Can commercial fishermen and sea anglers work together?

[The doctor]

The problem is wurzel that they don’t talk to commercials the same way as they talk about them on this forum.

 

 

Looks like you have a less than secret admirer Peter, perhaps Challenge should be Challenge'd, as to his former existance, who knows!!!!! Who cares!!!!!!

 

I think Ian's original question was a reasonable one, I don't think we need to go back over the many threads were anglers have critisied the commercial sector, this is after all an angling forum and both sectors are competing for the same resource. I may be wrong, but the threads which do critisise the sector are usually in response to diatribe posted by the person formally known as Binatone (who was somewhat challenge'd in these matters), steve good (is it weathergood or goodweather?, I can't remember) who has so much time that his only apparent R&R is to come on an angling forum and try to wind anglers up (in a very poor and predictable manner I might add), or some instance of regulation breach (the whitby 10). Similarly where poor angling practice has been highlighted it has also been vehnemently condemned, strange that the commercial sector are unable to take a similar even-handed approach.

 

You yourself have made it plain that you support in many instances the breach of fisheries legislation and regulation on the basis that fishermen have no choice and that they are honest and hard working, unless of course its Johnny foreigner who has breached regulation. You say on the one hand that fishermen have no option due to the need to manage brigade (DEFRA, EU etc.), that the scientists have got it all wrong and that there is plenty of fish, very few stocks are overfished, and where they are this is due to 'global warming' and not over-exploitation, strange that everyone else but the industry holds a diametric view on this. Can I take it that as a hard working and honest fishermen trying to make ends meet, with masses of fish in the sea, you are not averse to breaking fisheries legislation as and when required, or do you feel that there is no need to do so due to your intregrity, as this is nothing more than common old garden theft, from not just UKPLC but your fellow fisheremen.

 

You say the only fish that are yours are those in your boxes, I take it then that you would endorse this from an RSA point of view and that anglers should be able to go out and bring back boxes of fish without bag limits (which by definition I assume you will not support), despite steve good's assertion that the industry are wholly behind and at the forefront of plans to introduce bag limits on anglers with the ultimate goal of complete no take for angling in the future (silly boy Good, go and stand in the corner). Something which is news to your industries leaders, or maybe they are as full of sh** as some of the commercial fishermen (and some anglers I might add).

 

But enough of the repartee, for what its worth, both sectors need to work together, we are the only two extractors of marine biological resources, and we both have many detractors, why stand alone separately against overwhelming odds when a united front (following agreement on each others legitimate access to those resources) may make the difference between making a stand and maintaining ones right to harvest, and falling divided.

[glennk]

Got to admit Nigel that these conversations have been a lot nicer to take part in of late. You are right without the - diatribe posted by the person formally known as Binatone and more recently known as ???? who cares - such topics have been amicably debated. Sad to say it looks like they will soon slip back to the same old shite - oh well we had a brief pleasant period without him. I wonder why he left last time ?

[wurzel]

Why?

 

Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Leon Roskilly]

Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

 

But we are not talking about geese, gooses and ganders Wurzel, something very, very different.

 

Or are you one of those who feel that because 4 wheel drive vehicles are banned from tearing up vulnerable hillside habitat, that hill-walkers should also be banned even though they don't do a tiny fraction of the damage that a motorised vehicle can do when the ground is wet and muddy?

 

 

There is a reason why damaging fishing activities need to be restricted in some areas, but where little significant damage is done by anglers, no reasonable person should want to see them banned as well.

 

The dogma that a ban should apply to all, regardless of how damaging the activity is, is a dangerous one, especially for commercial fishermen.

 

If an area is to be closed to dredging for shellfish, should netting also be bannned?

 

 

And if netting is banned because of the need to protect a finfish population, would you have potting banned as well?

 

 

I'm happy to say that commercial fishing spokes-people are backed by anglers on this one Wurzel.

 

 

An area that needs to be protected, should have a specific set of objectives.

 

And only those activities that significantly damage the attainment of those objectives should be restricted.

 

 

So, if the purpose of an MPA is to protect bethnic communities, then if pelagic fishing in that area is unlikely to have significant effect on those bethnic communities, why ban it?

 

 

And if netting is the problem, why ban commercial hook and line fishing?

 

 

There will be occasions and places where restrictions need to be placed on angling activity, maybe short of a complete ban.

 

 

But both commercial fishing and Recreational Sea Angling should never be banned or restricted because of no good reason other than spiteful dogma.

Edited July 22, 2006 by Leon Roskilly

[wurzel]

Looks like you have a less than secret admirer Peter, perhaps Challenge should be Challenge'd, as to his former existance, who knows!!!!! Who cares!!!!!!

