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

[steve good]

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

 

Hi Leon

 

I do my job the same as what you anglers do, I abide by the laws that govern my job I see nothing wrong in what I do, there are plenty of fish around it is only the anglers that say theres not, You anglers are only trying to trash commercials for your own selfish greed

 

steve

[Steve Coppolo]

 

there are plenty of fish around it is only the anglers that say theres not,

 

 

[Leon Roskilly]

Hi Leon

 

I do my job the same as what you anglers do, I abide by the laws that govern my job I see nothing wrong in what I do, there are plenty of fish around it is only the anglers that say theres not, You anglers are only trying to trash commercials for your own selfish greed

 

steve

 

 

Believe it or not, I want to see a sustainable and profitable catching sector, able to supply the needs of the population for fish.

 

If the stocks were properly managed, they would be able to produce a yield greater than the current size of the diminished stocks we have been left with.

 

But there has to be a realisation that you cannot take everything there is to take, that far more fish have to be left in the sea to produce the excess that we can sustainably remove.

 

Think of it as capital in the bank, producing a good income.

 

If you only take so much, you can take a reasonable amount and the capital actually increases.

 

If you take a bit more, then the capital stays the same, but you may have to use some of that capital for unexpected things.

 

Once you start taking out more than the interest, the capital starts going down, the interest gets less each year, and if you want to get back to where you once were, you have to do some serious belt-tightening.

 

I've no desire to trash the catching sector, not at all.

 

I really want to see plenty of fish, and a healthy marine ecosystem that will produce plenty for anglers and fishermen not just for the next few years, but for generations to come, with those working in the catching sector secure in the knowledge that there will be fish for them and for others long after they have left the scene.

 

And I want my grandchildren to know the kind of fishing that was available to me when I was a good few years younger.

[roryh]

Hi Leon

 

I do my job the same as what you anglers do, I abide by the laws that govern my job I see nothing wrong in what I do, there are plenty of fish around it is only the anglers that say theres not, You anglers are only trying to trash commercials for your own selfish greed

 

steve

 

Aaah c'mon a lot of that goes on from both sides theres more to this debate than two groups sitting slagging each other off, no matter what the subject this is how it always seems to degenerate.

 

I think, in fact i am sure that properly managed and sustainable fisheries would bnefit us all in the long term, the only point to debate is in which way we go about achieving this.

 

For both groups to start off on the defensive just leads to mud slinging and the good poiints which are made get ignored.

 

I find the comment about trashing commercials for selfish greed to be absolute rubbish from my point of view, if i am being selfish and greedy by wanting to be able to take a reasonably sized fish or two today then go back and catch the same tomorrow then maybe in a fortnight take a few more for the table (hardly 28 tonnes) thereby feeding my mrs and kids on fresh wholesome food then so be it.

 

By the same note i see no problem with the guy who catches the oft quoted 28tonnes (as long as it is sustainable fish) he is just providing the service of fishing for those who cant (or cant be arsed) catching their own.

 

Yes there are some greedy, immoral people on both sides of the debate and they are the only ones who win when the adult talk stops and the teddies get thrown out of prams.

Edited February 11, 2007 by roryh

[Cornishman]

Which do condone Leon?

Catching as much as you like from a powered , licenced boat under quota restrictions whilst creating several shorebased jobs per 1 fisherman all contributing to the govenments pocket, which some where along the line filters through to pay for the MFA et al. or

 

Catching as much as you like from a powered ,unlicenced boat .

 

Are you for or against bag limits?. Any reasons?.

[steve good]

Believe it or not, I want to see a sustainable and profitable catching sector, able to supply the needs of the population for fish.

 

If the stocks were properly managed, they would be able to produce a yield greater than the current size of the diminished stocks we have been left with.

 

But there has to be a realisation that you cannot take everything there is to take, that far more fish have to be left in the sea to produce the excess that we can sustainably remove.

 

Think of it as capital in the bank, producing a good income.

 

If you only take so much, you can take a reasonable amount and the capital actually increases.

 

If you take a bit more, then the capital stays the same, but you may have to use some of that capital for unexpected things.

