, is akin to censorship. Sorry guys - I hereby relinquish my membership to this forum. Best wishes to you all. Steve

There seems to be a mis-conception that those 'un-elected' RSA reps are asking Government for licences and restrictions. Since long before Defra were MAFF, the men in suits have been trying to introduce a licencing system for sea anglers. We all know that this is an exercise in increasing revenue i.e a tax. More recently, they tried to introduce bag limits via SFCs and failed. The only reason we haven't got an RSA licence and bag limits HERE and NOW is because some anglers take the time and effort to sit on SFCs and lobby MPs and defend our historic rights. They put forward a strong defence against such limitations through reasoned argument and presentation of well-researched facts. They do this in their own time and often with no financial support from their fellow anglers or the trade. I can understand how these mis-conceptions arrise, as few anglers bother to read the proposals fully, engage in conservation and politics section of fora such as this, or turn up at meetings held by Defra, or attend their local SFC meetings - they just want to go fishing after all. Here is an ideal opportunity for sea anglers to unite and respond to this latest consultation in a way that could tell Government emphatically that we won't accept licences, we don't want arbitary bag limits without good reason, we don't want more bogs and changing facilities or instruction booklets on hook sizes. Tell them we want more and bigger fish (back) and ask them how they are going to do it and when. Cheers Steve

Hi Stoaty Thanks for the response. I'm aware of the history of the segregation of C&P section and agree with those who got miffed about the C&R fanatics. I was just suggesting that a message be allowed to be posted and remain on the general fishing section to refer to this thread/issue. It will effect every sea angler, whether bait/fly/lure/, shore/beach/peir/boat, catch and release or catch and kill. This forum is one medium where sea anglers can a.) learn of the strategy and b.) discuss it with fellow anglers from around the country. Cheers Steve

It may have something to do with it being tucked away here in the Politics and Conservation section - which only a hand-full of forum users appear to visit on a regular basis. If a new topic were posted in the other sea angling related sections, with a link to this thread, would it be moved or deleted? I would hope not. Perhaps, just this once, a topic of such importance as this should be opened up across other sections with a sticky message? Cheers Steve

But the really good news is that proposals are afoot to de-criminalise the activities of those who steal the nation's fish by falsifying log books, set nets illegally and exceeding quotas by introducing a scale of fines between ....... wait for it........ £250 and £4,000. See - http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/...antory-note.pdf Some of these shysters make tens of thousands of £s out of these scams over the years and they run the risk of a max 4 grand fine? Whatever happened to confiscation of boats, vehicles and gear like they have in the States. That might discourage a few chancers.

Hi Barry The main reason the NFFO was so effective when it comes to reversing decisions like the bass MLS increase is that they are full-time, fully-funded representatives - not part-time volunteers who have to take a day off work to represent their clubs and fellow businessmen, as the charter skippers will be doing. They also know that their members will back them - even if they disagree or it doesn't affect them as individuals. When RSAs put their hands in their pockets to fund a national organisation to represent all aspects of sea angling, we may arrive at a situation where we can continually drip-feed letters and propaganda to the fishing press, MPs, Defra and the like. The effectiveness of this cannot be under-stated when it comes to influencing what are essentailly political decisions. Problem is that most anglers either have the heads in the sand or are too suspicious of their counterparts in other parts of the country too get to grips with this issue. I will be at the meeting on Thursday (representing BASS) and if the guys from the North East have a gripe they want to air, I will give them my support 100%. Defra know that divided we fall, so a united approach is essential if we are to get the message across that we are pi**ed off with their failure to provide us with their plans for more and bigger fish and their attempts to regulate and manage us in return for nothing, whilst our sport disappears down the swanee. Cheers Steve

Hi Ken I'm sure you won't be surprised to learn that many other anglers, who have wriiten to Defra or Jon Shaw have had exactly the same reply. Like them - I'm sure you'll find the paragraph on the RSA strategy little consolation.

With you 100% on that one Wurzel It is quite clear that Defra couldn't give a toss about sustainability of our fish stocks, commercial livelihoods or RSA - self-preservation is at the top of their agenda. I've just come home from an overseas angling trip to be greeted with this apology of a Ministerial decision and have decided that other countries, who have real fisheries management, can have my hard earned cash from now on. I'll save my money for a trip or two abroad per year, rather than spend time and money on fishing for schoolies and lining the pockets and pension funds of Whitehall wa***rs. Despite all of the recommendations contained within Net Benefits, Drew Report, Invest in Fish, Inshore fisheries review, Marine Bill white paper, Defra's vision (now there's a contradiction in terms) and various consultations to which I have spent countelsss hours responding to, we are treated to a display of outright narrow-mindedness, which is way beyond my understanding. Mr Shaw won't get a penny out of me for a licence. Not because I am against licences per se, but I see no possible return for my investment and when I can support overseas fisheries managers with my licence money and get top-class sport as part of the contract, then they'll get my money from here on in. Over and out Steve

