If you think bag limits are just for Bass...............

[Cornishman]

Hello again. Unfortunatlely weather has blown us in and is'nt looking very good for the week.

I can't see what arguments you have against a bag limit. One minute your all calling for an increase in MLS of bass to produce a larger stock and increase the average size but when a little conservation is called for on your part there's uproar.

If your estimate of 1-2 million anglers is correct then these are some estimates for the total weight of fish caught by anglers . I'll go on the basis of 1 million,makes calculating so much easier.

1 m anglers catch 1 bass per year and take home= 1000000kgs =1000tons = more than the UK bass landings!.

" " " " 1 mullet per year = 1000000kgs =1000tons puts Sennen haul into perpective.

I realise all anglers dont catch bass but the as you can see it adds up pretty quickly.

I think its graet that angling provides enjoyment for so many and jobs for people but surely you have to give a little back aswell.

[steve good]

There are better ways to clamp down on a relative few unlicensed sellers of fish than restricting and criminalising hundreds of thousands of Recreational Sea Anglers.

 

(Or would you be prepared to accept an 8pm curfew to cut down on the amount of anti-social behaviour; only one shopper allowed in any shop at any one time as a measure to combat shoplifting, even in Tescos; the banning of private motoring to stop the death and injuries caused by the few who ignore speed laws etc., or any other draconian measures that could be dreamed up to restrict the vast majority because of the actions of a few?)

 

Once the principle is accepted, a 'generous' bag limit of (say) 6 bass per angler per day, could easily become just one; and cod, plaice, mackerel etc could all follow suite.

 

Catch and Release is currently practised by many anglers, but when bag limits are introduced it's likely to become the norm that most anglers feel that they must take full advantage of their right to their bag limit, or lose it. Then when they have 6 bass and catch a bigger one, the smallest is discarded.

 

So the measure is likely to increase overall mortality rather than reduce it.

 

Bag limits should only be applied to anglers as part of a necessary conservation measure that caps the number of fish taken by everyone, and applied proportionately, rather than as a measure that reserves fish for others, protects the back-pocket trade of licensed fishermen, or is simply designed with the idea of making enforcement easier (though where the resources to enforce bag limits on anglers is going to come from heavens knows!)

 

Hi Leon

 

What you are saying is that anglers are above conservation measures, and defra have realised that 400,000 anglers main target fish are bass and cod and collectively you all catch alot of fish.

 

Defra by increasing the bass mls on the anglers request need to apply conservation measures to anglers so as to justify the mls to commercials, you cannot have your cake and eat it

 

steve

[roryh]

Hello again. Unfortunatlely weather has blown us in and is'nt looking very good for the week.

I can't see what arguments you have against a bag limit. One minute your all calling for an increase in MLS of bass to produce a larger stock and increase the average size but when a little conservation is called for on your part there's uproar.

If your estimate of 1-2 million anglers is correct then these are some estimates for the total weight of fish caught by anglers . I'll go on the basis of 1 million,makes calculating so much easier.

1 m anglers catch 1 bass per year and take home= 1000000kgs =1000tons = more than the UK bass landings!.

" " " " 1 mullet per year = 1000000kgs =1000tons puts Sennen haul into perpective.

I realise all anglers dont catch bass but the as you can see it adds up pretty quickly.

I think its graet that angling provides enjoyment for so many and jobs for people but surely you have to give a little back aswell.

Although i can see from your point of view arguing for greater MLS while refusing bag limits seems contradictory, you have to appreciate that if - for example the amount of anglers who actually target Bass (or even catch one as a bonus) for argument sake 500,000 anglers taking one per year as per your figures is 500 tonnes, now introduce a bag limit and anglers start to take the full limit (say 7 as a halfway betwen the suggestions i've seen in posts) so the limit doesn't get reduced and as some people have to take all they are allowed without even realising anything about bag limits/conservation well theres 3500 tonnes.

MLS is supposed to give fish a chance to grow to breeding size, or that was the idea originally, while bag limits promote a greater take rate.

[Leon Roskilly]

Hi Leon

 

What you are saying is that anglers are above conservation measures

 

 

Hi Steve,

 

Read it again, carefully this time.

 

 

Leon

[steve good]

Hi Steve

No Steve, you've got it wrong. Anglers aren't the ones who have caused the problems, and therefore they aren't the ones who should be penalised or restricted. It's like saying all drink drivers drive cars, so we'll ban all drivers to solve the problem. Would you be happy with a driving ban because the police couldn't catch the drink drivers?

 

The easiest and best solution is to get rid of all nets from inshore waters.

 

Bag limits for bass won't affect me that much because I don't take that many bass home to eat, I took three or four last year, but it's just plain wrong to penalise innocent people for the actions of others. And to impose restrictions on anglers while commercial fishermen continue to take as many bass as they want is a nonsense, it's dicriminatory and I doubt whether it's legal.

 

Hi Steve

 

Commercials have a legal right to fish with nets they have a licence that gives them that right, it is wrong for you anglers to blame commercials for your problems, we fish in accordance to management policy,

 

Maybe if you get yourselfs a licence and quota then you may have more of a right to demand the things that you are DEMANDING at to moment.

 

It seems to me that you all anglers just want,want want and take,take,take without giving anything back, like having conservation measures placed on you

 

steve

[Leon Roskilly]

Hi Steve

 

Commercials have a legal right to fish with nets they have a licence that gives them that right, it is wrong for you anglers to blame commercials for your problems, we fish in accordance to management policy,

 

Maybe if you get yourselfs a licence and quota then you may have more of a right to demand the things that you are DEMANDING at to moment.

 

It seems to me that you all anglers just want,want want and take,take,take without giving anything back, like having conservation measures placed on you

 

steve

 

Fishermen had a right to take fish.

