Bass MLS Decision to be Overturned?

[steve good]

Hello Steve

 

I agree, but in the grand sceme of things unless you ban fishing all together will it really make a difference?

 

Hi Peter

 

QUOTE/ I agree, but in the grand sceme of things unless you ban fishing all together will it really make a difference?

 

To be, or not to be, that is the question, and you have just hit the nail on the head, lol.

 

The grand scheme of things is to iradicate all commercial fisherman, and you may ask why, how and for what purpose, Is it not of any concern to any one that two thirds of the UK'S fishing fleet has already disappeared, vanished without a trace, no of coarse not (big cheers from the pole bearing blood lusting pretenders of catch and release who are supposed sport anglers and yet cannot accept they should play there part in conservation by accepting a bag limit). Anglers have been sucked in. to be used to further reduce commercial fisherman and will be cast adrift like an unwanted sweaty sock, when the mood takes those smooth talking well suited. bowler hated cival servants that draw there DOLE cheque from DEFRA.

 

The unfair public sector allocation of quota put to the wall many a fine fishermen, salt of the earth people, NOT SCUM LIKE YOU LOT KEEP INFERING, but honest really really hard working people. Decommissioning, has been aimed at reduceing fishermens numbers further however this is to slow for the goverment. Along come anglers AH! AH! WE CAN USE THEM. Thence one biassed bmp consultion, slanted in favour of the in crowd (anglers) and made to look that democracy had taken place when in fact it had not.

 

Further reductions in commercial fishermen will be made with the marine bill, the GOLDERN MILE and any other thing that comes along.

 

The goverment some time ago declared that the housing programme had to be stepped up and now houses can be built on brown or green belt areas. And what do houses and the road infrastuckure need aggregate and sand.

 

The crown estates own the sea bed, the goverment grant licences to dregde aggregate and sand, and the dredgeing companies have been given the right to appoint A SO CALLED INDEPENDANT COMPANY to do the enviromental accesment, and the dredging companies pay them, I believe when the licence has been granted by the goverment the dredging company pays there monies and so much a ton into the goverments general fund account a perfectlly legal arrangement, some may call it a QUANGO.

 

It appears that 50% of aggregare dredging is exported to france and holland because they do not like to turn there seabed into a lunar landscape DEVOID OF ALL LIFE.

 

WHO is in the front line trying to defend and protect the breeding and feeding areas that are being lost to this destructive form of activity SPEAK UP YOU ANGLERS I CAN NOT HEAR YOU, yes thats right commercial fishermen.

 

I believe that if the goverment can get rid of commercial fishermen then they will make a killing on the revenue from aggregate dredging.

 

The grand scheme of things is nearlly complete the only thing standing in the way is a few dozen gobby fishermen who have got the BACK BONE TO STAND UP AND FIGHT.

 

I dare say they we cart me off in a straight jacket white one of coarse and call me a terroist for writing this.

 

Still who bloody cares anyway

 

smiling ear

 

regards steve

[Norm B]

We lost that bargaining power when we signed up to the CFP, we (Heath) forfeit our rights and resources at that time. .

 

Big snip

 

I agree with you Chris, the CFP did nobody in the UK any favours, because we sold British fishermen and British resources down the river in return for agricultural concessions (which would benefit the tory landowners) who were the powerbase in charge at that particular moment in time.

 

Correction, we did not sign the CFP to gain concessions for tory farmers. Ted Heath signed the CFP because his time was running out and HE wanted to be the PM that took GB into Europe. His ministers and advisers advised him to continue negotiating but he couldn't wait as his time was running out. He signed knowing full well what it would do to our fishing industry but that was irrelevant in his greater scheme of things. That is why he stood down as an MP, because the government were going to release the papers of

the dicussions under the 30 or 40 year rule, although he argued that as he was still a serving MP they could be held back, they released them and he knew he'd never be re-elected when the people learned what he'd done. I personally thought he should have been tried for treason and if found guilty hung, drawn and quartered and his head put on a spike at traitors gate.

Edited September 3, 2006 by Norm B

[Steve Coppolo]

Hello Steve

 

 

 

How come they are being reduced all the time ? they are still undersize,

I said that it's the bigger fish that are reducing in number all the time.

