Someone Is Listening

[Bob Jerunkel]

You do not have to catch the last fish, you only have to reduce the stock to below the sustainable gene pool size and the fish will be come inbread retards and die out (to put it basically)

 

Is that what happened to the ichthyosaur, do you think that if green peace had been about they would have been able to saved them?

 

Dinosaurs were dinosaurs fish are fish.

As far as I know the ichthyosaur wasn't hunted and killed in huge numbers.

They became extinct due to evolution.

Probably several new species of animal replaced them?

Maybe if we waited several million years certain fish would become extinct due to some natural phenomon.

But taking numbers away to levels where they cant sustain themselves is just hurrying the process along by several million years.

And there isn't anything to replace them.

[Jaffa]

You do not have to catch the last fish, you only have to reduce the stock to below the sustainable gene pool size and the fish will be come inbread retards and die out (to put it basically)

 

Can you name a single stock that has been reduced to "below its sustainable gene pool size"? If you have some definition of what a "sustainable gene pool size " is I'd love to hear it.

 

Chris.

[Jaffa]

It depends on the fish species, area and information available. If there is evidence that anglers do harm to the fish stock then anglers should be included of course. But so far none seems very interested in putting money into studies of sea anglers catches and mortality. Maybe because there is no need to, that anglers impact on sea fishstocks is non-significant?

 

It appears to me that the commercial sector will be looking at what effect anglers do or do not have on fish stocks very closely from now on.

 

I don't know if a comparison between say a nephrops trawler (with a lot of discards of small codling) and a charter boat, taking big cod from a wreck, will show which is the most destructive to cod stocks overall. Given all I've learnt here about the importance of the mature fish, I suspect recreational sea angling is in for a doing on this score though.

 

Purely my gut instinct

 

Given the deafening silence on this forum, in regard to any questions about what the, single species, BMP means in terms of other fisheries, I reckon there are interesting days ahead for that one too. Having watched the protect the seal/remove management of the seal debacle and its consequences I think the BMP proponents have a few questions to answer.

 

Just my opinion.

 

Chris

 

 

Try this link http://www.anglers-net.co.uk/sacn/latest/index.php?view=251

 

Read most of that already; I may not agree with all Leon says but I do tend to read his links

 

How many UK anglers (and Wurzel! ) havethought about the implications of this stuff though?

 

 

 

Chris

[Jaffa]

Try this link http://www.anglers-net.co.uk/sacn/latest/index.php?view=251

 

 

Well, having reread those links that work, I still see nothing that defines what level of population is needed to preserve the gene pool.

 

Btw, if i remember right, it seems the African cheeter has survived a "bottleneck" of a few individuals in its evolution. What about the explosion of new forms in the African cichlids of the rift lakes? How many ancestors for that fantastic diversity?

 

Is environmentalism just some attempt to defeat our own mortality and say that things in THIS moment are the way they should be?

 

Ho hum, the washing up and garage clean up calls

Edited November 2, 2005 by Jaffa

[wurzel]

QUOTE

To me it seems you do have a bit more than insignificent impact on the fishstocks. But maybe there is another reason that there can only be one of your kind in these waters?

 

There are already other boats, I am not the only one, you asked how many MORE boats.

 

An angler with one hook is insignificent, but are 1 or 2 million(depending on what figures you believe) anglers?

 

If you were fishing some lonley spot on your own and catching a few

fish and then sudenly 50 other anglers turned up, so there you all are shoulder to shoulder all casting more or less in the same spot would you expect to keep catching the same as you did when you were fishing alone?

[wurzel]

Hello Jaffa

Quote

How many UK anglers (and Wurzel! ) have thought about the implications of this stuff though

 

I have thought about this often in the past , I conclude In most cases, (And I struggle to think of a stock, pahaps large bass and french pair trawlers, I'm still not sure) the bigger fish can look after them selves,

Most realy large catches are usally made up of imature easy to catch fish e.g codling, round haddock, here localy dover sole and yes even dare I say it bass, so as long as enough escape to breed and if enviroment conditions are favourable(like they are for bass at the moment) there should not be a problem. Personly I would like to see a big increase in all landing sizes, It would suit my metheod of fishing ,

Others it might not, I am wondering if in this arguement every body is right.

Binatone in your trawling career how many large hauls of very large cod have you had, by large I mean 20lb pluss.?

A wreck netter might target 20lb cod but indoing so leaves behind all the 10lb fish which is still a good breeding fish, if he targets the 10lb fish he loses most of the 20lb fish so which is the right metheod?

[Guest binatone]

No worry as long they do it properly. But my gut instinct has a doubt on that one

Maybe, maybe not. My gut instinct tells me that a fishing vessel do scoop both small and the biggest fish even when the fish is not hungry. That an angler cannot do. But we need more facts and figures here on the total fishing pressure from various fishing sectors.

Good point. So how about starting with recreational angling in say Whitby (as there seams to be plenty of input from charter boat skippers from said port)

Would say big cod like to make an estimation on how much fish he takes in a season from the inshore grounds? And then may be john and Michele could give us an estimation on what they take from the offshore grounds. I say take because I believe that neither charter boat has a catch and release policy.