 

I think Ian's original question was a reasonable one, I don't think we need to go back over the many threads were anglers have critisied the commercial sector, this is after all an angling forum and both sectors are competing for the same resource. I may be wrong, but the threads which do critisise the sector are usually in response to diatribe posted by the person formally known as Binatone (who was somewhat challenge'd in these matters), steve good (is it weathergood or goodweather?, I can't remember) who has so much time that his only apparent R&R is to come on an angling forum and try to wind anglers up (in a very poor and predictable manner I might add), or some instance of regulation breach (the whitby 10). Similarly where poor angling practice has been highlighted it has also been vehnemently condemned, strange that the commercial sector are unable to take a similar even-handed approach.

 

You yourself have made it plain that you support in many instances the breach of fisheries legislation and regulation on the basis that fishermen have no choice and that they are honest and hard working, unless of course its Johnny foreigner who has breached regulation. You say on the one hand that fishermen have no option due to the need to manage brigade (DEFRA, EU etc.), that the scientists have got it all wrong and that there is plenty of fish, very few stocks are overfished, and where they are this is due to 'global warming' and not over-exploitation, strange that everyone else but the industry holds a diametric view on this. Can I take it that as a hard working and honest fishermen trying to make ends meet, with masses of fish in the sea, you are not averse to breaking fisheries legislation as and when required, or do you feel that there is no need to do so due to your intregrity, as this is nothing more than common old garden theft, from not just UKPLC but your fellow fisheremen.

 

You say the only fish that are yours are those in your boxes, I take it then that you would endorse this from an RSA point of view and that anglers should be able to go out and bring back boxes of fish without bag limits (which by definition I assume you will not support), despite steve good's assertion that the industry are wholly behind and at the forefront of plans to introduce bag limits on anglers with the ultimate goal of complete no take for angling in the future (silly boy Good, go and stand in the corner). Something which is news to your industries leaders, or maybe they are as full of sh** as some of the commercial fishermen (and some anglers I might add).

 

But enough of the repartee, for what its worth, both sectors need to work together, we are the only two extractors of marine biological resources, and we both have many detractors, why stand alone separately against overwhelming odds when a united front (following agreement on each others legitimate access to those resources) may make the difference between making a stand and maintaining ones right to harvest, and falling divided.

 

Hello Doc

 

Got your self rightous head on again.

I still maintain that paying a quota trader for the right to fish has nothing to do with conservation,UKPLC, fellow fishermen, or even anglers.

 

Ok then clever cloggs, you make a list of what in your opinion we need to do to get an agreement on each others legitimate access to those resources.

[wurzel]

But we are not talking about geese, gooses and ganders Wurzel, something very, very different.

 

 

But both commercial fishing and Recreational Sea Angling should never be banned or restricted because of no good reason other than spiteful dogma.

 

Well Leon I can't realy see any good reason for MPA's, weren't they thought up by spiteful dogma from the green lobby?

[Leon Roskilly]

Well Leon I can't realy see any good reason for MPA's, weren't they thought up by spiteful dogma from the green lobby?

 

 

Now that doesn't surprise me in the least Wurzel LOL!

 

 

Spiteful dogma, or concern at the damage to marine ecosystems caused by overfishing and marine environment damage as a result of fishing operations?

 

 

Ask those that have mooted the widespread introduction of MPAs and they will vehemently argue that it is overfishing and damage from fishing that is behind their proposals.

 

Overfishing, damage from fishing, and the failure of most other management tools to have any significant effect, due largely to arguments over quota, where the advice of science has proven subservient to fishermen's 'rights' in the political game, and quota restrictions and most other regulations being ignored by many.

 

Marine Protected Areas, No Take Zones, Highly Protected Marine Reserves are the result of the failure by the wider industry, including fishermen, scientists, managers and politicians to protect the marine environment and fishstocks from unsustainable levels of exploitation, and damage to the seabed and the life that tries to live there.

 

The fact that they will often be inappropriate in some cases, and unfair in others, bringing further problems as much as solving them as they displace effort into other areas, is accepted, much as failure to reduce speeding has given us speed cameras and traffic calming because some people simply wouldn't slow down.

 

And as with speed reduction measures, it is the innocent as well as the previously unrestrained who suffer.

 

But that wouldn't make it right to restrict pedestrians because some people simply cannot obey speed limits.

 

Or right to unnecessarily restrict anglers because beam trawlers rip up the sea bed and dump back tonnes of unwanted sea creatures dead.

 

 

 

See: http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countrysi.../rmnc/index.htm

Edited July 23, 2006 by Leon Roskilly

[wurzel]

Morning Leon

 

Quote

Marine Protected Areas, No Take Zones, Highly Protected Marine Reserves are the result of the failure by the wider industry, including fishermen, scientists, managers and politicians to protect the marine environment and fishstocks from unsustainable levels of exploitation, and damage to the seabed and the life that tries to live there.