How do you know there are low numbers of bass reaching maturity? the last large year class is still under size, even more so next year.

 

We've had several good year classes over the last 10 years. With the mild winters we've had the sea should be full of breeding size bass. From what I understand, the 2002 one was the biggest. Although they are just becoming sizeable, ie 36cm, none of them have spawned and even with the new 40cm MLS a large percentage of them still won't have spawned before they get caught.

 

If a bass spawns once and that's a no recruitment year it won't matter if one bass or ten billion bass spawn you won't get any baby bass, if it happens 3 or 4 years on the trot, then what? Are you suggesting stopping all commercial fishing and total catch and release by all anglers just in case ?would it make any difference to your patch?

 

At least with a 45cm MLS all of the bass available will have spawned before being caught, not just a percentage of them. No matter how you look at it that has got to mean more baby bass. No one knows what the figures are so I'll take some really simple figures to show what i mean.

 

Let's say there are two breeding size, (45cm and above), bass left in the sea and they produce 100 eggs. We have a severe winter and only 4% survive. So that two bass have produced 4 baby bass. Two of them get caught at 40cm before they have spawned, leaving two extra bass to produce another 100 eggs. We have a severe winter and only 4% survive, etc, etc, etc.

 

Now lets say there are two breeding size bass left in the sea. They produce 100 eggs. We have a severe winter and only 4% survive. That two bass will have produced four baby bass. All four reach 45cm and spawn producing 400 eggs before being caught. Then 2 get caught, leaving the other two and, assuming we get another severe winter and only 4% survive, another 16 bass that will reach 45cm and spawn before being caught. That 16 bass produce 1600 eggs. Then 8 of then get caugt, leaving the other 8 and 64 other bass, etc, etc, etc.

 

The first scenario can be described as sustainable if it carried on like that but there is no buffer for any other eventualities, like more than 50% being caught or less than 4% surviving a severe winter.

 

The second scenario is definately sustainable and allows for a buffer against things like I've mentioned above. No need to ban all commercial fishing or total catch and release.

 

The only difference between the two scenarios is that the first one assumes a MLS of 36cm or 40cm, and the second one assumes a MLS of 45cm. Very simplistic I know, but I think it demonstrates a valid point. So in answer to your question, in the grand scheme of things I believe that a MLS of 45cm would make a very big difference.

 

When you look at it like that, I can't believe how people could argue against a 45cm MLS for bass. Taking the same scenario further, if you increased the MLS for all species to a size where they have spawned before being caught there would be no need for quotas or days at sea, etc.

[steve good]

I said that it's the bigger fish that are reducing in number all the time.

We've had several good year classes over the last 10 years. With the mild winters we've had the sea should be full of breeding size bass. From what I understand, the 2002 one was the biggest. Although they are just becoming sizeable, ie 36cm, none of them have spawned and even with the new 40cm MLS a large percentage of them still won't have spawned before they get caught.

At least with a 45cm MLS all of the bass available will have spawned before being caught, not just a percentage of them. No matter how you look at it that has got to mean more baby bass. No one knows what the figures are so I'll take some really simple figures to show what i mean.

 

Let's say there are two breeding size, (45cm and above), bass left in the sea and they produce 100 eggs. We have a severe winter and only 4% survive. So that two bass have produced 4 baby bass. Two of them get caught at 40cm before they have spawned, leaving two extra bass to produce another 100 eggs. We have a severe winter and only 4% survive, etc, etc, etc.

 

Now lets say there are two breeding size bass left in the sea. They produce 100 eggs. We have a severe winter and only 4% survive. That two bass will have produced four baby bass. All four reach 45cm and spawn producing 400 eggs before being caught. Then 2 get caught, leaving the other two and, assuming we get another severe winter and only 4% survive, another 16 bass that will reach 45cm and spawn before being caught. That 16 bass produce 1600 eggs. Then 8 of then get caugt, leaving the other 8 and 64 other bass, etc, etc, etc.

 

The first scenario can be described as sustainable if it carried on like that but there is no buffer for any other eventualities, like more than 50% being caught or less than 4% surviving a severe winter.

 

The second scenario is definately sustainable and allows for a buffer against things like I've mentioned above. No need to ban all commercial fishing or total catch and release.

