A no take zone?

[barry luxton]

Seems to me Steve you and Barry are on the wrong forum , this is an angling forum you two seem to be the voice of Comerical fishing you have no interest in presevring fish stocks and are constanly telling us every thing is rosy in the sea, there is no such thing as sustainable netting it all has an effect on fish stocks.

The sooner we have no take zones the better, you only got to look at the USA and the plight of it,s sea fishing before no take zones were interduced and the quality of fishing now .

 

THE NAME IS JERRY

 

Is it upper or lower case your name or are you shouting.

 

Couldn't be more wrong mate. I'm doing what i can to stop the rsa being trashed by those who think they know whats good for them.

 

Have a look at the foto and justify to me why the likes of the MCS, no objections by the trust wish to stop anglers from fishing off these rocks. Be careful in your reply as i don't shop in the co-op. Justify it and i may wish to see your point of view. BTW, thats my boy catching his first real fish it went back. BTW, the bream fishery off that part of the coast is a healthy one, do you wish me to get you the landing figures, the sfc hasn't stated that the fishery is under threat by overfishing. Just stakeholders who assume because a trawler is in the area it's causing untold damage.

 

Edited February 8, 2011 by barry luxton

[Steve Coppolo]

Seems to me Steve you and Barry are on the wrong forum , this is an angling forum you two seem to be the voice of Comerical fishing you have no interest in presevring fish stocks and are constanly telling us every thing is rosy in the sea, there is no such thing as sustainable netting it all has an effect on fish stocks.

The sooner we have no take zones the better, you only got to look at the USA and the plight of it,s sea fishing before no take zones were interduced and the quality of fishing now .

 

THE NAME IS JERRY

 

I know it's an angling forum, Reg, that's why I'm expressing my concerns for the future of angling on it. I presume you don't care about the future of your sport?

 

I suggest you do a bit of research on conservation measures in the States and what effect they've had on angling. Hatteras island will be a good place to start.

[76jerry]

Here we go again, your telling me because there are trawlers on your black Bream grounds the population must be healthy. They go there to breed or have I got it all wrong.

 

Got a son a bit older than yours and he,s into his fishing in a big way but apart from small eyed ray and some smoothounds has caught very little for the effort he has put in, and I can,t see this situation inproving. This is why I am willing to give no take zones catch and release a try.

 

Wife shops at Asda

[Bob Shotter]

Seems to me Steve you and Barry are on the wrong forum , this is an angling forum you two seem to be the voice of Comerical fishing you have no interest in presevring fish stocks and are constanly telling us every thing is rosy in the sea, there is no such thing as sustainable netting it all has an effect on fish stocks.

The sooner we have no take zones the better, you only got to look at the USA and the plight of it,s sea fishing before no take zones were interduced and the quality of fishing now .

 

THE NAME IS JERRY

 

Hi Jerry and my chums Barry and Steve

 

As mentioned in another thread top RSA charter skippers are now supporting things like this and it can not be of any surprise that this recommendation has surfaced given the flack last year prior to the SSFC report on the Kingmere being published.

 

My question is while it might sound like a good idea to have a closed season the practice of targeting Bream while nesting has gone on for years with out any sign of a detrimental impact.

 

My observation with regard Chief Officers is that their recommendations rarely fail, it will be all down to the make up of the Sussex IFCA and how the members view conservation most of whom will have been chosen for that very reason. In fact the link would suggest the out going committee have already made a discision. Is there any public consoltation info about this Barry? or will it be just one of the conciderations put to the JNC proir to what is likly to be limited public consoltation.

 

PS Catch and Release is to be outlawed if we are to follow Germany as a fellow EU state

 

Tight lines Bob

Edited February 9, 2011 by Deene'0

[Worms]

Here we go again, your telling me because there are trawlers on your black Bream grounds the population must be healthy. They go there to breed or have I got it all wrong.

 

Got a son a bit older than yours and he,s into his fishing in a big way but apart from small eyed ray and some smoothounds has caught very little for the effort he has put in, and I can,t see this situation inproving. This is why I am willing to give no take zones catch and release a try.

 

Wife shops at Asda

There wouldn't be trawlers there if there wasn't a healthy fish populastion would there!

 

Perhaps, in 5-10-15-20 years time your son will increase his catch rate along with the necessary accrued experience. perhaps he won't and he'll enter angling fora with the 'no more fish in the sea' attitude that seems to be so prevalent in some quarters.

 

Ah, ASDA, no wonder your son catches nothing, for every fish finger you buy from there about 5 tons have been thrown back dead!

 

You want no take zones? So what are you going to feed your son on? Or, more importantly, why are you fishing if you aren't taking fish for food........sounds a bit cruel to me, hook'em, wear 'em out, throw 'em back...yes dear had a great day being cruel to fish, where are my fish fingers?

 

 

Oops, silly me nearly forgot, NTZ means No Take Zone......no fish for me, or you, or your son, or Asda which means that you might have to survive on something other than fish. Perhaps a farmer that rears cattle or sheep or even deer.....so how can they do it yet fishermen can't?

 

Try putting your spleen behind destroying the CFP and supporting sustainable fishing. This is an angling forum after all!

Edited February 9, 2011 by Worms

[76jerry]

Two Questions for you Worms

Do you rear every fish that you catch ?

