steve pitts

Getting a bit deep on environmental issues for me Chris - I'm just a simple bloke who assumes that salmon and bass co-existed in a balanced marine ecostystem, within living memory and for thousands of years before that. Salmon have everthing against them don't they? All of the detrimental factors that we have mentioned and many more besides. I think though that environmental factors play a very big role in the survival of smolts and bass fry. Bass fry are surviving better because of recent milder winters. This is feeding through into lots of small bass, which frequent estuaries until they are big enough to leave for the coastal and inshore zone. Larger than 'normal' populations of small bass may have a negative effect on smolt survival, along with many other factors, but I can't see that the very recent successful bass year-classes are responsible for the demise of salmonids in our rivers during the past 100 years on their own. Cheers Steve

Hi Steve I guess that we can all be selective about what we choose to agree with - most of us would agree with comments that confirm our understanding of an issue or our point of view. Just how increasing bass landings by 90% in 10 years confirms that stocks have DOUBLED and the stock is being fished sustainably is lost on me, I have to admit. A sustained year on year increase in effort, improved technology and gears over the same period, whether by our domestic fleet or Johnny Foreigner seems to be missing from the equasion. Steve

Hi Chris There are no two ways about it - salmonids are under pressure from many quarters. We haven't even touched on the theories relating to fish-farm escapees polluting the wild-fish genetic pool or the possible negative effects of warmer / drier weather. What about the large numbers of smolts trapped in some power station intake screens? I have even seen a large sea trout eating smolts on the Dorset Frome. This was captured on video by the Institute of Freshwater Ecology (formerly the Freshwater Biological Association) in their fluvarium at East Stoke. They have conducted research into smolt numbers going down river and the subsequent returns. They also tagged smolts with data storage tags and dye markers. I could probably get some stats on % returns if you were interested. You might find some info here - http://www.fba.org.uk/East%20Stoke%20Page.html These possible influencing factors mostly post-date the 1900 to 1980 reduction that David refers to in the catches on the Dart (and to varying extents elsewhere), so although these combined probably have an effect on the capabilities of salmonids to recover ( if they were given the chance) the long-term errosion of the stock structure over three quarters of a century (either by environmental or man-made influences) may have driven our native salmon and sea trout past the point of recovery. I note in the recent Fishing Focus quarterly publication that grants are being offered by Defra for anyone with a valid marine-based research project. Perhaps Plymouth Uni could be persuaded to look at the plight of the salmon in SW rivers? The money seems to be there and few applicants are queuing for it. By the way - I'm sure that you would find most BASS members very sympathetic to the plight of salmonids in our British rivers. Most are not, as some would believe, single species specialists or obsessives - well, no more obsessive than salmon, sea trout, conger or cod anglers The BMP was never intended to improve bass stocks to the detriment of other species and indeed it was hoped that their would be spin-off for angling by raising the importance of some other species of interest to anglers. Cheers Steve

Hi David An interesting thread and one to set the cat amongst the pigeons for sure. I'll start by saying that I am a member of BASS, so accept that I may not appear impartial, but I am trying to look at this objectively as it is a very valid point that you make and although I don't fish for salmon or sea trout, I have a high regard for these species - they need all the help they can get! I think that your data from 1900 to 1980's is quite telling The catches had declined by 60% without the bass nursery areas or the current influx of small bass into the Dart. That is a huge drop by any standard (bearing in mind the methods used and two World wars when fishing was less intensive) and unless the catches dropped steeply over a short period, could indicate that a gradual decline occured over this 80 year period. 20 years on and in 2000 the catch was only 500 - a further drop of 75%, despite C&R being encouraged and practiced. Of course, most salmon and sea trout runs are nowhere near as prolific as they once were. Catches to rod and line and netting are down on catches in the 50s to 70s in almost every salmon river in England, Wales and Scotland. I would doubt that many bass frequent Scottish estuaries (some are experiencing bass on the West coast Scotland), so if bass are not present in 'threatening' numbers, some other cause has to be considered. Some improvements in salmonid returns have been recorded where netting licences have been bought out and the recoveries have been seen in a reletively short time frame. This could be a coincidence of course, as salmonid runs can be cyclical - good and bad years. Maybe the nets have been bought out just before a good succession of runs has occured. The only benefit then would be that the fish would reach further up the river system (rather than being caught inshore or in the estuaries) and I would guess that a larger number would reach the reds - assuming that there aren't man-made obstructions that they couldn't negotiate and that the reds were in suitable condition (hadn't been extracted for gravel or water abstration reduced the flow etc.) Steve G's assumption that there must be sufficient adults successfully spawing is a valid point. Just how many smolts it would take to ensure a viable spawning season is not something that I would care to speculate over, but there must, I would have thought, need to be a certain critical mass to offer any chance of a consistant number of returning adults. The odds of each smolt returning must be huge, bearing in mind the numbers that must succum to disease, predators and capture before they return. Which I guess brings us back to predation of salmonids by bass. I would imagine that bass would eat smolts and small salmonids if they get the chance, so any bass hanging around in the Dart would certainly get the chance to eat sea-bound smolts, below the weir. There are lots of small bass around, compared to say 10 years ago, so maybe bass pose a bigger threat than they did in the 90's, but I go back to my first point - that salmonids were well and truly knackered, compared to the 1900's or even 1980 before the introduction of bass nursery areas and some of the bigger bass year-classes like 2002. Bass may be taking smolts and thereby in some way hindering the recovery of salmon and sea trout abundance, but where no other possible causes can be attributed to a delay in increased numbers - until we can rule out netting, water and gravel abstraction, made-made obstructions, diseases and other predators (seals, sea birds, otters, pike etc.) I can't see that we can blame bass as the sole culprit. Cheers Steve