 

The only difference between the two scenarios is that the first one assumes a MLS of 36cm or 40cm, and the second one assumes a MLS of 45cm. Very simplistic I know, but I think it demonstrates a valid point. So in answer to your question, in the grand scheme of things I believe that a MLS of 45cm would make a very big difference.

 

When you look at it like that, I can't believe how people could argue against a 45cm MLS for bass. Taking the same scenario further, if you increased the MLS for all species to a size where they have spawned before being caught there would be no need for quotas or days at sea, etc.

[/quote

 

Hi Steve

 

All what you say has no meaning whatsoever if one winter those frenchmen with there pair trawls get lucky and take out all the existing adult spawning stock which they are quite capable of doing. I think it is called a turkey shoot no more no less than that. It exists on the edge of a razor blade

 

EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE BASS STOCKS ONLY EXISTS ON A WING AND A PRAY it is only a matter of time and when, we all know how and why.

 

whatever you the anglers and us the commercials do or say amounts to no more than xissing in the wind, lets hope there is not a gale of wind blowing lol lol

 

regards steve

[Jaffa]

We lost that bargaining power when we signed up to the CFP, we (Heath) forfeit our rights and resources at that time. The difference is that the French on the whole ignore regulations (CFP & CAP), with their governments support, they then fight their argument for years, in the mean time continue to flought the same regs. The UK government is a populist government, they want to be everybodies friend and to be seen to be popular, without doing anything for their own people, they value EU and world opinion more than that of their own populace.

I disagree ; yes , we lost a lot of that bargaining power but not all!. Its true the UK , with its huge urban population and all that goes with that, is never going to be the most favourable of political environments for those that fish, but you just have to get on with it. FWIW i think change is coming, and i don't mean just which political shower are in power.

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong but are you suggesting that RSA's voicing of their concerns in relation to the activities of certain sectors will be the ruin of commercial fishing, angling and the resource. Do you think that the few RSA volunteers and sea angling Fora hold that much weight, and that the commercial sector are so weak.

 

No; the more views, thoughts, people reading and thinking about these issues the better. What i object to is a few (I read in FN that some commercials call it an "elite") non elected reps gaining close access to the government and pushing through as stupid a measure as the BMP.

 

The "commercial sector" is a lot of sectors as i'd guess you well know. In some areas, esp NE Scotland and Shetland its so important to the local economy that they have some clout. They are also switched on enough to pay for reps to go off and lobby the Scottish and UK governments and the EC. On the other hand, you have southern small boat skippers like Steve G and Wurzel who have a much smaller voice, even if atm they are the ones suffering the full weight of loose thinking RSA and the PETA mob.

 

I agree with you Chris, the CFP did nobody in the UK any favours, because we sold British fishermen and British resources down the river in return for agricultural concessions (which would benefit the tory landowners) who were the powerbase in charge at that particular moment in time. RSA was not even considered as a stakeholder then, the lobbying of the NFFO and other PO's possibly could have made a stronger argument (if indeed they were in existance). As stated above, fish and fisheries (CFP) were sold out for CAP benefits. Nothing has changed in terms of the commercial sector, as they still don't consider RSA to be a stakeholder nor worthy of their consideration. Noise from the NFFO and Pessell indicates that this is clearly the case.

Im with Norm on this one; its not a party political thing; Heath sold us down the river for his moment in the sun. Why would the commercials consider RSA to be a "stakeholder" . They are in the trenches and have been since the CFP was introduced; i doubt they even noticed RSA existed

 

Anglers get worked up over one issue while the commercials are fighting ten issues at a time. I don't think they saw an unelected, unrepresentative few getting the government ear. I doubt they will make that mistake again though...

 

The Shetland box is still in existance (for what its worth), pelagics will continue to take mackerel, herring and the like where ever they are. I think it a bit scaremongering to insinuate that the current fisheries limits can be given away further, which they can't, if that was the case we would be able to remove the historical rights (sunset) clause, which so many believe is necessary, but so difficult to do at this present moment.

 

Aye it is but only just. Apparently it was almost scrapped when the labour MP responsible for fighting it failed to turn up to the vote. Its not primarily there to stop the pelagics as far as i understand btw

 

As i understand things the current fisheries limits can indeed be changed; are they not under 10 year reviews, and does not the logic of the EU mean that in the end these can only be temporary measures?