What do you fish for if you think it,s cruel ?

 

I don,t eat fish that I catch

[Worms]

Two Questions for you Worms

Do you rear every fish that you catch ?

What do you fish for if you think it,s cruel ?

 

I don,t eat fish that I catch

No, I don't rear any fish that I catch. Why the question?

 

I don't think fishing is cruel, otherwise I wouldn't fish but, I do eat fish that I catch which is why I spend a lot of my time fishing for edible fish. I also fish sustainably, if it's too small/big it goes back in. I also follow close/breeding seasons of species.

 

I shoot as well, be a bit pointless if I shot something and 'put it back' wouldn't it? Before you say, that's different, no it's not, they are both 'bloodsports' that are frowned upon equally by the bunny huggers. The only difference they see in fishing for food and fishing for fun is the cruelty aspect of fishing for 'fun'

 

The tongue in cheek comments regarding the C+R fishing that you practice are precisely the kind of arguments that the antis use.

 

As for supporting NTZs, it's not just 'taking' fish that will be stopped it will be targeting fish as well, in other words you won't be able to go fishing to put them back!

 

So think about sustainability. It doesn't mean not fishing, it doesn't mean putting every fish back. It means, whether angler or commercial you take a sufficient number of fish to meet your needs and leave a viable population. Neither anglers or commercials are stupid (in general) and require marks where fish can be repeatedly harvested....like farmers, they'd be stupid if they killed the breeding stock as well as the fatstock.....Unfortunately the CFP is ridiculous in the extreme by forcing commercials to fish unsustainably.

 

Support change to the CFP that is proven to be a wasteful way of fishing before supporting even more legislation that may show no benefits at all.

[Bob Shotter]

No, I don't rear any fish that I catch. Why the question?

 

I don't think fishing is cruel, otherwise I wouldn't fish but, I do eat fish that I catch which is why I spend a lot of my time fishing for edible fish. I also fish sustainably, if it's too small/big it goes back in. I also follow close/breeding seasons of species.

 

I shoot as well, be a bit pointless if I shot something and 'put it back' wouldn't it? Before you say, that's different, no it's not, they are both 'bloodsports' that are frowned upon equally by the bunny huggers. The only difference they see in fishing for food and fishing for fun is the cruelty aspect of fishing for 'fun'

 

The tongue in cheek comments regarding the C+R fishing that you practice are precisely the kind of arguments that the antis use.

 

As for supporting NTZs, it's not just 'taking' fish that will be stopped it will be targeting fish as well, in other words you won't be able to go fishing to put them back!

 

So think about sustainability. It doesn't mean not fishing, it doesn't mean putting every fish back. It means, whether angler or commercial you take a sufficient number of fish to meet your needs and leave a viable population. Neither anglers or commercials are stupid (in general) and require marks where fish can be repeatedly harvested....like farmers, they'd be stupid if they killed the breeding stock as well as the fatstock.....Unfortunately the CFP is ridiculous in the extreme by forcing commercials to fish unsustainably.

 

Support change to the CFP that is proven to be a wasteful way of fishing before supporting even more legislation that may show no benefits at all.

 

Just one little question Worms you state 'the CFP is ridiculous in the extreme by forcing commercials to fish unsustainably.'

 

Where in their regulations dose it say 'YOU MUST DISCARD?'

 

Surely the idea of quota means when you have caught your quota allowance stop catching that species, if you can't ovoid catching that species then stop fishing full stop!!!!!!

 

If that were the case then you can be sure the CF sector would change their methods by using more modern gear and being more selective with the methods and types of fishing so that quota for all species was achieved more evenly over the course of the quota period.

 

Oh and please don't try and fob me off by saying it is not possible as it is a mixed fishery.

 

Tight lines Bob

Edited February 11, 2011 by Deene'0

[Worms]

Just one little question Worms you state 'the CFP is ridiculous in the extreme by forcing commercials to fish unsustainably.'

 

Where in their regulations dose it say 'YOU MUST DISCARD?'

 

Surely the idea of quota means when you have caught your quota allowance stop catching that species, if you can't ovoid catching that species then stop fishing full stop!!!!!!

 

If that were the case then you can be sure the CF sector would change their methods by using more modern gear and being more selective with the methods and types of fishing so that quota for all species was achieved more evenly over the course of the quota period.

 

Oh and please don't try and fob me off by saying it is not possible as it is a mixed fishery.

 

Tight lines Bob

No fobbing off Bob.

 

The CFP makes it illegal to land undersize fish so, they are thrown back.....dead or alive!

 

It would make much more sense to include any fish caught with regulation gear to be retained, therefore, no waste. Include all fish within allowed quotas and job done. Not perfect I'm sure but no waste......especially if you make high-grading illegal....in fact it would more than likely make high-grading unnecessary!

 

Any fish caught over quota whilst fishing for other species can be taken from the following year's quota up to a set (small) limit.

[captain cojones]

The only difference they see in fishing for food and fishing for fun is the cruelty aspect of fishing for 'fun'

 

The tongue in cheek comments regarding the C+R fishing that you practice are precisely the kind of arguments that the antis use.

 

I can see the practise of purposely setting out to catch fish, with no intention of eating them, banned in the near future.

The "green" parties have an increasing influence.