Article 47

[Arf]

Well, I can't say I know enough about fish stocks in these parts to say whether bag limits are good or bad - I'm relatively new to these parts. Just thought you may be obsessed due t asking the same question of Leon thrice.

 

Back in south Africa, we have a fish called a galjoen - its actually the national fish, believe it or not, and it came under extreme pressure and stocks fell dramatically. Nowadays it is illegal to sell a galjoen, and it is illegal to serve galjoen in a restaurant - or anywhere else in exchange for money. As an angler the limit is one, and the thus the only way you can eat galjoen over there now is if you have caught it yourself, or are invited to a barbecue where someone has caught and brought one.

 

It seems that this has had a great positive benefit for the fish, and taking one instead of 6 is not that much of a drag for the angler who otherwise would have taken what he caught.

 

Of course the very wise stamping out of trade in these fish where it really matters - till takings - has thwarted commercial fisherman completely, and this has had the biggest effect.

 

This is just one example, but a good example of where a easy to swallow limit has been very successful.

[Steve Coppolo]

Well, I can't say I know enough about fish stocks in these parts to say whether bag limits are good or bad - I'm relatively new to these parts. Just thought you may be obsessed due t asking the same question of Leon thrice.

 

Back in south Africa, we have a fish called a galjoen - its actually the national fish, believe it or not, and it came under extreme pressure and stocks fell dramatically. Nowadays it is illegal to sell a galjoen, and it is illegal to serve galjoen in a restaurant - or anywhere else in exchange for money. As an angler the limit is one, and the thus the only way you can eat galjoen over there now is if you have caught it yourself, or are invited to a barbecue where someone has caught and brought one.

 

It seems that this has had a great positive benefit for the fish, and taking one instead of 6 is not that much of a drag for the angler who otherwise would have taken what he caught.

 

Of course the very wise stamping out of trade in these fish where it really matters - till takings - has thwarted commercial fisherman completely, and this has had the biggest effect.

 

This is just one example, but a good example of where a easy to swallow limit has been very successful.

 

I thought that might be the case. That species was obviously very much under pressure, to the extent that they banned all sales of that fish. I suspect that this had a far greater effect on the recovery of the stock than the bag limit for anglers. That scenario will never happen over here. Fisheries managers play with commercial quotas, but they usually get things very wrong. The stock considered most under threat is the Cod and even though stocks are considered to be dangerously low, as mentioned earlier, there are plenty in our part of the world right now. And that's without the use of any bag limits for anglers!

 

I suspect that when South African anglers have caught their one Galjoen, they can target different species? With our Cod, in most areas, that's all there is to fish for in the winter. The same would apply to most of the fish targetted by UK anglers. They are seasonal fish, so we fish for them when they are available. Charter boat skippers would go bust if the anglers they take out were restricted to one or two fish each per day. So, bag limits applied here would not be easy to swallow and would be ineffective anyway.

 

Natural mortality and predation accounts for far more fish than anglers. Many thousands of percent, I would say. Restricting anglers' take in order to improve fish stocks would be like sticking your leg out to trip up a locomotive.

[H.A.]

Yes, Ada, and if you knew just a fraction of what you pretend to know,

 

 

I know nuthin ...

 

Silly man ...

both of you.

 

you know the respect I had for you, Steve.

 

Now I have none.

 

What you are doing on BFM as a 'political observer and commentator' astonishes me.

 

A bitter little man who used to be so brave and informed and constructive, is now reduced to a feeble-minded 'ranter' on all these forums, which promise good dialogue and sharing of ideas and reports.

 

I'm afraid I speak for SOME anglers who frequent these media AND follow what we can ...

 

and see you infatuated with the dissolution of one man who has worked his arse off (for better or worse) while you stand there with your cork pop-gun, cocked and ready at every turn.

 

Leon has limited powers ...

 

he speaks what he speaks.

 

You speak booger all; except about him at a personal level.

 

I'm afraid you have caught yourself in your own leetle rat-trap.

 

Issues?

 

Nah.

[Steve Coppolo]

 

 

 

Silly man ...

both of you.

 

you know the respect I had for you, Steve.

 

Now I have none.

 

What you are doing on BFM as a 'political observer and commentator' astonishes me.

 

A bitter little man who used to be so brave and informed and constructive, is now reduced to a feeble-minded 'ranter' on all these forums, which promise good dialogue and sharing of ideas and reports.

 

I'm afraid I speak for SOME anglers who frequent these media AND follow what we can ...

 

and see you infatuated with the dissolution of one man who has worked his arse off (for better or worse) while you stand there with your cork pop-gun, cocked and ready at every turn.

 

Leon has limited powers ...

 

he speaks what he speaks.

 

You speak booger all; except about him at a personal level.

 

I'm afraid you have caught yourself in your own leetle rat-trap.

 

Issues?

 

Nah.

 

I thought you'd gone?

[Steve Coppolo]

Oh, and people meddling with my fishing, of which they know nothing about, gets on my nerves.

 

Why is it that people who just go with the flow are 'brave, informed and constructive'? Yet anyone who asks perfectly legitimate qustions, albeit ones that show the 'reps' up for what they really are, are considered to be 'febble minded ranters'?

Edited April 1, 2009 by Steve Coppolo

[Arf]

Oh, and people meddling with my fishing, of which they know nothing about, gets on my nerves.

 

Why is it that people who just go with the flow are 'brave, informed and constructive'? Yet anyone who asks perfectly legitimate qustions, albeit ones that show the 'reps' up for what they really are, are considered to be 'febble minded ranters'?

 

Were you yourself not a rep once upon a time, on a similar side to Leon?