The feedback from CEFAS is that a 5% return rate is about average for a fish such as bass i.e. it isn't a carp in a pond or a whaleshark that dissapears to who knows where. It could mean that the other 95% are still out there for anyone to catch, or it could mean that some were caught and the tags not returned, or the tags fell out, or the bass were predated, or maybe some just died. But it may not have been the French and the French alone who caught some of those fish and didn't return the tags. There have been Scottish pairs and and English balloon trawls fishing well within the UK 12 and talk of some commercial skippers having discarded tags and the same with anglers too (surely just a rumour bearing in mind the reward for each tag and or just the data ). As I said - the French are no saints when it comes to this sort of thing and they may well have caught more or less than 10% of the tagged fish and not returned the tag data. It's imposible to say, but if it was 10% then that still leaves 80% for you, me and our fellow UK exploiters, WE would still be the majority beneficiaries and a far cry from the 80% foreign vessel catch rate claimed by the BAC. Cheers Steve

You're quite right Bob But some anglers had a bit more foresight and rolled up their sleeves and got those nursery area S.Is introduced. Cheers Steve

Hi Wurzel This probably belongs one of the bass mls threads - but here goes.... I think that 5% of the tags (around 5,000 were used) were returned to CEFAS over the study period, but I have no idea how many were returned by French pairs - not that many I would guess. From the CEFAS website - Whilst 88% of the recaptures of bass tagged inshore were taken by UK fisheries inside the UK 12-mile zone and 3 % were reported from the offshore pair-trawl fishery, 59% of the recaptures of bass tagged in the offshore pair-trawl fishery were made inshore along the UK coast, and 32% in the offshore pair trawl fishery. Most of the remaining 9% of recaptures were taken by UK vessels fishing outside 12 miles. Taking into account the likelihood of a tagged bass being available to be recaptured and reported (4-5 times more likely for bass tagged inshore, chiefly because they survive better than even selected pair-trawl caught fish) and the numbers of bass caught in the respective fisheries, an average of 40 fish tagged inshore were recaptured each year from the UK inshore fishery, and 5 fish from the offshore fishery. This indicates that for every 9 bass that could potentially be caught in the inshore fishery around England and Wales in the period 2000 - 2004, one would be available to be caught by another country's vessel (fishing outside 6 miles). This suggests that the effects of management measures implemented in the UK inshore fishery are largely restricted to that fishery. Landings of bass into England and Wales by UK vessels for 2006 totalled nearly 600 tonnes according to the Bass Action Committee. If that represents 20% of the total catch from UK waters (as claimed by BAC), that must put the overall catch (including foreign vessels) at around 3,000 tonnes. According to the ICES Study Group on bass, the latest records for bass landings into France was 4,000 tonnes per year. Are the French relying on fishing in the UK's limit for 60% of their bass? God knows the French aren’t saints, but they do seem to feature in the rhetoric of those advocating doing nothing, rather regularly. Cheers Steve

Hi Ada The Minister chaired the meeting Representing CEFAS Mike Smith Representing DEFRA Trevor Hutchins Anthony Hynes Representing the commercial sector were:- David Pessel Barrie Deas John Butterwith Paul Trebilcock Representing the RSA sector were:- Bob Cox Malcolm Gilbert Sean O'Driscoll David Rowe (NFSA) John Leballeur. The Chairman of the SWASA (who had previously met Bradshaw along with the Bass Action Committee ) wasn't in attendance. CEFAS appeared to be working from out of date migration and spawning pattern stats, despite the recent bass tagging study being their project and there was some acknowledgement from the commercial side that the trawl bycatch of bass under the current mls of 36 cm was already a problem in some areas and that this needed to be addressed. RSA side reminded the Minister that the mls consultation Regulatory Impact Assessment confirmed that 45cm was the optimum mls for future best value across the commercial and recreational sectors. The commercial claim - that 80% of bass caught in UK waters are caught by foriegn vessels was not substatiated and refutted by the tagging evidence that 90% of bass caught within the UK limit are caught by UK vessels or anglers. Cheers Steve

Hi Wurzel A different scenario, and one I'm sure you don't condone, is this catch seized by the EA from an illegally set gill net. Selective of species it certainly ain't I appreciate the problems with avoiding LSDs, but I do have difficulty in understanding how this sort of bycatch isn't considered damaging, when this net was set for bass and mullet (but not set to avoid salmonids). Ref: the other photos - The guy used 300m of net because that was all he needed to close of the entire bay. Anything trying to exit the bay at low tide (when the photo was taken) was trapped. It was set by a licenced vessel which fishes pots and gill nets, so there's a good chance that the wrasse and doggies would have been used for pot bait I guess. I have seen over three quarter of a mile of gill nets set by the same guy and watched him haul around two dozen wrasse to every bass or mullet landed. The good news is that he has stuck to potting for the past two years. The bad news - the bass and mullet fishing for us has been b******s for the past three or four. He's off my Christmas card list! Cheers Steve

The problem is Wurzel, that not every gill netter (or very few) is as conscienceous and as skilled as you. 300m of gill net set in a 2 metre-deep bay, less than 50 metres from shore, still there at low water, now sagging in water less than 1 metre deep. Is this selective, or perhaps the netter was out to catch doggies and wrasse?

