For people who care about conservation only

[Simon Everett]

Jin Roper - but the big Mullet was still worth more than the small one, despite the price per lb difference.

1x 3lb Mullet at 3 shillings/lb was worth 9 Bob.

1x 10" Mullet at 4shillings and six pence/lb was only worth half a crown.

 

And I can still do old money maths!!

Edited January 3, 2006 by Simon Everett

[sam-cox]

Personly I have no grudge in bass being fished for commercialy.

I hear that in the USA the stripped bass fishery is strictly controled and as I understand most commercial fishing is done by rod and line.

 

In an ideal world Wurzel wouldnt you like to earn the same money as you do now catching fewer but larger bass by rod and line.?

 

If all commercial bass fishing was done by rod and line and only fish of a selective size were taked surely this is substainability at its best.

 

The BMP will be I think better for commercial fisherman long term although Ive yet to hear from one that agrees.

[geffaz]

A regular poster but not much liked for some strange reason? geffaz

join the club old son! lol

[sam-cox]

This club has many members!

[wurzel]

Hello fishingsfine again.

 

Quote

even Brussels are keen to implement this - THE FRENCH COMMERCIAL FISHERMEN ARE CALLING FOR IT!!!!!!!

 

I doubt that very much, if that is the case why waste time with our pathetic ministers and just lobby Europe.

 

Quote

Go for the more lucrative bigger size fish market - a 45cm bass weighs DOUBLE a 36cm bass, so even with your pessimistic price drop you will still earn more per fish - because each one is worth more.

 

A large part of my catch is already 45 cm or over so I will earn less when the price drops because of the increased amount of 45 cm fish on the market.

 

Quote

The 36cm came about not as a conservation measure but as a MARKETING measure

 

I don't think that is true either.

Were the closed nursery areas implimented around the same time, if not shortly after.

 

Quote

the new measures has nothing to do with commercial marketing (because of the pressures from farmed bass on the economy) and EVERYTHING to do with conservation

 

According to ICES bass are being fished sustainabley SO It has nothing what so ever to do with conservation, EVERYTHING to do with a few anglers catching a few bigger bass and the commercial marketing of the angling trade, not to mention some votes for Tony.

Dont forget the revenue for DEFRA.

[Steve Coppolo]

According to ICES bass are being fished sustainabley SO It has nothing what so ever to do with conservation, EVERYTHING to do with a few anglers catching a few bigger bass and the commercial marketing of the angling trade, not to mention some votes for Tony.

Dont forget the revenue for DEFRA.

 

I think there is a difference between "being fished sustainably" and "are not in trouble......yet". I can't see how taking any fish before it has spawned can be described as sustainable.

 

I agree that the BMP has everything to do with giving anglers bigger bass to catch. That is what the government promised, and that's why they asked to RSA lobby to come up with the plan in the first place. They didn't say, "come up with a plan that will keep commercial fishermen happy", they said "come up with a plan that will give us the best from our bass".

 

I believe that commercial fishermen will benefit from the BMP anyway, but it has been written up primarily for the benefit of anglers. That's what it means when the government say that they now recognise anglers as valid stakeholders in the fish stocks. It means they now recognise that the livelihoods of those working within the RSA sector are just as important as those working in the commercial fishing sector. It's not, as a lot of commercial fishermen pretend, just about placing more importance on a hobby or passtime than commercial fishermen's livelihoods. It's about recognising that the fish aren't just there to be exploited by commercial fishermen.

 

As I say, I don't think there will be any losers if it gets implemeted.

[wurzel]

Quote

You quoted the wrong guy. (should have been Simon Everett).

 

Sorry it was getting late.

 

Hello Sick Note

 

Quote

I think there is a difference between "being fished sustainably" and "are not in trouble......yet". I can't see how taking any fish before it has spawned can be described as sustainable.

 

Can't argue with that, It's not me you need to convince or a lot of UK commercail fishermem but ICES and the EU Commission.

As you know I tried much the same proposals for the dover sole in exchange for more quota, the EU Commission just don't want to know.

 

Quote

That's what it means when the government say that they now recognise anglers as valid stakeholders in the fish stocks. It means they now recognise that the livelihoods of those working within the RSA sector are just as important as those working in the commercial fishing sector

 

If that was the case what about northern anglers, or are they not valid

stake holders ( I hate that bloody word) if they recognised all anglers as valid stake holders then surley all species need the same treatment.

 

Hello Sam

Quote

In an ideal world Wurzel wouldnt you like to earn the same money as you do now catching fewer but larger bass by rod and line.?

 

If only it was a ideal world.

[sam-cox]

You know that Wurzel, if we did live in an ideal world we could all fish for bass all day long for our money.

[Steve Coppolo]

Quote

Hello Sick Note

 

 

If that was the case what about northern anglers, or are they not valid

stake holders ( I hate that bloody word) if they recognised all anglers as valid stake holders then surley all species need the same treatment.

 

Hello Peter

How did you know I was off sick?

 

The government, (I hate that word!), said that recreational sea anglers' needs were to be taken into account in future fisheries management. They said that eventually, some species of fish would be designated as recreational species only, starting with bass. I doubt that bass will ever be a recreational only species, but the "starting with" part seems about right. Who knows what they will do for Northern anglers in the future? I don't think they'll be able to do anything with Cod because cod are traditionally a commercially caught species, where as bass aren't. Mind you, I don't see why the Northern anglers won't benefit from bigger bass too. They have plenty of bass up there, and probably more big ones because they haven't been expoited by netters yet. I'll bet there are some lovely little populations of monster bass up there that haven't been found yet.

[sam-cox]

and as far as Im concerned all the commercials down hear in the south could emergrate up north to fish.