I notice that David Miliband doesn't seem to reply to the comments - seems a bit pointless, so no wonder so few can be bothered. I guess that one of his assistants monitors the blog and may report back to him. Shame then that a few hundred anglers don't get on his case. I notice that there is already one comment calling angling a barbaric sport. The antis have wasted no time in claiming 20% of the responses. Snakey1 You could be right. I think that one of the rules of the blog is that you have to be civil if you want your comment posted. Depends how broad-minded they are at Defra Cheers Steve

I can't fathom this out - Sea Anglers get an opportunity to tell David Miliband what they think about the proposals for a sea angling licence via his blog spot. http://www.davidmiliband.defra.gov.uk/blog...og/default.aspx How many do so? - to date 4 comments. Cyclists get an opportunity to comment on his blog on bicycle use in London and 16 take the chance to comment. If the idea of a sea angling licence is so repugnant to sea anglers, why the hell do so few choose to voice any opposition? Is this an early indication of the level of response to the Marine Bill consultation? Will the proposals contained within be met by a few descenters? Is it any wonder that Defra and associated Ministers see anglers as a soft touch for raising a bit of extra pocket money? Steve

Half a BILLION GBP plus, per year, direct spend - according the he Drew report. Grants? What are they Ken?

I'm a bit lost here Steve - can you help me out? Whilst I agree with your statement; breeding stocks should be left alone IMO, assuming that most bass over 42cm will be mature, or approaching maturity and therefore make up the breeding stock, how will the commercial sector NOT catch fish of this size and above. OK, so if a rod and liner / hand liner catches a fish of mature size, he can return it unharmed, but the whole issue according to the NFFO is the assumed discard rate in the trawl fisheries - which as we all know is not as selective as lining or gill netting. Surely, they would be shoveling back dead bass of + 42cm if your hypothesis was ever put into rigorously applied practice - a Maximum Landing size, if you will. Skilled fishermen know where mature and immature fish are likely to be found and can use methods and gears accordingly, so I would have thought that those who target a range of fish sizes - not relying solely on any one year class to support their job, would actually oppose the concept of fishing down a stock to a recruitment fishery level, which is happening as we speak. With almost every other stock going belly up - for what ever reason - bass represent about the only real consistant success story in inshore fin fish fisheries. Just why are the inshore commercial sector so intent on sticking together, come hell or high water, for the benefit of a minority of trawler outfits who will not concede that they could benefit if they adapted methods and gears. Cheers Steve

