For people who care about conservation only

[Steve Coppolo]

Well the jury will be retiring on the 8th of February to make their decision. Anyone who wants to respond has just over a month to do so. From what I'm hearing, (and there is life beyond AN ), the response has been pretty good. We can do no more than give our opinions and state our preferences, then it's out of our hands. Whatever will be, will be.

 

As I've said before, this consultation will be a good test of the governments mettle. If they press ahead with the increased MLS, then they will have showed that they aren't scared to break the mould and the future looks bright for sea angling. If they water down the proposals, or compromise them in any way, then we'll know they are just paying lip service to anglers needs in an attempt to introduce a licence fee for nothing in return.

 

It is my opinion that if we are to be licenced, then we want something worthwhile in return. Something that will improve the sport available to us, ie, more and bigger fish. If they can't even deliver the increased MLS for bass, then they won't be getting a licence fee from me.

[Ken Davison South Wales]

Does any body think that if it was a COD MP there would have been a bigger response?

 

I doubt it very much but I don't suppose for one minute that all those who responded said so on here.

 

If cod were supported as much as bass then there would be a COD organisation the same as BASS surely.

 

I did support the BMP but I am quite happy to state it was with some reservations based on information trawled up mainly in the USA related to the striped bass.

 

This conservation thing is so complexed it is a job to know which way to go at times, there seems to be plusses and minuses on such a wide range of issues.

 

One thing appears to be nearly right as I have read it, flounders, dabs sole, bass, mullet all use estuary systems as nurseries and I think from what I have read that the important areas to protect are these estuary and inshore systems .

 

Time will tell who was right and who was wrong.

[stavey]

Simon or steve, what sort of figure do you think would be regarded as acceptable ie, 10000+ or 100000+ to push the mls and net size improvements through??????

Edited January 2, 2006 by stavey

[Ken Davison South Wales]

Simon or steve, what sort of figure do you think would be regarded as ecceptable ie, 10000+ or 100000+ to push the mls and net size improvements through??????

 

Most times quality far out weighs quantity

[Steve Coppolo]

Simon or steve, what sort of figure do you think would be regarded as ecceptable ie, 10000+ or 100000+ to push the mls and net size improvements through??????

 

Personally, I'd be happy if sea anglers returned a thousand good quality responses. Content is far more important than quantity of replies. The scientific evidence is there, the economic research has been done, as has research into predicted impact on different areas. The consultation is the final step in the process. A good number of quality responses from anglers which back up what they already know may give them a bit more confidence when it comes to making the decision.

 

Obviously more responses won't hurt, so if anyone hasn't replied yet, there's still a month to go. You may just highlight something that has been forgotten by everyone else!

[Simon Everett]

Trade response is also vital - go and talk to your angling shops and ensure that they tell the consultation just how important it is for their business future - and the charter boat skippers - and the accommodation bureau - and the tackle manufacturers - and the harbour cafe/burger bar. Any of these types of response are just as valid and needed.

Quality, informed responses are needed, but so are weight of numbers.

 

I cannot see where the difficulty for the commercial catching sector lies - they are not to be prevented from catching, just being directed to catch bigger, more valuable fish. I wish someone would give me a 300% - 400% increase in my earning potential without having to work any harder for it.

[wurzel]

Hello Ken

quote

If cod were supported as much as bass then there would be a COD organisation the same as BASS surely.

 

I'm not sure about that, I assume every body fishes for cod, every body is obssesed with cod, all talk of depleted fish stocks realy means depleted cod stocks, no cod no fish in the sea. even Joe public in the street knows about cod.

BASS was formed by a small monority of like minded anglers who are obssesed with bass, a bit like the Robin Relient club in auto curricles.

 

I for one would back a CMP to the hilt, as it is the regulation gill net mesh size for cod of 140mm catches very few fish less than 45cm

The wreck netters use much bigger meshes any way.

I am sure the long liners would back it, the main oppisition would be from a few boats at Whitby and further north, and with the right incentives ie more days allowed and more quota they would perhaps come round, Binatone might like to comment.

 

At least you would all be lobbying for a stock that could do with a leg up, not that I think it would do that much for the stock over all, but it would not hurt it

[wurzel]

Hello Simon

 

quote

they are not to be prevented from catching, just being directed to catch bigger, more valuable fish.

 

I keep seeing this statement, it proves to me that you know nothing about how fish market sales work.

 

The only reason the bigger fish make more money is because they are of a minority, as soon as they become the majority the price will drop, supply and demand , the difference in price between a 40 cm and a 45 cm is not that much, a bit more between 36 and 45 cm perhaps but don't forget 36 cm is just the mininum landig size most catches contain larger fish.

[geffaz]

Hi all, as we dont seam to hear much on this forum about one of the most important issues in history ever for sea anglers to actualy have a say in matters to do with fish stock and be able to change things for our and own benefit, i was wondering how any members on this forum who have already replied think how things are going? people who are not bothered about any of this need not answer, thankyou.

 

Ps. mike is that more to your liking

ther isnt much on the forum as far as dicusions on conservation?

were the bloody hell you been! its almost non stop!

[Steve Coppolo]

Hello Simon

 

quote

they are not to be prevented from catching, just being directed to catch bigger, more valuable fish.

 

I keep seeing this statement, it proves to me that you know nothing about how fish market sales work.

 

The only reason the bigger fish make more money is because they are of a minority, as soon as they become the majority the price will drop, supply and demand , the difference in price between a 40 cm and a 45 cm is not that much, a bit more between 36 and 45 cm perhaps but don't forget 36 cm is just the mininum landig size most catches contain larger fish.

 

Surely if there is a short term shortage of bass, like is predicted, then the value of bass will rise? If so, it'll only be fishermen landing too much fish that will make it fall again. If you can agree somehow to land just enough, without flooding the market, then the prices will have to remain high. Look at what's happened to the price of Cod since it became scarce. No doubt if we ever get a glut of Cod, and fishermen land as much as they can while it's here, the prices will fall drastically.

 

It might sound a bit niaive of me, but I believe it's the fishermen that dictate market prices to a certain extent. Can you imagine how cheap petrol would be if it wasn't for the oil cartels?