A no take zone?

[Steve Coppolo]

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

 

Not your best post, Bob. A bit idiotic, in fact.

[wurzel]

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

 

 

Do you know different then?

[Bob Shotter]

Not your best post, Bob. A bit idiotic, in fact.

 

Well Steven old son that may be so but I have discussed this with some very knowledgeable former commercial fishermen and at length.

 

All were agreed that it is a fact that money drives the CF sector to go for the highest reward rather than go for slightly less money per trip and thus conserve their future.

 

I have highlighted else were the fact that selective fishing is possible (catching a selected species with very little by catch) and with using the various types of gear (benthic and demersal for mixed fishing and pelagic for target species) more sensibly and using the modern types of nets that can improve the catch with fewer juvenile fish caught while mixed fishing which would result in far less discards.

 

If commercials had to pay for the creation of what they harvest, like say our farmers, then as stated we would see far less recklessness in the way they manage their work.

 

Yes the CFP has not helped but it is not the only problem with regard the discard problem and remember that it is fishermen who discard fish not politicians.

 

Tight lines Bob

[Worms]

Any response to my post Bob?

[wurzel]

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.

 

Hello Worms

 

Discard of under sized fish and discard of large marketable fish are two totally different issues and to try and combine the two together only makes things complicated.

 

The issue of undersized discard is being addressed reasonably successfully with a number of initiatives in place and more being investigated, I don't see any benefit to any body or stocks by being forced to land those that are caught.

 

The discard of over quota fish is caused by two reasons, one, what little quota is available is mainly held by a select few who were in a position to buy it.

Two, there is a huge imbalance in what the scientists say and what is the actual amount of fish in the sea.

There is only one solution that would cure discards of marketable over quota fish and that is to raise the quotas back to what they were 20 years ago, simple.

[wurzel]

Well Steven old son that may be so but I have discussed this with some very knowledgeable former commercial fishermen and at length.

 

All were agreed that it is a fact that money drives the CF sector to go for the highest reward rather than go for slightly less money per trip and thus conserve their future.

 

I have highlighted else were the fact that selective fishing is possible (catching a selected species with very little by catch) and with using the various types of gear (benthic and demersal for mixed fishing and pelagic for target species) more sensibly and using the modern types of nets that can improve the catch with fewer juvenile fish caught while mixed fishing which would result in far less discards.

 

If commercials had to pay for the creation of what they harvest, like say our farmers, then as stated we would see far less recklessness in the way they manage their work.

 

Yes the CFP has not helped but it is not the only problem with regard the discard problem and remember that it is fishermen who discard fish not politicians.

 

Tight lines Bob

 

Hello Bob

 

I note that they were former commercial fishermen.

 

You need to spend at least six months as crew on a current successful fishing boat taking a wage from the share of the catch, you then might know a tiny bit about the way they manage their work.

[Worms]

Hello Worms

 

Discard of under sized fish and discard of large marketable fish are two totally different issues and to try and combine the two together only makes things complicated.

 

The issue of undersized discard is being addressed reasonably successfully with a number of initiatives in place and more being investigated, I don't see any benefit to any body or stocks by being forced to land those that are caught.

 

The discard of over quota fish is caused by two reasons, one, what little quota is available is mainly held by a select few who were in a position to buy it.

Two, there is a huge imbalance in what the scientists say and what is the actual amount of fish in the sea.

There is only one solution that would cure discards of marketable over quota fish and that is to raise the quotas back to what they were 20 years ago, simple.

Hello Wurzel.

 

Yes, although I'm no expert on the CFP I was just rying to respond to Bob's post in a simplistic manner.

 

My views on the discard system for undersize fish is simply don't waste them. If they are too small then logically increase the mesh size which, I understand, has been successfuly trialled off the south coast and off the USA coast. If undersize fish are caught by whatever means then surely landing them without penalty is better than 'discarding' them.

 

As to your second point, yes I totally agree. Check out last year's posts on the catches that our inland based sea angling club, the Sporting Wanglers, has enjoyed.

 

Three, agreed but, if mesh sizes were increased then small fish wouldn't be caught in the first place.

 

As I sid at the top, I'm no expert on CRP or commercial practice. I was just trying to be an angler that sees current practice as wasteful and unsustainable. As users of the sea's bounty, anglers and commercials should see head to head. Unfortunately it would appear that there are those that don't, call 'em bass/mullet huggers or whatever but I fish for the enjoyment, the day out on a boat and the food. Any individual or group that seeks to stop my 'right' to catch food fish as I do, in a sustainable manner, will receive short thrift....at the least!

 

Simple!

[Bob Shotter]

Hello Worms

 

Discard of under sized fish and discard of large marketable fish are two totally different issues and to try and combine the two together only makes things complicated.

 

The issue of undersized discard is being addressed reasonably successfully with a number of initiatives in place and more being investigated, I don't see any benefit to any body or stocks by being forced to land those that are caught.

 

The discard of over quota fish is caused by two reasons, one, what little quota is available is mainly held by a select few who were in a position to buy it.

Two, there is a huge imbalance in what the scientists say and what is the actual amount of fish in the sea.

There is only one solution that would cure discards of marketable over quota fish and that is to raise the quotas back to what they were 20 years ago, simple.

 

As a matter of fact Wurzel that is exactly why the CF discards, well that and it happens to be the easiest option, if the truth be known.

 

They know full well there is no need for the huge discards and I can't believe how easily the RSA suck up to this nonsense.

 

Any ways we are moving away from the topic and may have Barry on our case so back to Sussex and the Kingmere?

 

PS Worms mate I hope my post no 23 to Steve was acceptable for you to given we posted very closely in respect of timing.

 

Tight lines Bob

Edited February 11, 2011 by Deene'0

[barry luxton]

Too right, iv'e been mugged, where's reg, aka jerry, hiyer or lower case, who knows, he ain't answered me berry head question yet. Why does the MCS consider it is best to close down the area to all. Still waiting.

[flapper]

Hello Worms

 

Discard of under sized fish and discard of large marketable fish are two totally different issues and to try and combine the two together only makes things complicated.

 

The issue of undersized discard is being addressed reasonably successfully with a number of initiatives in place and more being investigated, I don't see any benefit to any body or stocks by being forced to land those that are caught.

 

The discard of over quota fish is caused by two reasons, one, what little quota is available is mainly held by a select few who were in a position to buy it.

Two, there is a huge imbalance in what the scientists say and what is the actual amount of fish in the sea.

There is only one solution that would cure discards of marketable over quota fish and that is to raise the quotas back to what they were 20 years ago, simple.

Totally agree there wurzel people are getting a lot richer from leasing quota to fishermen than fishermen have ever got from catching quota.

Flapper.