Scottish sea anglers "worth millions" part2

[Steve Coppolo]

Not true. Scientists are frequently paid to prove or disprove theories within close parameters. Scientific theories don't allow for components not required in the theory (but may well be noted as potential issues by the scientists).The results thus produced are frequently 'misquoted' or incompletely quoted by the person(s) paying for the survey.

Scientific papers presenting the detail of such experiments, methods and results are rigorously peer reviewed to very high standards. And, if seen to be presented non-scientifically or with a non-scientific bias, will not be accepted.

 

The Krebs report on badgers is a perfect example of a good scientific survey horribly incompletely quoted by the Government because it didn't say exactly what the Govt. wanted it to say so they 'cherry-picked' the bits they wanted!

 

That's funny, because the contradictory science proveded by Cefas, (for use for, and against, an increase in bass MLS), came straight from the horses mouth(s).

[wurzel]

I live at Hayling Island ....

 

I saw what the under 10s did to the plaice and codling in'87 - 90 here.

 

The fish stocks weren't the problem.

 

The destruction of the habitat was the problem.

 

25sq miles of barren sea ( The Gobi Desert)

 

... trawlers, I'm afraid.

 

Nothing I can do .... but I'm working now on MCZs ...

 

 

We've discussed this Goby desert of yours in the past and you have not been able to instantiate your claims on the grounds that boats still continue to work and earn money from this area so can't be a barren desert. We have some of the most trawled ground in the North Sea and not by little puddle jumpers but large beam trawlers, has been for nie on a hundred years and still produces large amounts of fish.

Even if your area was heavily fished what percentage is 25 sq miles of the English Channel?

Would the activities in that little bit effect the rest of the channel?

 

I was down your neck of the woods a couple of weeks back although at the other end of the Solent at Key Haven and Milford on Sea, the water was a bit too stirred up for my spinning out fit but some local anglers I met were happy enough with their sport catching smooth hound bass and a few bream. No goby desert along that part of coast.

[H.A.]

Please believe me .... dear Wurzel, dear Wurzel ...

 

I'm within touching distance ...

 

you have not been able to instantiate your claims

 

and whatever that means ...

 

I have you lined up fer a MCZ.

 

Thassit, really ...

 

[Worms]

That's funny, because the contradictory science proveded by Cefas, (for use for, and against, an increase in bass MLS), came straight from the horses mouth(s).

I'm not familiar with the "contradictory science" that you're quoting. Can you give me some back ground please?

[Steve Coppolo]

I'm not familiar with the "contradictory science" that you're quoting. Can you give me some back ground please?

 

What? You mean you don't know? Where were you?

 

I thought, by the tone of your posts, that you were well up to speed on all these issues? Obviously not.

 

There's far too much for me to explain to someone who's just taken a sudden interest in the shabby side of RSA, but if you search this and other forums there is more than enough info out there. It might take some reading, though, because it dates back years - and the quality of the info varies greatly. You'll have to decide for yourself which is valid and which is bulls*it and spin. (as a lot of this stuff is history, hindsight is a useful tool for doing this) If you want access to even more info, spend £18 on BASS membership, which will give you access to their private forum. Same applies about the quality of info, though. £18 doesn't buy you black and white.

 

Might be a good idea to start a new thread to save ruining this one?

Edited August 9, 2009 by Steve Coppolo

[Worms]

What? You mean you don't know? Where were you?

 

I thought, by the tone of your posts, that you were well up to speed on all these issues? Obviously not.

 

There's far too much for me to explain to someone who's just taken a sudden interest in the shabby side of RSA, but if you search this and other forums there is more than enough info out there. It might take some reading, though, because it dates back years - and the quality of the info varies greatly. You'll have to decide for yourself which is valid and which is bulls*it and spin. (as a lot of this stuff is history, hindsight is a useful tool for doing this) If you want access to even more info, spend £18 on BASS membership, which will give you access to their private forum. Same applies about the quality of info, though. £18 doesn't buy you black and white.

 

Your reply shows precisely what I was inferring really.

 

Comments being made with no facts to back them up, not even any suggestion as to any "evidence" at all. My post was mis-interpreted as it was a reply to a comment made by Wurzel about scientists in general.

 

So, briefly, if you want me to make a statement on bass size limits etc. It would be useful to put your argument forwards so I can comment either way!

 

As for taking "a sudden interest in the shabby side of RSA" I'm not sure what you mean. I occasionally fish in the sea and I have been interested by the posts regarding apparent/proposed or considered legislation about it.

 

Obviously, as a newcomer to the apparently bitter and backbiting sport of RSA I was unaware that I must have a pre-formed opinion of all things regarding the sport and woe betide me if I ask questions when "old hands" make statements that I don't understand.

 

Might be a good idea to start a new thread to save ruining this one?

 

You mean ruin a good argument with pertinent questions and the use of facts that might clarify issues to posters and readers less knowledgeable than yourself?

[wurzel]

Please believe me .... dear Wurzel, dear Wurzel ...

 

I'm within touching distance ...

 

 

 

and whatever that means ...

 

I have you lined up fer a MCZ.

 

Thassit, really ...

 

 

I ment Substantiate your claims.

 

 

If you are with in touching distance why not open your eyes and take a closer look.

[Worms]

Jaffa, to try and get back to the original thread,

 

What's your view on the press release and the fact that the Scottish sea angling fraternity is being viewed as of serious economic benefit?

 

Do you think that the money that might be spent on more "management" would be money badly spent?

 

Or, are you pleased (with cautious reservation ) that Scottish RSAs are being taken seriously?

 

What benefits do you hope to see and how, in your view, could "management" be best targetted to benefit all?

[H.A.]

why not open your eyes and take a closer look.

 

 

I'm afraid I am closer than you think ..

that's not important ..

 

I'm often upset at the 'hairdressers', like you, who will not apply themselves to the tasks at hand ...

 

be slightly afraid ... depending which side of the net you are on.

 

Edited August 9, 2009 by H.A.

[wurzel]

 

 

I'm afraid I am closer than you think ..

that's not important ..

 

I'm often upset at the 'hairdressers', like you, who will not apply themselves to the tasks at hand ...

 

be slightly afraid ... depending which side of the net you are on.

 

 

Oh dear!! Does that mean you have been suckered onto some committee deciding where MCZ's ought to be?

 

Not sure I like being referred to as a hairdresser, I've applied myself to several tasks concerning fishery management in the past, involving defra and scientists nothing of any use ever came of it.

What exactly is this task at hand that upsets you coz I have not applied myself???