Cod, off the menu

[wurzel]

Some lucky booger caught a 12lbs cod from Hayling Island beach two nights ago.

 

Today, a poxy, little, red trawler laid static nets (trammels for cod?) 300m out for the entire length of the Bay. They're been set so as to overlap at each end resulting in approximately 2/3 barriers to fish swimming in from deeper water. The lengths of set nets stretch approx 2 1/2 miles!

 

They shouldn't be allowed within a mile of the beaches!!!

 

Pigged orf!!!!!

 

 

Probably trammels for sole, would another 1200m make much difference? only 2 1/2 miles how many miles of beaches are there in your area? If I came along and set more nets 100 meters from the beach both of us would catch fish why can't you?

chances are the nets will only be there for the neap tides once the tides get to strong they will be kept aboard, big tides are better for angling.

Why not arrange to meet the boat in to see what's caught or even a trip out?

[barry luxton]

In your case Barry the bigger cod were all around you, I remember last winter you were angling from Folkestone catching the odd codling, we were working near by with a reasonable catch of large cod with several approaching 30 lb, we will be down there again in the near future you are welcome to come and see for your self.

 

 

I will definatly take you up on that wurzel, give us a shout when and i will be be there.

[Guest challenge]

I will definatly take you up on that wurzel, give us a shout when and i will be be there.

mee too

[Sharkbyte]

Just goes to show how many decent sized fish need to be around before anglers can once again enjoy catching them with any degree of regularity.

[Steve Coppolo]

Just goes to show how many decent sized fish need to be around before anglers can once again enjoy catching them with any degree of regularity.

 

Exactly. Which is why anglers will never have a significant impact on fish stocks. Anglers only catch a miniscule percentage of what's down there. If anglers are enjoying the kind of fishing that makes some people think they may be having an impact, there must be sh*t loads down there. When fish stocks are genuinely low, for whatever reason, anglers will be catching very few, or none. Makes a complete nonsense out of future plans to monitor anglers catches and shows it up as the scam that it is.

 

 

 

 

 

NB: Some anglers catch very few, or none, even when there are plenty of fish.

[glennk]

NB: Some anglers catch very few, or none, even when there are plenty of fish.

 

You raise something there Steve that I think a large number of shore anglers sooooo do not understand. Many anglers think that if they pay a licence, support MCZ, record their catches and fish to a quota there will be more fish for them to catch. Sadly its just not true. But lets run with the hypotheses that there are more fish. Will these anglers catch them ???

 

NO THEY WONT, or at least they wont catch them in the numbers they think they will.

 

Which leads to the question of why they wont catch them. The simple answer without being too negative is because they are crap anglers. Through the gadoid outburst you had crap anglers and as the angling public has increased so have the amount of anglers who just do not undertsand that it takes effort to catch fish. There are many anglers out there who are keen to learn and will one day get more fish, but for everyone of those there are 2 who will always fish the wrong marks, on the wrong tides with bait that really should come with a public health warning. I do not want to be overly negative about these people because they have every right to go out and fish and probably enjoy the great outdoors and the break from the wife just as much as the rest of us - except they dont catch a right lot.

 

Some anglers catch because they understand the situation, some catch because they have a lucky gene and some are going nowhere fast. Its my belief that 10% of the anglers catch 90% of the fish.

 

No licence, MCZ, Magnificant 7, MP from landlocked city, RSA Strategy, Marine Bill, SFC, Or Leon Roskilly will ever change that fact.

Edited October 28, 2009 by glennk

[Jaffa]

Exactly. Which is why anglers will never have a significant impact on fish stocks. Anglers only catch a miniscule percentage of what's down there. If anglers are enjoying the kind of fishing that makes some people think they may be having an impact, there must be sh*t loads down there. When fish stocks are genuinely low, for whatever reason, anglers will be catching very few, or none. Makes a complete nonsense out of future plans to monitor anglers catches and shows it up as the scam that it is.

 

 

 

 

 

NB: Some anglers catch very few, or none, even when there are plenty of fish.

 

Thats a broad claim there Steve. Its clearly ridiculous to believe anglers have an effect on pelagic stocks like herring, maybe doubtful they do on cod or bass, but what about species like turbot and brill?

 

Chris

[Steve Coppolo]

Thats a broad claim there Steve. Its clearly ridiculous to believe anglers have an effect on pelagic stocks like herring, maybe doubtful they do on cod or bass, but what about species like turbot and brill?

 

Chris

 

We don't get many Turbot and Brill where I fish. Those that are there, aren't fished for, so I can't speak from experience. Have anglers put significant pressure on Turbot and Brill stocks, then? Are these species currently subject to a recovery plan? Why would the percentages caught by anglers, compared to what's down there, be different? Are they very easy to catch? We catch lots of Thornback rays in the Thames. They are very easy to catch and pretty slow growing, but anglers haven't had significant impact on them. In fact, there have been more Thornbacks in the Thames over the last 4 or 5 years than there has ever been. (What has made their numbers increase?) Anglers, even good ones, only catch a tiny percentage of what's down there. I still think that goes for most other species, except Mullet, maybe. I would think the percentage of Mullet caught is even smaller.

[ColinW]

Anglers, even good ones, only catch a tiny percentage of what's down there.

 

And those fishing off the beach catch even less, which is exactly why shore anglers' catches are a good indication of fish stocks. It's the randomness that makes it an accurate way to sample stocks. There is no point going out to some far flung wreck, hauling in a ton of fish and then saying that proves the sea is full of fish. But if the guys stuck on the beach are catching fish regularly then there have to be plenty out there.

I personally don't buy this gadoid explosion idea, intended to make us think that having a lot of cod in the sea was a short term unnatural phenomenon. Before steam trawlers came along, stocks must have been at high levels on an almost continual basis. The only other explanation for how they caught so many fish hand hauling nets over the sides of their sailboats is that they were magicians.

[Steve Coppolo]

And those fishing off the beach catch even less, which is exactly why shore anglers' catches are a good indication of fish stocks. It's the randomness that makes it an accurate way to sample stocks. There is no point going out to some far flung wreck, hauling in a ton of fish and then saying that proves the sea is full of fish. But if the guys stuck on the beach are catching fish regularly then there have to be plenty out there.

I personally don't buy this gadoid explosion idea, intended to make us think that having a lot of cod in the sea was a short term unnatural phenomenon. Before steam trawlers came along, stocks must have been at high levels on an almost continual basis. The only other explanation for how they caught so many fish hand hauling nets over the sides of their sailboats is that they were magicians.

 

But success from the beach is so much more dependant on conditions, as well as fish stocks. The vast majority of blank sessions from the beach are due to conditions, so they can hardly be used to guage the health of fish stocks.