BASS AND COD IN BEFORE OVER FISHING

[steve good]

They were invited, but no one turned up!

 

Hi leon

whom were they??

[stavey]

Hi Stavey

If the bmp was being written now and it was aimed at all eu members states, I and alot of other commercials would support it. It is a shame that it has taken the course it has. Being as bass is a shared resource whats happening with the mls now just disadvantages us commercials to much. and thats why the bmp opposed so much

 

Well steve its a shame that B.A.S.S. and the commercials representatives? could not have gotten off on an equal footing, now is it a little bit to late for rsa's and commercial fisherman to work together on future proposals? maybe? whatever the future holds for both depends on these to groups on whether they can or cannot work together i am sure you would agree! and i cant help thinking that the commercial fishermen are so naive to think that they could do without the support of their own larger rsa sector but there you go..........

[Leon Roskilly]

Hi leon

whom were they??

 

 

Hi Steve,

 

It's a long time ago now, I don't remember the details.

 

I was invited to the meeting, and attended along with many others, but I wasn't involved in arranging it.

 

Something you will need to ask BASS

[steve good]

Well steve its a shame that B.A.S.S. and the commercials representatives? could not have gotten off on an equal footing, now is it a little bit to late for rsa's and commercial fisherman to work together on future proposals? maybe? whatever the future holds for both depends on these to groups on whether they can or cannot work together i am sure you would agree! and i cant help thinking that the commercial fishermen are so naive to think that they could do without the support of their own larger rsa sector but there you go..........

 

Hi stavey

commercials are not naive just to busy,they are their own worst enemy, never do anything till it bites them on their xum lol lol. They need to get to themselves together marine bill and the greens looming on the horizon they will not see them coming lol lol

 

Was that blink or a wink stavey only I am not like that lol lol

 

About anglers and commercials working together in the future, it seems to me a line has been drawn on sand whatever happens it will leave a bad taste in the mouth for one side or the other. I hope not.

 

I am very interested on how this will pan out, I fully understand both sides points veiw and I have tried to put myself in the position defra is in. lol lol They got a problem lol lol

[steve good]

Hi Steve,

 

It's a long time ago now, I don't remember the details.

 

I was invited to the meeting, and attended along with many others, but I wasn't involved in arranging it.

 

Something you will need to ask BASS

 

Hi leon

 

Well the commercials should have attended maybe we would not have all this aggro.

First I heard of it was in fishing news.

[Leon Roskilly]

Hi leon

 

Well the commercials should have attended maybe we would not have all this aggro.

First I heard of it was in fishing news.

 

 

Hi Steve,

 

I don't think that anyone from the catching sector was taking the idea of anglers being allowed a say in anything seriously at the time, and probably did not want to legitimise an intiative from the RSA sector with their presence or involvement.

 

If I remember, the first report in Fishing News was headlined 'Bass Lost to Anglers'!

 

Like many stories in FN, they seem more directed at raising the hackles of fishermen, than to inform or educate.

Edited January 31, 2006 by Leon Roskilly

[wurzel]

Quote

I don't think that anyone from the catching sector was taking the idea of anglers being allowed a say in anything seriously at the time,

 

Nor did the government untill some bright spark realised the revenue and a few votes.

[Steve Coppolo]

Nor did the government untill some bright spark realised the revenue and a few votes.

 

I don't think anyone in government would have realised if it hadn't been pointed out to them by the RSA lobby.

[Captain Black]

Hi leon

Anglers and commercials are suppose to be stakeholders in all fisheries. The bmp was produced by BASS with no imput from other supposed stakeholds such as commercial is it no wonder that commercials are oppossed. My veiw is BASS got it all wrong if they went the right way about this at the beginning it may have saved alot of aggro like we got now

 

steve

 

 

Hmmmm . . . interesting. Let me think. I'm just trying to remember when exactly the commercial sector ever even considered RSA's and asked for their input. The BMP was produced by BASS - good for them - because I'm damned sure the Commercials wouldn't have got round to asking to put in place measures to ensure a future for their fishery and larger bass for anglers. If BASS were in it for themselves then they wouldn't have taken into account the ramifications for the commercial sector. As for input all you've got to do is reply to the consultation process.

 

As for calling 'foul' on not having 'input'- having read the Consultation Document I note a highly biased document which makes much of the 'negative' effects on Commercial Fishing but not much about the 'negative' or 'positive' effects on RSA's.

 

In addition to your input, Steve, there will of course, be the highly influential but totally 'unbiased' responses from all the SFC's - 'Not'. There are anglers on quite few SFC's now and whilst they have no chance of influencing the outcome (as they're heavily outnumbered when it comes to a vote) they witness the 'antics' employed to ensure that the proposals are watered down or rejected. One or two SFC's have actually gone for option (a) No Change but others have recognised that the 'facts' cannot be disputed and have gone for a compromise.