--> QUOTE(Norm B @ Sep 16 2007, 09:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Couldn't you have used the flash to lighten it? I'm sure the flash fired Norm, but I was more concerned with not being swept off the ledge to be honest Your photo ceratainly has that smile factor Ada. Cheers Steve

I don't know if this illustrates the rule of thirds - i.e. a third of sea, a third of subject (angler) and a third of sky? I would have preferred to have been a bit further away and get more sky in the shot, but I was stood right on the edge of the ledge at the time - one step back and it was an early bath for me Cheers Steve

Steve Well - it's quite simple really - Angling is a sport, therefore someone who participates is a sportsman/ sportswoman. I'm not condoning the selling of fish by anglers - far from it, but to say: These catches go unrecorded because anglers can fish unrestricted and with out any control on what they land and therefore anglers are not sportsmen. is just nonsense. How does the lack of restrictions (we are subject to MLSs, bass nursery areas restrictions etc.) equate to a lack of sportsmanship? I have, by the way, just seen some photos of two bass 8.5lb and 10lb 12oz caught from a boat on fly gear over the past couple of days. The captor is not only a superb sportsman, in every sense of the word, but released both fish as well. In reality - Very few anglers sell the fish that they catch Steve. Cheers Steve

It's nice to see the UK's tackle trade body has at last woken up to the reality of Defra's mis-management and misguided proposals for RSA restrictions. Maybe we'll see some moral and financial support against the imposition of the RSA licence.

Hi Steve I have just spent a long weekend in Dorset 'targetting' bass. Total spend for two of us on local B&B and pub grub was around £320 Our intensive targetting resulted in several bass of half a pound and just one of just under 1 lb. All were returned alive and fit. Compared to the bass fishing that I used to enjoy of 15 to 20 years ago these results were nothing short of crap! It isn't anglers targetting and returning bass, or taking some of what they catch for the table that has ballsed up the fishing - it is the sustained use of gill nets, set within 50 yards of our marks, an MLS that is set way too low to ensure truly sustainable bass exploitation, trawlers fishing in areas of known high juvenile bass density and discarding huge numbers of fish, an offshore fishery that has been allowed to target and erode our breeding stock and the blind reluctance of the commercial sector who rebut any attempts to safeguard the long-term future of our stocks and their own livelihoods that is doing the real damage. And as for your sweeping statement about anglers not being sportsmen - total b******s Cheers Steve

Also Scientific Anglers (fly lines and reel manufacturers) and Temple Fork Outfitters ('destination' fishing organisers and suppliers of tackle / clothing etc.) They appear to be well-funded and have a dozen staff, a research establishment and four boats, including a 40 footer . Oh - there is a vacancy there too!

--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Peter B @ Aug 21 2007, 09:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think whenever we practice catch and return, we need to accept that there will be inevitable fatalities - all we can do is endevour to keep these to a minimum. What struck me about this article is that it just reaffirms what has been said about SWFF for a while; using excessivley light tactics for fish will often leave it too exhausted to recover... I'm sure if these same 88 fish had've been hauled in with a beachcaster and immediately returned the findings would have been completely different. I'm not for one second giving out about anyone who salt water fly fishes (I tried it for the first time myself this year), but I just don't think this article is a fair representation of fishing in general... You're spot on Peter This study involved only the catch and release and subsequent tracking of bonefish, so can hardly be considered a broad base for c&r for other species. The authors aren't claiming that this represents c&r survival in general, but of course the media put a slant on it and report it that way. Fly fishing gear is the method most likely to take the longest from hook-up to landing, but bonefish will also take bait and artificials too and even on a beefed-up spinning rod and 30lb braid a four pounder takes a fair while to land. Most bonefish can be returned in a fit condition if they are unhooked in the water. In most cases they will shoot off and can still out-run a shark immediately after release. Keeping them out of the water for more than a minute is likely to cause severe distress or can even be fatal to bonefish, so maybe holding your breath isn't such a bad tip. Several minutes of coaxing them back to fitness is often required if they have been held for a photo or two. They are certainly one of the most prone species to over-handling that I've come across and regret to say that on a recent trip, a bonefish hooked on a plug, which took more than a minute to unhook, turned belly up and no amount of attention would revive it. It almost seems like bonefish go into shock if they are not very quickly unhooked and returned to the water. Perhaps air temperature has a lot to do with this? I think that studies like this can give an insight into the survival rates of returned fish and therefore the sustainability of c&r practices, especially in areas where MPA's are to be introduced. We all know of fish that have been repeat hooked, so good numbers of fish must survive the catch and release experience, but for fish like bonefish, it is helpful to know that even if they are treated roughly, as in the study, but returned to the water quickly, their chance of survival can be very good and if it works for bonefish, it will work for more hardier species. Cheers Steve