Anglers Should Be Licensed And their Catches Restricted.

[Jim Roper]

QUOTE(challenge @ Dec 9 2006, 02:16 PM)

 

DEFRA have published a summary of responses recieved to the Government's Consultation on a Marine Bill

 

A chargeable licensing scheme and bag limits

 

3.30 There was support both from the angling sector and other respondents for proposals in respect of “bag limits” and a chargeable licensing scheme for angling.

Can I ask a particularly stupid question(s).

 

1. Where did this thread start? Is there a background to this I have missed?

2. Who or what organisations were present at the meeting? By which I mean RSA or Commercial

3. What did the memberships of these organisations instruct their reps to say.

 

Many thanks and apologies for being behind the times.

 

 

The self-appointed reps only represent their own personal agendas, from what I can see and read.

[mr motorola]

What a complete load of rubbish. There's been some rubbish posted on this forum in the past mr motorola, but you are the new champion . Please tell me this was a very poor attempt at a joke and not a serious post.

No, it was and still is a very genuine post from me!!!!

 

What is wrong with it? Is it an un-truth?

 

OK i'm no expert on the matter , but are the experts???

How do they measure their results?

Computed results don't wash with me!!

 

As far as i've always known COD are a migratory fish ?

 

The trips i have have had with JB have all proved to be VERY successful , even the one being 140 mile off in a force 7!!!!!

 

BUT i'm no expert on the matter (who is)??

 

Can you or anyone else HONESTLY HAND ON HEART say that there is a crisis???

 

All i am going on is what i am seeing and doing at the sport

 

All i will say IS leave the sandeels alone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Trubshaw]

No, it was and still is a very genuine post from me!!!!

 

What is wrong with it? Is it an un-truth?

 

OK i'm no expert on the matter , but are the experts???

How do they measure their results?

Computed results don't wash with me!!

 

As far as i've always known COD are a migratory fish ?

 

The trips i have have had with JB have all proved to be VERY successful , even the one being 140 mile off in a force 7!!!!!

 

BUT i'm no expert on the matter (who is)??

 

Can you or anyone else HONESTLY HAND ON HEART say that there is a crisis???

 

All i am going on is what i am seeing and doing at the sport

 

All i will say IS leave the sandeels alone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I agree with the issue of the Sand-eels but with the exception of your expertise or lack of it as the case maybe, you will probably find it is much the same as everyone elses here. As far as your earlier statements about quantities are concerned, one swallow does not make a summer any more than 60 stones( i think that was the amount) of cod caught by RSA on a Boat Trip does not make a recovery of a breeding stock of a species.

 

Albeit 60 stones of nearly 100% selective catch, whilst maybe high in terms of quotas, doesn't make much difference compared to the by-catch destruction, spawning area environment destruction, natural habitat area destruction caused by sea bottom trawling for DB Prawns (Nephrops) and other bottom feeding species like sole etc.

[mr motorola]

I agree with the issue of the Sand-eels but with the exception of your expertise or lack of it as the case maybe, you will probably find it is much the same as everyone elses here. As far as your earlier statements about quantities are concerned, one swallow does not make a summer any more than 60 stones( i think that was the amount) of cod caught by RSA on a Boat Trip does not make a recovery of a breeding stock of a species.

 

Albeit 60 stones of nearly 100% selective catch, whilst maybe high in terms of quotas, doesn't make much difference compared to the by-catch destruction, spawning area environment destruction, natural habitat area destruction caused by sea bottom trawling for DB Prawns (Nephrops) and other bottom feeding species like sole etc.

Well ..............whatever.

 

Too many people with too much (information ) to hand, ie internet

 

Go out there and have a look for yourself, big cod and JB (TO NAME 2 ) are still doing very well through all of this so called crisis.

 

As for the trip you refer to , i think it was 80 stone of fillets, but what the hey.........on this particular kind of set up (chieftain) you very rarely (and i have never seen it ) get off the boat without more than your fair share of fish

 

 

Until i am proven otherwise ..............i will continue to carry on taking (what i see ) as a reasonable amount of fish back home.

 

Have you tried the fishing set up with JB??

 

Do you not think for 1 minute (without referring to your statistics) that due to global warming, the fish may have moved away?

 

The polish , kosovans , somalies........all did.

 

Maybe the cod are smarter than what humans think?

 

Stop believing everything you are told, and start believing everything that you KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Leon Roskilly]

Do you not think for 1 minute (without referring to your statistics) that due to global warming, the fish may have moved away?

 

That the cod are moving due to global warming is a misconception.

 

What in fact happens is that cod living in one place do badly, whereas in another place they do better, so there is may be a shift in the cod population from one area to another, but no fish will actually have moved.

 

It's just that those living to the north (and it has to be said those in the South-West), are having more successful spawnings, finding the right food at the right time etc, and therefore are thriving, whereas those in areas of the North Sea are finding conditions are deteriorating, the plankton they need not appearing when they need it, spawning conditions not ideal.

 

Yes cod are highly migratory, but that doesn't mean that they are totally nomadic.

 

Different populations of cod have their own range, own spawning areas, own feeding areas, often shared by other populations, so that two seperate populations may be found mixed together at certain times, but go their own seperate ways back to their 'home' ground at other times.