Then @autumn@ could give us some numbers on what he thinks that the shore anglers take in a year? Then of course there is the grey area, small boats that could be registered as commercial boats but do not fish on a commercial bases. I.e. they catch as much as they want but for recreational purposes only.

Take your estimated total amount and times it by all the ports where people fish.

It’s quite a task, but until you can say what you estimate these numbers to be you cannot keep saying that it is insignificant.

Then get in touch with DEEFRA and ask them what cod was taken out of the North Sea by Whitby boats last year?

Make a comparison .then find out how much (estimation) was invested in catching the said fish by commercial and recreational fishermen.

I could say that an average trawlers expenses for a weeks fishing would run at about £5000 depending on what he caught, as the more he catches the more he has do pay for landing etc.

At least it would be a start, of course there are also boats that use nets from Whitby and boats that use long lines, but I think for now we could just stick to trawlers in our comparisons as they seam to be the ones who are causing the most concern.

I keep reading the figer£1 billon when estimation is made on what anglers contribute to the economy? Is that sea fishing alone or is that angling in general?

 

 

Hello Jaffa

Quote

How many UK anglers (and Wurzel! ) have thought about the implications of this stuff though

 

I have thought about this often in the past , I conclude In most cases, (And I struggle to think of a stock, pahaps large bass and french pair trawlers, I'm still not sure) the bigger fish can look after them selves,

Most realy large catches are usally made up of imature easy to catch fish e.g codling, round haddock, here localy dover sole and yes even dare I say it bass, so as long as enough escape to breed and if enviroment conditions are favourable(like they are for bass at the moment) there should not be a problem. Personly I would like to see a big increase in all landing sizes, It would suit my metheod of fishing ,

Others it might not, I am wondering if in this arguement every body is right.

Binatone in your trawling career how many large hauls of very large cod have you had, by large I mean 20lb pluss.?

A wreck netter might target 20lb cod but indoing so leaves behind all the 10lb fish which is still a good breeding fish, if he targets the 10lb fish he loses most of the 20lb fish so which is the right metheod?

In thirty odd years I have seen 2 big hauls, the first comprises of about 65 kits and the second was in the sea net and that was about 70 kits.

Have had the odd twenty kit haul but that’s been about it.

[Leon Roskilly]

The Invest in Fish Report has some estimates of Recreational Angling Fish Mortality, by species, down in the South West.

 

See: http://www.investinfish.org/documents/TheM...Anglers_002.pdf (Chapter 4.2)

 

 

 

 

The '1 million anglers worth £1 billion' is for Sea Anglers only, in just England and Wales.

 

Actually, those figures are a catchy headline, taken from various official reports which give a slightly higher figure.

 

 

 

A report into the UK fishing Industry (Net Benefits), produced by the Prime Ministers Strategy Unit contains information about the Recreational Angling sector.

 

It values the recreational sector as being worth ‘at least £1 billion’ and estimates that there are 2 million people who went sea angling in England & Wales in 2002

 

This report can be downloaded from:

 

http://www.strategy.gov.uk/work_areas/fisheries/index.asp

 

 

 

A report into the value of Recreational Sea Angling was commissioned from Drew Associates by DEFRA.

 

Published in July 2004, it calculated that the direct spend by Recreational anglers in the England & Wales amounted to £538 million and the total worth of the sector could be some £1.3 billion.

 

The number of anglers in England and Wales is estimated at 1.45 million.

 

The report can be downloaded from:

 

http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/reports...ing/default.asp

 

 

 

In August 2005, a study by the Environment Agency (‘Public Attitudes to Angling 2005’)

notes:

 

“Based on a population aged 12 and over in England and Wales of 44,254,462 the number of people aged 12 and over who had been sea angling is 3 million.”

 

See:

 

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/commo...ree_1153660.pdf

 

 

 

(The Invest in Fish report comes up with a higher value for angling in the South West than would be indicated by the Drew report, and suggests that the Drew report might have understated the value)

 

 

 

The value of the commercial catch is at: http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/publica...tat/default.asp

 

For 2004, for the whole UK fleet, including landings in ports outside of the UK it has fallen again to £513 million.

 

Wherever the commercial landed catch is valued, it also includes the value of species that are of no interest at all to anglers. Crustaceans, shellfish, nephrops (prawns), hake, monkfish etc.

 

(And those species of most interest to anglers are usually of no great importance to the commercial sector eg mullet, conger eel, wrasse, flounder, tope and hounds and other small sharks and rays etc).

 

The value of the Recreational Sea Angling Sector and the commercial sector cannot be compared directly, it would be like comparing apples and cheese, however the studies do show that they are in the same kind of league.

 

Tight Lines - leon

[Guest binatone]

Very interesting Leon. Thank you for giving me this information.

I noticed that when valuing the commercial industry they only give you the value of the fish landed.

This is a poor way of valuing an industry. As regards what money it actually generates.

And what industries it actually supports.

[Bob Jerunkel]

Very interesting Leon. Thank you for giving me this information.

I noticed that when valuing the commercial industry they only give you the value of the fish landed.

This is a poor way of valuing an industry. As regards what money it actually generates.

And what industries it actually supports.

 

and then deduct how much it costs to run.