Have to agree with you on Bradshaw's position - he could not sign off the Statutory Instrument to increase the bass mls, given that the NFFO deligation presented new 'evidence' on potential discards. If he had pressed ahead, he would have risked a legal challenge (bear in mind the bass action group have all that lolly behind them - wonder what will happen to the donations if there is no legal challenge. Must remember to ask for a refund ). On the subject of the SW anglers rep - well, his comments fly in the face of recent research on behalf of the Invest in Fish South West initiative, who's aim is to encourage sustainable use of marine resources - Invest in Fish work package 10 (a) The motivation, Demographics and Views of South West Sea Anglers……. Research conducted by Nautilus Consultants and Plymouth University Survey of sea anglers’ attitudes - 92% of whom living in the South West Extracts– 4.2.1 Species caught and species targeted – The favourite species to target is bass, by a large margin…. 5.2.1 The catch of the angler’s favourite species is extremely important attribute 5.2.3 Size of fish - Anglers will pay £13.27 for a 50% increase in the size of individual fish, making this a very important attribute Management policies should aim to increase the size of fish, as well as the numbers of fish caught, as this has a major impact on the angling experience. (authors’ bold text) 6.1.2 By Species - As bass is the species that anglers like to target the most, there is a large value derived from bass angling in the region. This value could be increased substantially by increasing the stocks and individual sizes of fish. Table 7.3 Increased minimum landing sizes was the joint- most popular management option when applied across commercial and recreational sectors; tying with closed areas to all fishing. 7.3.2 Anglers’ own suggestions – By far the most common response from anglers, when asked about their favoured management option, was restrictions on commercial fishing. Anglers also favoured gear restrictions, minimum landing sizes (perhaps linked to gear restrictions), seasonal closures (particularly to protect spawning stock) and protection for specific species. Another clear theme was the need for improved enforcement. Maximum Landing Sizes The was some support for Maximum Landing Sizes (as well as Minimum Landing Sizes), in recognition of the importance of large individuals to the reproductive capacity in the stock. It is clear that anglers derive disproportional benefit from catching larger fish, but may well be receptive to returning them alive. 7.4 Summary- Many sea anglers are supportive of measures… including minimum landing sizes The change in the quality of sea angling can effect the value of sea angling through a number of mechanisms: it can attract new entrants to the sport: it can change the level of participation of existing anglers; it can change the value that anglers gain from their sport. Results derived from the choice experiment indicate that a 50% in the size of fish would result in existing anglers making 43% more trips; a 50% increase in the catch of the favourite species would mean 33% more trips Based on this independently conducted research of a cross-section of SW sea anglers, I would suggest that Mr Alcock's declaration, that SW anglers don't want an increase in the bass MLS, is all cock. Cheers Steve

Et tu, Brute?

Hi Barry As I live in the South West, I'll tell what I've heard. The guy who is chairman of the South West Federation of Sea Anglers is Andy Alcock from Weymouth. I have no idea if the real Chairman of the SWFSA attended the Bradshaw meeting with the NFFO reps and helped to throw away the best opportunity in years to get our bass stocks restored, or if it was an impostor. Cheers Steve

'Tis a fact Toerag. Also see comments from The Doc and Wurzel - posts 130 and 131 (I think) in the discards thread. http://www.anglersnet.co.uk/forums/index.p...2894&st=120 Cheers Steve

Well you see Barry - once they have invested OUR licence money on seaside carparks, they can then charge us a fiver an hour to use them! That's assuming OUR carparks aren't already full of holiday makers, ramblers, birdwaters, divers, yachties and part-time netters They're not daft are they? They do say that the plan is to develop the participation in sea angling and therefore the expenditure and the increase in revenue that comes with that. It's been said before that the VAT currently raised on sea angler's expenditure is around the £100 million mark. Of course, no-one would suggest that this money is used exclusively for the benefit of sea angling - not when there are wars in Iraq and Afganistan to fight and hospitals and schools at home to build and maintain, but surely, if they do believe that adopting 'A more holistic approach to managing our marine eco-systems' and applying focused investment on improving the angling experience, then some of the existing revenue that we generate could be used, rather than introducting a licence scheme which might actualy put people off taking up angling ~ especially the younger members of society, who are the future exponents of our sport? Cheers Steve

I note that on the subject of a sea angling licence - Based on an assumed take up rate of 800,000 the revenue generated is estimated to be between 9 and 12 million per year. That would make the average cost (assuming discounts for youngsters, senior citizens and occasional anglers) between £11.25 and £15.00pa 'Administration' is estimated at £2 million pa Set-up costs to Government £0.1m to £1.5 million Annual running costs between £1.2 and £2.8 million So - some fairly wide guesstimates there on the set-up and running costs. Bearing in mind the usual significant under-estimates on spending for Government projects (for some reason the Millenium Dome and London Olypics spring to mind) I wouldn't be surprised if the true costs of estimates are doubled or trebled in reality. But the good news is that any money left over will be spent on improving the angling experience! Now - what will we do with the two and thruppence that hasn't gone on admin and running the scheme? An ideal opportunity for all those opposed to licences and / or bag limits to join in on this one. Cheers Steve