 

So, there may be a lot of cod in the sea somewhere, but if an area becomes depleted, it won't necessarily mean that cod from an area where there is still plenty will move in and re-populate.

 

If the cod population just off Whitby were to collapse, then even if all fishing in the area was stopped, cod from Norway (say) wouldn't spread there eventually.

 

Some of these sub-populations are very small, maybe confined to just one bay (as in Newfoundland where there is a bay stuffed full of cod that refuses to move out and populate the surrounding areas where cod has become very scarce).

 

One of the problems has been that when cod of various sub populations do mix together, the cod population there has been deemed to be healthy, even though one of those cod sub-populations may be in trouble.

 

Because the 'general' stock itself is healthy, the 'take' allowed is fairly generous. But if it is taken early, and the first sub-population to arrive on that ground is the one at risk, it's goodbye for cod in the area that is that sub-populations home range, even though the general population on that fishing ground is hardly effected.

 

The realisation that the general stock consists of sub-populations of variable health has only recently been realised, and it makes management a nightmare (could you imagine keeping the boats off an area stuffed with cod, because it contains a sub-population at risk, even though 90% of the population there is very healthy!).

 

So, as people fishing some areas find cod getting very scarce, others will not have a problem, even find that things are beginning to improve.

 

And they will disagree about the health of cod stocks, according to their experience of the sub-population available to them.

 

(During the 'gadoid explosion' when all sub-populations were booming, the home grounds simply couldn't support the number of cod, so many were forced out into new areas to forage, and cod were found on grounds where they were relatively scarce or unknown before. But once populations returned to lesser concentrations, the populations retreated back to their traditional home ranges, and disappeared again from the temporarily populated areas).

Edited December 10, 2006 by Leon Roskilly

[Jim Roper]

An examination of fish landings in the post war era will reveal that

this is not the first time cod stocks have been very low. But this is the first time this

phenomenon has been attributed to fishermen. The marine ecosystem is infinitely more

complex than current fish modelling scenarios can accommodate. The range of assumptions inherent in current fish population assessments is so great than to call it a science contradicts the definition of science.......................

 

There is, however, considerable anecdotal evidence that catch rates have actually increased thereby

rendering invalid the proposition that the TACs have had to be reduced...............................

 

There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that the failure of cod recruitment not only in the North Sea but on the Grand Banks has more to do with environmental factors than overfishing..................

 

And it is not only the marine environment that affects the successful regeneration of a

stock. Man is not the only predator of fish. It can be no coincidence that the areas in

which cod regeneration has gone into decline are also the areas that have seen the most

rapid growth in seal populations. With the seal population on the eastern Canadian

seaboard now standing at an estimated 7 million it is not surprising that cod stocks have

not recovered after an effective ban on cod fishing for the past 10 years. In the North

Sea there is no serious scientific dissention to the fact that the resident seal population

now consumes more fish per annum than the fishing industry catches. But the

prognosis remains the same – leave the seals and stop the fishermen.........................

 

Read it all here:

http://www.royalsoced.org.uk/enquiries/sco...dence/SFPO1.pdf

 

 

It makes more sense for cyclists to be insured against third party claims!

Edited December 10, 2006 by Jim Roper

[Leon Roskilly]

The rapid growth of the seal population that accompanies the decline of cod probably has much to do with the removal of a competing predatory species.

 

What the plentiful big cod used to eat is now available for the seals, which will naturally expand their numbers.

[Jim Roper]

This is a view/political input from the Scottish Fishermen's Organisation Limited. No surprises there. We have heard all this before but seen very little scientific evidence to back up the claims.

 

What scientific evidence is there to show that making anglers pay a license will increase fish stocks?

[Jim Roper]

The rapid growth of the seal population that accompanies the decline of cod probably has much to do with the removal of a competing predatory species.

 

What the plentiful big cod used to eat is now available for the seals, which will naturally expand their numbers.

 

Chickens and eggs come to mind!

 

The use of the word 'probably', above, suggests that this is a non-scientific assumption.

[seaside]

An examination of fish landings in the post war era will reveal that

this is not the first time cod stocks have been very low. But this is the first time this

phenomenon has been attributed to fishermen. The marine ecosystem is infinitely more

complex than current fish modelling scenarios can accommodate. The range of assumptions inherent in current fish population assessments is so great than to call it a science contradicts the definition of science....................... snip for brevity .................t is not surprising that cod stocks have

not recovered after an effective ban on cod fishing for the past 10 years. In the North

Sea there is no serious scientific dissention to the fact that the resident seal population

now consumes more fish per annum than the fishing industry catches. But the

prognosis remains the same – leave the seals and stop the fishermen.........................

 

Read it all here:

http://www.royalsoced.org.uk/enquiries/sco...dence/SFPO1.pdf

It makes more sense for cyclists to be insured against third party claims!

 

As FF says, one could hardly call that an unbiased view as it was the evidence given by Scottish Fishermen's Organisation Limited to the Royal Society's Inquiry into the future of the Scottish fishing industry.

 

The Societys' summary report is at http://www.royalsoced.org.uk/enquiries/sco...ing_summary.pdf, or for the full report http://www.royalsoced.org.uk/enquiries/sco...ng_industry.pdf

 

Quoting out of context, or without complete attribution brings nothing to the table, it only increases the distrust in the motives of those doing it.