 

Seeing as I've started I'll carry on - though the following might jump around a bit as topics occur to me:

 

I've also been following the reports in Fishing News. If it wasn't for the fact that some people reading the commercial claims probably believe them it would be laughable. I constantly have to remind myself that many of the contributors to the letters and columns purport to make a professional living from fishing. Much of what they claim is at best misleading at worst deliberate lies.

 

With regard to Davy Holt and others concerns over the possible transfer of effort from the bass fishery to ‘a.n. other’ species. I’m not going to claim its not going to happen, quite possibly it will. However, everyone is treating this as if commercial anglers are being stopped from fishing for bass. They are not. They simply cannot retain bass under 45cms. Yes, there will be a short term impact but ultimately there will be benefits for everyone. And contrary to commercial claims it will not take as long as they say.

 

I have a scenario which should cause Davy and others to seriously consider their stance on the BMP.

 

First some biological background – I’m sure it’s been covered before but just in case. . .

 

Facts: Male bass mature at around 35-36cms whilst females mature around 42cms. The current mls is 36cms (except Cornwall & South Wales where it is set at 37.5cms).

 

I have heard the argument put forward that “Well, that’s Ok the males will be mature so we don’t need an increase”. Great, wonderful, bar for the fact that it’s generally accepted that without enough of both sexes the future for any species isn’t particularly bright. So on that point alone we should be increasing the mls and mesh size – it is madness not to.

 

It is also generally accepted that the current bass fishery is a recruitment fishery. That means that as the juvenile fish mature they immediately become available to be caught and sold commercially. The benefit to the commercial system is something called Maximum Sustainable Yield. They are cropping the fish. In their eyes there is no benefit in letting the fish grow on because, as long as there are enough juveniles reaching adulthood, then the lifecycle is, to use the buzzword, ‘sustainable’. And there lies the ‘rub’. Sustainable – it’s sustainable just as long as the recruitment to the fishery stays stable but that isn’t guaranteed and continuing to fish on the basis of ‘It’ll be Ok’ isn’t my idea of good fishery practice. At present there are plenty of small bass but the fishery for these juveniles has been buoyed by a succession of favourable climactic conditions. In particular mild winters.

 

Biologically bass larvae end up in nursery sites, generally shallow estuarine habitats. The critical stage is the first year when they are what is termed ‘0’ group. At this stage they are vulnerable to low temperatures. Following the hard 1962/63 winter there was an almost complete absence of the 1962 year class around England and Wales – nearly all the over wintering 0-groups had been killed off. So what – I hear you ask, that was ages ago. Maybe, but that susceptibility to cold is as applicable now as it was then except . . . there may not be an adult population to act as a buffer?

 

The best recent year class is 2002 and this is the critical spawning that the introduction of the 45mls (and 110mm) mesh (provided it is introduceed as quickly as possible) would protect. Subsequent year classes have not been so good: 2003 was reasonable; 2004 was average/poor and 2005 was poor. In the cold snap in the winter of 2004/2005 it is estimated that the year class was reduced by 30%. All it would take is two or three cold winters (its cold this winter - 2nd winter in succession - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3266833.stm) and the ‘recruitment fishery’ could dry up.

 

The bass fishery is currently being run on luck – at some point that ‘luck’ is going to run out. If the bass stock crashes, Davy, it won’t be a matter of whether the commercials will re-direct their effort – I can guarantee it.

 

The commercials have made a great deal of fuss that all fish over 45cms go offshore where the French and Spanish will reap the benefits. Any angler or commercial fishermen should know that this is (I’ll be polite) patently not true – historically adult bass were certainly available in numbers to inshore boat and shore anglers. However, there certainly aren’t as many quality fish inshore as there used to be. Why? Well it isn’t because they all move offshore, it’s because they aren’t there anymore – they’ve been cropped (see above). Prior to the early seventies bass was almost exclusively an ‘anglers’ fish, commercial fishermen weren’t interested in them, they had other species to catch, but then due to over fishing other species started to suffer and the commercials started to look for alternative species.

 

From Sea Bass - Biology, exploitation and conservation. Pickett and Pawson

in 1974 the commercial fishery for bass in England and Wales (bass catches were negligible around Scotland) was considered to be insignificant compared with that of its recreational rod-and-line fishery.

 

They weren't really interested in bass 'til they 'swear word-up' their mainstay species.

 

The Commercials also claim that the increase will 'devastate' livelihoods and cause hardship blah, di, blah, di blah . . . . Now where have I heard that before. Well, oddly enough, its near enough exactly the same guff that was being spouted prior to the 1981 increase in the MLS. Whilst there may well have been a bit of hardship in the short-term in the long term they've come out better off. As it happens the common denominator in any 'conservation' measures proposed for any species is the certainty that the 'commercials' will oppose it - and in the process demand compensation.