 

Once you start taking out more than the interest, the capital starts going down, the interest gets less each year, and if you want to get back to where you once were, you have to do some serious belt-tightening.

 

I've no desire to trash the catching sector, not at all.

 

I really want to see plenty of fish, and a healthy marine ecosystem that will produce plenty for anglers and fishermen not just for the next few years, but for generations to come, with those working in the catching sector secure in the knowledge that there will be fish for them and for others long after they have left the scene.

 

Hi Leon

 

Your tunnel vision has blinded you to see how much fish there really is, I fish for bass with rod and line and catch lots of bass and large at that.

 

steve

 

And I want my grandchildren to know the kind of fishing that was available to me when I was a good few years younger.

[Leon Roskilly]

Which do condone Leon?

Catching as much as you like from a powered , licenced boat under quota restrictions whilst creating several shorebased jobs per 1 fisherman all contributing to the govenments pocket, which some where along the line filters through to pay for the MFA et al. or

 

Catching as much as you like from a powered ,unlicenced boat .

 

I don't condone the taking out of the stock more fish than the stock needs to maintain a healthy and robust population, however it is caught and whomsover it might benefit in the short term.

 

Are you for or against bag limits?. Any reasons?.

 

Bag limits have their place in the management of a number of successful Recreational Sea Fisheries, but only as part of a package that proportionately limits the removal of fish by all stakeholders.

 

Personally I would support the impsition of angling bag limits withim an overall management plan as suggested in the Bass Management Plan.

 

But bag limits that take away the rights of anglers, with no conservation benefit.

 

Simply to reserve fish for the catching sector, the back-pocket trade of licensed fishermen.

 

And as a draconian measure imposed on hundreds of thousands of anglers because existing measures to prevent abuse by a few unlicensed commercial fishermen are not being properly enforced, simply do not warrant the support of anyone, other than the vindictive.

 

The current proposals offer no conservation measures whatsoever, and are likely to lead to increased mortality as anglers compete to catch their 'bag'.

[barry luxton]

Hi Leon

 

 

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

Have i missed something, i thought the new mls applied to everyone to try and keep control of the bass stocks, welsh assembly excepted, those t....pots just pub talk defra into trying to issue new bylaws that have as much chance of success as our mr bradshaw.

He might decide to raise it to a more practical size to give the stock a chance to breed before getting eaten. I would like to see the average size of bass caught to be two plate fulls not one, think of the value to commercial that would be. That would be a real measure and i would vote for it.

Edited February 11, 2007 by barry luxton

[Leon Roskilly]

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

 

But anglers didn't ask for a useless increase of just 4 cm.

 

We want a good population of bass in the 5 - 8lb bracket.

 

And to achieve that an mls of 55cm.

 

(The Prime Minister's Strategy Unit advised that the Government should look at making bass a wholly recreational species, as they were in the 1980s before the commercials moved in on the stock, but we felt that measures that improved the stock for the benefit of all was the way to go)

 

Then another compromise, an mls down to 45cm (around 2lb) with the aim of ensuring that all bass will have spawned before being taken, and which had overwhelming support from the vast majority of respondants to the consultation.

 

But thanks to commercial pressure, the Government bottled it and increased the mls by a meaningless 4cm.

 

Look at a ruler, do you really think anyone will notice that the baby bass they are catching are 4cm bigger?

 

And you might as well kill the fish at 36cm as 40cm, they still won't have spawned, so what's the point?

 

The Government have fallen far short of what anglers were asking for, and have delivered nothing of any appreciable benefit.

 

And for that you really believe that we should happily accept unjust bag limits with no conservation benefits?

Edited February 11, 2007 by Leon Roskilly

[barry luxton]

Look at a ruler, do you really think anyone will notice that the baby bass they are catching are 4cm bigger?

 

And you might as well kill the fish at 36cm as 40cm, they still won't have spawned, so what's the point?

 

The Government have fallen far short of what anglers were asking for, and have delivered nothing of any appreciable benefit.

 

Thanks for putting it more possher than me Leon, CHILD MOLESTING I CALL IT.

 

 

ps, is it the big hotel just as your getting into averly?