 

I suspect that when South African anglers have caught their one Galjoen, they can target different species? With our Cod, in most areas, that's all there is to fish for in the winter. The same would apply to most of the fish targetted by UK anglers. They are seasonal fish, so we fish for them when they are available. Charter boat skippers would go bust if the anglers they take out were restricted to one or two fish each per day. So, bag limits applied here would not be easy to swallow and would be ineffective anyway.

 

Yes, the limit applies only to fish you take home, not to what you catch and anglers fish with a view to maximizing their chances of catching rather than species targeting. This is when fishing by day, when there are a large number of assorted species about. Species targeting at night is usual though, because different water conditions favor certain larger predatory fish and fishing for anything else would be absurd.

 

The galjoen is a day feeder, and it is found in rough water rock gullies, along with a myriad of other species which means specifically targeting them is virtually impossible anyway. Come to think of it, they are definitely not a common boat caught species either, so it is shore based anglers that were its only real threat.

 

So when you speak of bag limit, over here would that normally mean the number you can take home, or the number you can catch before you have to pack up or fish for something else whether you keep them or not? I'd imagine its the former.

[barry luxton]

So when you speak of bag limit, over here would that normally mean the number you can take home, or the number you can catch before you have to pack up or fish for something else whether you keep them or not? I'd imagine its the former.

 

Here is an example for you regarding bag limits. Yesterday we were 35 miles off, targetting one specis as we knew this would be our only option, time of year etc, a lot of time, effort and money had gone into the trip from both the skipper and the crew. Particular the skipper, more than 100 in fuel, plus maintenance. This guy just had one of his engines replaced, 18 grand, 4 grand for props and rudders. The intention is not to go and fill the boat up but to have a bl@@dy good day out fishing, no amount of fish can pay for the time effort and cost that is put in. Take travelling into account and the state of the tides, time to reset the drift, there is a limited amount of time that we are actually fishing, don't matter how good an angler your are there is only a certain amount you can pull up in that time scale.

 

Any one recons that that needs controlling with regards to bag limits wants their head testing, not only will it do nothing for conservation, thirty odd miles off as well, catch say two or three each and the skipper has to say, sorry lads, pack up and go home. Yer right. The above is good enough reason to tell the likes of the eu etc to sod off.

[glennk]

How can anyone support bag limits for a commercial non quota species with a minute MLS. A bass bag limit wouldn't bother me as such so long as it was set at a decent level as I only ever keep 3 or 4 fish on the few occasions I target them. But what do people feel would be achieved in situation where commercial fishermen take all the bass they can catch and Sea Anglers return them. I struggle to see any logic in that situation. I think at one time or another we have all been fooled by the publicised utopia of fishing in places like Ireland, the USA and OZ but in those places the government and all involved actually give a stuff about the fish, unlike here where its clear the only thing anyone thinks about is money and jobs for the boys. The whole concept is ludicrous.

[glennk]

Here is an example for you regarding bag limits. Yesterday we were 35 miles off, targetting one specis as we knew this would be our only option, time of year etc, a lot of time, effort and money had gone into the trip from both the skipper and the crew. Particular the skipper, more than 100 in fuel, plus maintenance. This guy just had one of his engines replaced, 18 grand, 4 grand for props and rudders. The intention is not to go and fill the boat up but to have a bl@@dy good day out fishing, no amount of fish can pay for the time effort and cost that is put in. Take travelling into account and the state of the tides, time to reset the drift, there is a limited amount of time that we are actually fishing, don't matter how good an angler your are there is only a certain amount you can pull up in that time scale.

 

Any one recons that that needs controlling with regards to bag limits wants their head testing, not only will it do nothing for conservation, thirty odd miles off as well, catch say two or three each and the skipper has to say, sorry lads, pack up and go home. Yer right. The above is good enough reason to tell the likes of the eu etc to sod off.

 

 

I thought you were all species hunters on the south coast Barry. Happy with c&R on the odd wrasse, gurnard and occasional turbot. Next youll be telling me you take fish home to eat like the savages of the north.

Edited April 2, 2009 by glennk

[Steve Coppolo]

Were you yourself not a rep once upon a time, on a similar side to Leon?

 

 

 

Yes, the limit applies only to fish you take home, not to what you catch and anglers fish with a view to maximizing their chances of catching rather than species targeting. This is when fishing by day, when there are a large number of assorted species about. Species targeting at night is usual though, because different water conditions favor certain larger predatory fish and fishing for anything else would be absurd.

 

The galjoen is a day feeder, and it is found in rough water rock gullies, along with a myriad of other species which means specifically targeting them is virtually impossible anyway. Come to think of it, they are definitely not a common boat caught species either, so it is shore based anglers that were its only real threat.

 

So when you speak of bag limit, over here would that normally mean the number you can take home, or the number you can catch before you have to pack up or fish for something else whether you keep them or not? I'd imagine its the former.

 

Someone asked that question of Defra recently. Their answer was along the lines of restrictions being on anglers' catch, regardless of whether they release the fish or not. There are no figures available on the mortality of released fish. Anyway, to most people, the whole point of going sea fishing is to be able to take some, (enough), fish home to eat. We have trout resevoirs and coarse fisheries for people who want to release all their fish or adhere to strict bag limits. Trying to justify what sea anglers do by pretending that we release most of what we catch is not only foolish, but misleading.

 

The cold truth is, that sea anglers' catch is insignificant and it doesn't make one bit of difference to fish stocks whether we eat everything we catch or not. There are no restrictions on how much fish people are allowed to buy to eat, so there shouldn't be any restrictions on how much fish we catch to eat.

 

And the only person I ever claimed to 'represent', was myself.