 

I have to say that, personally, I'm not certain that the vociferous opposition to the BMP has as much to do with the proposals as to do with making sure that RSA's don't get to have a say in fisheries management. Look at it from the commercial fishermens point of view, for years they've had a monopoly on fishing; they've done near enough what they liked when they liked. If scientists have made recommendations they've howled and screamed, and, without anyone else to have to take account of, the politicians have backed down and allowed the scientific proposals to be watered down. It's only recently that proper action to try to save fisheries is being taken and it's not going down well. Now theres an even bigger change afoot anglers have got their act together and politicians are starting to take note - and the commercials don't like it one little bit.

 

Anglers have a choice to make over and above whether they support the BMP and it is a choice that may arguably prove more important. Without other stakeholders to oppose the commercial sector then our fishing (as Recreational Sea Anglers) will continue to decline. Those who see the bass mls and the accompanying mesh sizes as something which is of no interest because they fish for other species should remember that the BMP also includes:

• Proposals for inshore gill net restrictions within 1 mile of the shore.
  

• A closed season - to protect bass when they are ready to spawn.
  

• Stronger laws for nursery areas to further protect immature bass.
  

• The introduction of COMMERCIAL licencing and the use of carcass tags, to reduce the current high level of illegal netting and sale of 'illegal' bass.
  

Obviously of most interest to anglers who fish for other species is the proposal regarding netting. Arguably this will indirectly benefit other species. It was not BASS's idea to split the BMP into two separate consultations, that was done by Defra. Call me cynical but I do wonder as to why it was deemed necessary to split a 'package' of measures deliberately designed to support each other. It wouldn't be because they thought they could reduce support would it? Make no mistake a poor response by anglers to the MLS & Mesh consultation will send the message to both Defra and, more importantly, politicians, that anglers can be ignored, that we don't matter. In which case whilst I don't doubt that the secondary consultation will go ahead it will be very much a case of going through the motions.

 

And in case anyones wondering I fish for mullet, smoothhound, tope, rays and bass. I used to fish for cod but its now simply not worth the time, money and effort. The cash saved gets put to one side and takes me on trips to fish elsewhere, like Ireland, where amazingly, considering the commercial claims, there are quite a good number of large bass to be caught within 30yds of the shore.

 

Well, I think that's my lot. Apart from saying if you haven't written in support of the MLS & Mesh increases please, please do. Don't forget, whatever you read on hear from the Commercial side, they're not interested in what you as a Recreational Angler want, only what is best for them.

 

I don't have a great deal of time to read or post on forums but this thread has been quite educational - for my money listen to Leon Roskilly, Ian Burrett and Sharkbyte they've got anglers at heart and know what they're talking about.

 

 

John

[Davy Holt]

Hello John,

 

 

I had said all I was going to on this topic, but since you have directed some of this post at me I will give you the courtesy of a reply.

 

 

With regard to Davy Holt and others concerns over the possible transfer of effort from the bass fishery to ‘a.n. other’ species. I’m not going to claim its not going to happen, quite possibly it will. .

Well so far we have now been told by those supposedly in the know that, it will happen, it wont happen and it possibly will…. Why??? We all know full well that the commercials are not going to put themselves through any hardship if they can help it.. it’s human nature.

 

However, everyone is treating this as if commercial anglers are being stopped from fishing for bass. They are not. They simply cannot retain bass under 45cms.

 

Nope.. I have never have treated it that way, I have always treated it as they cant land anything under 45cm and anything above is fair game

 

Yes, there will be a short term impact but ultimately there will be benefits for everyone. And contrary to commercial claims it will not take as long as they say.

A few lines back you said” I’m not going to claim its not going to happen, quite possibly it will” now you are stating it will happen. As for the claims, well they have went from 2 years to zero years, and everything in between and despite what you say.. these “facts” were from Anglers supporting the BMP not commercials as you suggest.

 

I have a scenario which should cause Davy and others to seriously consider their stance on the BMP.

 

 

Trust me I have and if anything it is more solid than before and no amount of spin going to change it.

 

 

The simple facts are Bass stocks are NOT in danger, they are increasing in numbers an range on a yearly basis, granted there is however a shortage of large bass to be caught by inshore anglers.

 

Skark, ray and many other targeted species however are not is the same position as Bass and their stocks are heavily depleted; according to ICES some are completely depleted.

 

Given the conservation work that I’m involved in I can’t condone a plan that only serves to improve numbers of one species for the benefit of anglers when in doing so it puts other depleted stocks at a higher risk, no matter how short term it is for.

 

”I don't have a great deal of time to read or post on forums but this thread has been quite educational - for my money listen to Leon Roskilly, Ian Burrett and Sharkbyte they've got anglers at heart and know what they're talking about.”

 

 

I have a lot of time and respect for Leon & Ian and have fished with them both on more than one occasion; it was thanks to Leon I caught my one and still only Scottish Mullet. As I have already said I did not take the decision lightly to go against Leon’s advice and opinion but I have. Contra to popular belief on this forum everyone is entitled to their own opinion and these opinions are just as valid as are those of someone who fishes from Bass.