Bass

[Leon Roskilly]

When conditions turn against bass, they will be good for cod recruitment, so if allowed the effort would also switch, nothing there that has not happened in the past.

 

 

The commercial fleets might not miss the bass, but the Recreational Fishery, especially towards the southern end of the country will.

 

The point is that it won't require a sustained change to harsh winters to collapse the bass stocks at the current stock structure, as few as three 'bad' winters in a row will do it.

 

If the stock structure was managed so that it had a good proportion of sizeable fish (so that most anglers would regularly encounter 5 - 8lb bass and regard that as nothing unusual), then three bad winters (or another combination of environmental change) wouldn't be a great problem for the species.

[Leon Roskilly]

Things are no where near as bad as you try to spin them out to be Leon.

 

 

The point is that they are nowhere near as good as they could be!!

[wurzel]

The point is that they are nowhere near as good as they could be!!

 

 

I can't answer that, only that most things never are.

[Leon Roskilly]

I took a couple of forum members lure fishing for bass last summer, not so far off shore, I think they could confirm that the majority of the fish caught were over 45 cm.

 

The 'evidence' given almost universally to the bass consultation by the catching sector claimed that inshore anglers would not benefit from an increase in mls because bass over 36cm move offshore.

 

That had a big impact on the decision making.

 

Are you saying that the catching sector mislead DEFRA Wurzel, and that anglers do catch bass bigger than 36cm close in?

[wurzel]

The 'evidence' given almost universally to the bass consultation by the catching sector claimed that inshore anglers would not benefit from an increase in mls because bass over 36cm move offshore.

 

That had a big impact on the decision making.

 

Are you saying that the catching sector mislead DEFRA Wurzel, and that anglers do catch bass bigger than 36cm close in?

 

Hello Leon

 

Define off shore. On the day in question We were working about 8 miles off, which is off shore compared to the creeks, estuary and shore marks, but inshore for me who at times work 30 miles off shore.

 

It's spin again, I say the majority of bass, you say I said all bass.

It is fact that the majority of larger bass will move out of the inshore nursery areas, it does not mean they won't populate a fierce tide rip within casting distance of a exposed headland.

 

I doubt it had any impact what so ever on the decision making.

 

They were looking at how to justify an angling licence by giving anglers something, with out getting to much opposition from the commercial sector, they were looking for the least line of resistance.

[Leon Roskilly]

It is fact that the majority of larger bass will move out of the inshore nursery areas, it does not mean they won't populate a fierce tide rip within casting distance of a exposed headland.

 

I doubt it had any impact what so ever on the decision making.

 

 

In conversations with both DEFRA officials and Ben Bradshaw that I've been party too, I'm damn sure that they took a lot of notice what had been said about bass over 36cm not being found close to shore.

 

 

In a later reply to SACN who were querying the decision, DEFRA wrote:

 

"The benefits to anglers (in particular shore anglers , who make up over 50% of angling groups) were not clear"

 

 

I know of many anglers who have caught large bass off the piers and beaches!

 

Especially anglers who were fishing before bass become a commercially targeted species and monfilament gill-nets appeared off our beaches trimming the inshore stock at 36cm.

 

However I can well understand the belief that all bass over 36cm move offshore, as relatively few are encountered inshore these days over that size.

 

When bass move out of the nursery areas they fan out, and some of that fanning are fish choosing to hunt the rich pickings close inshore.

 

But those that choose to take up residence close inshore stand little chance with the prevalence of both legal and illegal netting operations close in.

Edited November 16, 2006 by Leon Roskilly

[wurzel]

Hello Leon

 

Quote

When bass move out of the nursery areas they fan out, and some of that fanning are fish choosing to hunt the rich pickings close inshore.

 

But those that choose to take up residence close inshore stand little chance with the prevalence of both legal and illegal netting operations close in.

 

so you do agree that they move out of the nursery areas.

 

Angling pressure has no effect then?

 

As for the prevalence of netting operations close in. look again at the Enviroment Agency report, you could just ask your local SFC fisheries officer Joss Wiggins.

[Leon Roskilly]

so you do agree that they move out of the nursery areas.

 

 

Of course I do!

 

Nursery areas are where immature bass grow and feed before moving out, usually shallow areas particularly in estuaries.

 

When there are good year groups, as with 2002 in some areas, in the nursery areas there will be 'hordes of small bass', but after around 4 years, as they approach maturity at around 1lb in weight, they will move out and become a regional population, initially nomadic but as they grow larger settling down in a specific location (apart from migrations away in the winter to the spawning grounds, increasingly closer to home ranges as the water temperature increases).

 

(now we have fishermen complaining about hordes of small bass in their particular nursery area and wanting to cull them in case they eat everything locally as the grow!!! They won't they will leave the nursery area and populate the coast!)

 

 

Because the bigger fish are 'site faithful', and bass are naturally long-lived creatures, local effort on local populations can have a devastating effect on the incidence of big fish.

 

And yes, anglers finding a location containing a population of large fish can decimate that local population within a few years, so that you sometimes hear 'such and such a place used to have some big bass, but we don't get them there nowdays, I wonder why?'

[wurzel]

Aint that the truth, but sadly so is wurzels incessant commercial clap trap he preeches, it has been said on here that he is as much an rsa as a commercial fisherman? well i cant recal a single thing he has said in favour for the former, wurzel i dont know what you expect to achieve with your postings on this forum meant for anglers? other than to spring to the defence of your profession and that you know better than any other living human being about fish stocks, let me ask you a simple question how long do you think you would survive if we let the spanish fleet in to the north sea????????

 

Hello Stavey

You still here?

 

I am more of a RSA than you are at the moment.

 

Quote

 

but sadly so is wurzels incessant commercial clap trap he preaches,

 

Does that mean you agree with some of what I say? I'm not sure.

 

Quote from my bass consultation letter,

 

"I agree with the anglers point of view that 36 cm is to small, using 90mm nets to target them makes the shoals of immature (36cm is immature) bass inshore , estuaries and creeks venerable"

 

Is it or is it not in favour of RSA Stavey?

 

What do I expect to achieve, I am not sure, some sort of compromise perhaps.

 

As for knowing better than any other living human being about fish stocks, I doubt that, but one thing is for sure, I know a lot more than you do about the job I do.

 

Why would you want to let the Spanish in?

[wurzel]

Hello Leon

 

We must be getting there, not much to argue over there, unless I want to get realy picky.

 

Quote

(now we have fishermen complaining about hordes of small bass in their particular nursery area and wanting to cull them in case they eat everything locally as the grow!!! They won't they will leave the nursery area and populate the coast!)

 

You could replace fishermen with "a fisherman