 

 

I wish any one of those involved with the instigation of MPA's would take me out to sea and show me exactly were all this unsustainable levels of exploitation and damage to the sea bed is takeing place,

for I sure as hell can't find it and I don't know or can't think of any one area where it does.

[Leon Roskilly]

Hopefully that will become apparent when they start putting forward areas for restrictions or closure.

 

What both the commercial sector, and RSA sectors are insisting upon is that there has to be definitive objectives for closing a particular area and that any restrictions imposed need to be consistent and proportional to attaining the those objectives, and with a definite timescale so that if the closure is not seen to be producing benefits, or significant benefits within a reasonable timescale, the area can be re-opened, at least to certain activities.

 

However, there is a growing body of opinion within the environmental movement that as there is so little information available on the effects of MPAs, particularly in temperate waters, and that often the benefits are unexpected and only realised some time post closure, that there is a need to experimentally close areas without the need for pre-defined objectives.

 

I've argued that it would be nice to close an area of Central London, flatten the buildings and watch what nature can do, with a nice nature reserve in the heart of London, say Victoria Street.

 

But that is not possible because the area is already in use, and jobs and livleihoods and the economy depends upon the human activity already taking place there.

 

So as on land, where it might be reasonable to close off existing natural areas to development by establishing a nature reserve, but one wouldn't think of flattening a town centre or industrial area simply to provide an area for nature conservation, so it has to be realised that much of the sea is not a pristine wilderness but is already in use, providing economic input and jobs.

 

However, it can also be argued that other fishery management options have clearly failed, and MPAs provide what could be the most effective tool yet in aiding the recovery of fish stocks and the marine environment to the benefit of all, and failure to come up with anything better will inevitably mean closures.

 

Getting the closures in the right places for the right reasons and restricting the right activities is the task ahead both for representatives of the RSA and catching sectors, and nothing would please those whose agenda is total closure wherever possible for no good reason than ecological dogma than to have the two sectors battling with each other, rather than working together towards reasonable outcomes for both or either side where that is appropriate.

 

The assertation that

 

"The commercial lobby will fight tooth and naill to make sure that the RSA's will be excluded from any future marine protected areas."

 

For no other reason than

 

"Whats good for the goose is good for the gander."

 

Must encourage the proponents of MPAs for idealogical reasons only with great optimism that whilst fishermen concentrate their spite on their possibly only powerful ally, they will see perhaps 2 million sea anglers concentrating on lambasting commercial fishermen in retaliation instead of working together to ensure only sensible restrictions are applied for sensible reasons.

 

As has happened so many times before, the short-sightedness of fishermen will have damaged their interests yet again.

Edited July 23, 2006 by Leon Roskilly

[Guest challenge]

Got to admit Nigel that these conversations have been a lot nicer to take part in of late. You are right without the - diatribe posted by the person formally known as Binatone and more recently known as ???? who cares - such topics have been amicably debated. Sad to say it looks like they will soon slip back to the same old shite - oh well we had a brief pleasant period without him. I wonder why he left last time ?

So what are you saying here then glenk? That I am binatone? If that is the case who did you talk to the other day in town?

My name is John mallette I need not to hide behind any disguises. Do you know me glenk? Do you still think that I am binatone? If so I take it that all your comments that you and members of your family have directed at him over the months have been directed at me? And if that is the case don’t you think that you should thinking about an unconditional apology to other members of this forum?

I represent my self on this forum, I have loyalties to recreational anglers because firstly I am one my self secondly I make my living out of them. I also have a loyalty for commercial fishermen as I was in the industry for the best part of twenty years.

I used the name challenge because I wanted to. I do believe that recreational anglers could work with commercial fishermen as long as they had the correct representation. Unfortunately from reading some of the comments on this forum over the last eighteen months I think that recreational anglers should if they want to be represented look else where.

That is my thoughts on the matter. Me John Mallette. Not binatone or challenge acting as binatone or anything else that you might want to say about somebody coming on this forum to give his views only to be attacked by small and childish people in a way that proves what I said about representation, for the simple reason that there views do not match there’s.

As for being a fan of wurzels. I remember him fishing in Whitby, a good a commercial fisherman (at what he did) as I have ever met. He was good at his job. I take it he still is.

I just wanted to point out that he has no reason to fabricate the truth; he has nothing to prove to you who criticise him. So why would he not want to come on here and just give his honest thoughts on the industry that he works in? Only to be ridiculed as a dreamer by people who have know conception of an industry or who have obviously failed in there attempts at it.

Regards John Mallette.