Hi Steve Easier said than done perhaps? I don't really see Defra sending posters to tackle shops, or placing adverts in the daily's, or announcing the consultation on News at 10 or Sky News. They will however, by now, have the names and addresses of many tackle retailers and manufacturers, angling clubs, charter businesses, thanks to Leon et al, providing the details. If the current consultation on Defra's 20 year marine plan is anything to go by, the RSA contact list is a couple of hundred names long now. I think it has been mentioned elsewhere that the bass MLS consultation papers went out to around only 20 RSA parties, such was the commercial focus by Defra. This very low initial contact rate was however translated into somewhere approaching 1,500 RSA responses, once again due to publicity generated by SACN and other orgs. Perhaps with such a higher number of groups and businesses being invited to contribute, the number who will participate will be even higher, once the average bloke on the beach gets wind of it via websites and internet forums such as this, the sea angling media (I think that TSF will run at least 2 features on the RSA strategy consultation) and if clubs can mailshot their members with the consultation details, giving some guidance perhaps, on how their committees view the pros and cons. Posters or leaflets in tackle shops will require someone from the RSA camp in designing the posters, printing them up, distributing them with some background info and encouraging the shop owners to put them up. A job for the NFSA, regional federations or local clubs perhaps? Judging by the strength of feeling on some of the issues, I would love to see a consultation post bag in excess of 20,000 on this one - even if they all just say 'stick your licence' - doubtless though, many will be well thought out and rational responses in keeping with the thoughtful and rational group of people we are. Cheers Steve

That's a very good point Steve and one which will be addressed during the public consultation, which will form part of the process of the strategy's evolution. The Great British Sea Angling public should have a 3 month window of opportunity to discuss the final draft, which will be issued by Defra as a discussion document, where various questions will be posed e.g do you agree with bag limits? what do you see as the benefits or drawbacks of bag limits. Any response doesn't have to stick to answering the questions posed either. If people feel strongly enough to introduce examples or comments on issues that are not specifically included in the consultation papers, then they can raise their points in their written submissions. As with all recent public consultations on marine issues - if you or your club (speaking generally, not personally here) don't write a response, then sea anglers will not be taken seriously and those who are organised and keen to see the introduction of the evils of bag limits and licences will form the majority - guess what the outcome will be then? We know the consultation is coming and some organisations are already attempting to ensure that anglers are made aware of it, either by providing lists of angling clubs, businesses, charters etc. to Defra, so that they may be included in the consultation process and invited to respond, or by ensuring that their members will be consulted and informed, in plenty of time to get their pens and papers at the ready. Cheers Steve

Thanks for the report Rich Info on the shore fishing in Costa Rica is hard to come by, so your pics and tips are very welcome. I was planning a trip later this year, but have to postpone until 2008 Were you on the Pacific coast and if so, where did you stay (tell me it was somewhere cheap please!) I really fancy the look of those roosters - did you see any during your stay? Cheers Steve

Hi Steve A great story. I thoroughly enjoyed reading about your experiences as a lad. I don't know how old you are now (I'm 51), but I remember sessions like that too - some 30-odd years ago. I thought that your final comment about loosing your beloved bass fishing was very poignant. Many of us would like to see a return to those halcyon days, but we need to make it happen, not just trust to luck. Increasing the bass MLS is surely the first step in a long road to recovery. Cheers Steve

Glenn and Steve Minutes are taken by a Defra employee at these meetings, but seldom circulated in sufficient time for the next one! so expecting minutes to be published within a day or two of the meeting itself is somewhat ambitious. I have posted a couple of comments on the BASS forum, as Steve C knows, and all this bull about secret squirrels and conspiresy theories is cheesing me off. Give these guys a chance to catch their breath and wait for a report - but whether it will be broadcast on a site regularily frequented by anti-RSAs and commercial antagonists remains to be seen. Cheers Steve PS - Wasn't at the meeting Glenn

Having looked at their website again, they don't appear to be anti-angling, but who can tell if there are any hidden agendas? It does seem a bit odd that they have contacted a NE angling website for pictures of cod though. None available down South it would appear. Steve

''Defra said that an unusually strong inshore cod catch in the Western Channel had forced it to restrict the monthly catch for boats of 10 metres and less, from February 9, to 500kg. But it was working as quickly as possible to create "further fishing opportunities for South West fishermen". At this very moment Defra are shooing some spare cod that they found hiding in the South East towards Corwall

Could it have been one of the old B.A.S.S sweatshirts? I've just checked the BASS website and it would appear that the sweatshirts with bass image are no longer available. I think that they were discontinued as they were very expensive to buy initially. As a stand-in, I came up with iron-on transfers for sweatsirts and T-shirts. The purchaser supplies their own shirt and the transfer is four quid (towards BASS funds) Several designs and wording available - such as this one, which is 'full frontal', rather than 2" in length as was Michael's original motif Cheers Steve

Thanks very much Barry I had started to re-read it, but it's a bit like wading up your knees on Severn Estuary mud - chuffin' hard going Steve

Hi Barry Thanks for that snippet of info. Could I ask on which page of the report you found these stats? I spent 4 hours reading it last night (insomnia) and missed the figures that you have quoted. My interpretation, based on the compilation of papers going back to 1982 and used as a source of reference was that around 35% of bass caught by anglers were retained (in period '82 - '94 ), but that increasing awareness and participation of Catch and Release has probably reduced this level of take even further. Many thanks Steve