 

Anglers had a right to take fish.

 

The government gave fishermen a licence for free.

 

If having a licence gives one man more right than another to take fish, why weren't anglers also given a licence for free?

 

The government acts as the guardian of the resources for the people to whom they truly belong, all the people of this country, not just one group.

 

Fishermen don't pay a penny into the public purse either for access to the stocks which they fish for profit, nor towards the cost of the administration, science and management needed to maintain the UK's fish stocks.

 

If an angling licence is introduced, then anglers will be the only people paying for the privilege of accessing the nation's fish stocks, and towards their management.

 

Who will have the most right to the stocks then?

 

 

 

There isn't a hint of a conservation objective in the current proposals for a bag limit for anglers.

 

Unlike the proposals within the BMP that called for a cap on total effort, including bag limits on anglers.

 

 

(Actually the licence gives the right to use a powered boat to take fish, the right to fish remains unfettered, as a rod licence would give the right to use a rod. The ancient legal right to fish, backed up by Magna Carta has nothing to do with the licensing of the equipment being used, whether that be a fishing vessel or a rod - that is fundamental).

Edited February 11, 2007 by Leon Roskilly

[Leon Roskilly]

It is wrong for you anglers to blame commercials for your problems, we fish in accordance to management policy

 

That smacks of the same kind of defence that perpetuators of excess have used before.

 

'It wasn't me, I was ordered to'

 

Only in this case it's

 

'It wasn't me, I was allowed to'

 

 

Hand on heart Steve, have you never thought 'We shouldn't be doing this'

 

then

 

'If I don't someone else will'?

 

 

You can't blame the system if you are a willing part of that system.

 

Even less so if you have profited from it and been aware that it is wrong.

 

 

 

And whenever there has been a proposal to tighten up the management, to protect vulnerable stocks, who has shouted loudest to have the proposals thrown out or watered down until they are all but useless?

 

The Scientists?

 

The Managers?

 

or

 

The Fishermen?

 

(Yes there have been instances where conservation initiatives have come from the catching sector, but overall the record of resisting any conservation measures that might hit profits has not left the catching sector to be seen in a good light by the public, or anyone who is concerned for the future of our marine resources)

 

See also: http://www.sacn.org.uk/Articles/The_Public...ht_to_Fish.html

Edited February 11, 2007 by Leon Roskilly

[Steve Coppolo]

 

It seems to me that you all anglers just want,want want and take,take,take without giving anything back, like having conservation measures placed on you

 

Ha ha ha, you're a funny guy Steve

Edited February 11, 2007 by Steve Coppolo

[steve good]

Fishermen had a right to take fish.

 

Anglers had a right to take fish.

 

The government gave fishermen a licence for free.

 

If having a licence gives one man more right than another to take fish, why weren't anglers also given a licence for free?

 

The government acts as the guardian of the resources for the people to whom they truly belong, all the people of this country, not just one group.

 

Fishermen don't pay a penny into the public purse either for access to the stocks which they fish for profit, nor towards the cost of the administration, science and management needed to maintain the UK's fish stocks.

 

If an angling licence is introduced, then anglers will be the only people paying for the privilege of accessing the nation's fish stocks, and towards their management.

 

Who will have the most right to the stocks then?

There isn't a hint of a conservation objective in the current proposals for a bag limit for anglers.

 

Unlike the proposals within the BMP that called for a cap on total effort, including bag limits on anglers.

(Actually the licence gives the right to use a powered boat to take fish, the right to fish remains unfettered, as a rod licence would give the right to use a rod. The ancient legal right to fish, backed up by Magna Carta has nothing to do with the licensing of the equipment being used, whether that be a fishing vessel or a rod - that is fundamental).

 

 

Hi Leon

 

quote/ The government gave fishermen a licence for free.

 

As far as I am concerned they can give anglers a free licence

 

quote / If having a licence gives one man more right than another to take fish

 

You missed the point, the licence gives the legal right to use nets and catch fish

 

quote / The government acts as the guardian

 

Wrong the EU have full control of our waters the goverment therefore are not the guarians of our resource.

 

quote/ Fishermen don't pay a penny into the public purse either for access to the stocks which they fish for profit, nor towards the cost of the administration, science and management needed to maintain the UK's fish stocks.

 

Anglers do not either

 

quote/ Fishermen don't pay a penny into the public purse either for access to the stocks which they fish for profit, nor towards the cost of the administration, science and management needed to maintain the UK's fish stocks.

 

You are assuming that you may have to pay

 

quote/ The ancient legal right to fish, backed up by Magna Carta has nothing to do with the licensing of the equipment being used, whether that be a fishing vessel or a rod - that is fundamental

 

The magna carta is not worth the paper it is written on, joining the EU made that so. How come all the several and regulating orders were passed through parliament they go completely against what the principles of the magna carta stand for.

 

steve

[Leon Roskilly]

Hi Leon

 

You missed the point, the licence gives the legal right to use nets and catch fish

 

 

No, that's the point you have missed Steve.

 

There is a right to catch fish with or without a licence.

 

 

 

If you want to catch fish for sale from a powered boat, then you need a licence to use the boat for fishing.

 

If you want to use a fyke net to catch eels you need to licence the fyke net.

 

If you want to use a rod to catch freshwater fish, then you need a freshwater rod licence.

 

It is the use of the equipment that is licensed, not the act of fishing.

 

 

 

If I'm not using a powered vessel (or an unpowered vessel greater than 10 metres), or if I'm fishing off the beach, I can catch as much as I wish using nets or rod and line, and sell the catch, without worrying about quota, and without the need for a licence (I might not even have to worry about size-limits!)

 

If I'm using a powered vessel, I can catch as much fish as I like, and do what I like with it, so long as I don't sell it.

Edited February 11, 2007 by Leon Roskilly