 

But I thought that these restrictions were related to cetacean mortality as opposed to a fisheries conservation measure.

Aye i agree, but i don't remember a single voice from the RSA "reps" who questioned any of the crap evidence the greens were using. There were a very few on this forum that did ,but not one rep that i remember. SACN chose to publise the greenpeace nonsense yet not one thing on the fishermens side of things. Fly with the crows.....

 

Possibly, and like many others I would like to see a broadscale implementation of the measures on a EU basis, but in the short term that is not going to happen. But to suggest that doing nothing to safeguard stocks because others won't abide by it, is not the way forward in my opinion. Unilateral action is often the means to initiate multilateral action.

 

Would'nt we all! Stupid unilateral action can also place your stocks in worse danger surely?!

 

What gets so many peoples (anglers) back up is the attitude that commercial sector is the only important sector, as a consequence the various fisheries should be managed for their benefit exclusively. whilst I don't hold with the often quoted view that commercial fisheries and fishermen have had their opportunity and blown it. I do hold the view that the resource comes first and that exploitation of individual resources should be gauged on the composition and ability of that resource to maintain its condition, both as an abundant population but with the required stock composition.

 

Its not rocket science.

If only it was as simple as sending a man to the moon! !

 

How else would the commecials look at this? They have been the only "stakeholders" for ever and a day. Its still the case up North; try explaining what an RSA stakeholder is in Shetland where there is very little angling, and there is no problem catching fish. You just don't blank up there end of story , be it trout fishing on the gazillion lochs you can fish for free (no licences, no management, no restrictions no stocking but few people) or the sea where you will be lucky to see another shore angler all year.

 

I do hold the view that the resource comes first and that exploitation of individual resources should be gauged on the composition and ability of that resource to maintain its condition, both as an abundant population but with the required stock composition.

 

No answer to this one Doc surely? ; which condition? which time and moment? and who gets to judge which is the "right" one?

 

Anyway,

 

All the best,

 

Chris.

[wurzel]

Hello Steve

 

Quote

 

When you look at it like that, I can't believe how people could argue against a 45cm MLS for bass. Taking the same scenario further, if you increased the MLS for all species to a size where they have spawned before being caught there would be no need for quotas or days at sea, etc.

 

 

I agree in the theroy, always have, but in practice I wonder.

I don't think many people are argueing those facts, same as you can't argue the fact that there will be more discards in the mixed fisheries,

or the fact that the French won't, and will fill the gap in the uk market for 36 to 40 cm fish , you can't argue that won't disavantage uk fishermen and you can't argue that unless the French are forced to conform the effect of the BMP will be neglagable.

 

 

Like I said this is one argument when we are all right.

[Steve Coppolo]

Hello Steve

 

Quote

 

When you look at it like that, I can't believe how people could argue against a 45cm MLS for bass. Taking the same scenario further, if you increased the MLS for all species to a size where they have spawned before being caught there would be no need for quotas or days at sea, etc.

I agree in the theroy, always have, but in practice I wonder.

I don't think many people are argueing those facts, same as you can't argue the fact that there will be more discards in the mixed fisheries,

or the fact that the French won't, and will fill the gap in the uk market for 36 to 40 cm fish , you can't argue that won't disavantage uk fishermen and you can't argue that unless the French are forced to conform the effect of the BMP will be neglagable.

Like I said this is one argument when we are all right.

 

One thing that everyone seems to agree is that we would all be better off if the winter pair trawl fishery was stopped. A close season to protect those over wintering bass could do away with the need for an increase in MLS.

[wurzel]

One thing that everyone seems to agree is that we would all be better off if the winter pair trawl fishery was stopped. A close season to protect those over wintering bass could do away with the need for an increase in MLS.

 

Hello Steve

 

I suspect a French owner of a pair trawler would give you a good argument against that.

 

 

 

 

Well Steve I've had a few days off, caught some nice barble from my syndyicate stretch, had a good day to day with my accounts all up to date and had some fun banging away on here, now it's back to sea tomorrow to be as greedy as possible and catch as much as I can for it might be blowing a gale for all of next week again and I'll be forced to go back to the river Severn.

It's a great life if you don't weeken

good night.