A Recreational Sea Angling Strategy

[Leon Roskilly]

Hi Leon

 

All I have seen on this forum is anglers blaming commercials because anglers cannot catch fish, NOW YOU SAY:-

 

QUOTE// Now our argument is that all the current management regime has done is to reduce both the number and quality of fish available to the majority of anglers,

 

So are you now blaming the management policies that commercials have to work in accordance with.

 

steve

 

It's the whole system that is at fault.

 

Within a system that isn't working, it's common for the catchers to blame the managers and scientists, the scientists to blame the catchers, the enforcers to blame the management and politicans, and the managers to say that it's the politicians, pressured by the catchers that tie their hands and make the system difficult to manage.

 

And for the catchers to say, OK it's us that have caught the fish, but we have only done what we are legally allowed to do.

 

Or in the case of the Dee, illegally but only what the enforcers have turned a blind eye to.

 

Or in the case of roker, we now know that the regulations say we shouldn't land more than 25% as bycatch only, but the MFA have given us the wink that they will not take action during the unoficial 'education' period, until the end of March (when we move onto sole anyway) so we'll continue to grab what we can while we can.

 

Or ..................

 

But for people outside the system, they see that there are a lot of problems with the system as a whole, and that some are taking advantage of the problems to increase their opportunity for profit anyway they can.

 

Fishermen might very well claim that they are only doing what they are legally allowed to do and that it's all the fault of everyone else when problems arise.

 

But there's no escaping the fact that they are the ones often fighting against proposals that will fix some of the problems, rejecting further restrictions for conservation purposes, arguing against scientific advice.

 

And there is no escaping the fact that they are the part of the system that removes the fish from the sea with profit as the only motive.

 

And now there are consequences, and the wide world has woken to the fact that fishing is causing problems, and a growing political demand that something has to be done.

 

And if 'fishing' was able to get it's head out of the sand, it would realise that it needs to stop trying so hard to make enemies.

 

Particularly enemies of those who could be powerful allies.

 

And realise that in fighting to keep a tight grip of everything, it is in danger of losing most of it.

 

Whereas conceeding a little, and demonstrating a willingness to share and to work with others for mutual benfits, it could shape a very different future than the one that is developing now.

[steve good]

It's the whole system that is at fault.

 

Within a system that isn't working, it's common for the catchers to blame the managers and scientists, the scientists to blame the catchers, the enforcers to blame the management and politicans, and the managers to say that it's the politicians, pressured by the catchers that tie their hands and make the system difficult to manage.

 

And for the catchers to say, OK it's us that have caught the fish, but we have only done what we are legally allowed to do.

 

Or in the case of the Dee, illegally but only what the enforcers have turned a blind eye to.

 

Or in the case of roker, we now know that the regulations say we shouldn't land more than 25% as bycatch only, but the MFA have given us the wink that they will not take action during the unoficial 'education' period, until the end of March (when we move onto sole anyway) so we'll continue to grab what we can while we can.

 

Or ..................

 

But for people outside the system, they see that there are a lot of problems with the system as a whole, and that some are taking advantage of the problems to increase their opportunity for profit anyway they can.

 

Fishermen might very well claim that they are only doing what they are legally allowed to do and that it's all the fault of everyone else when problems arise.

 

But there's no escaping the fact that they are the ones often fighting against proposals that will fix some of the problems, rejecting further restrictions for conservation purposes, arguing against scientific advice.

 

And there is no escaping the fact that they are the part of the system that removes the fish from the sea with profit as the only motive.

 

And now there are consequences, and the wide world has woken to the fact that fishing is causing problems, and a growing political demand that something has to be done.

 

And if 'fishing' was able to get it's head out of the sand, it would realise that it needs to stop trying so hard to make enemies.

 

Particularly enemies of those who could be powerful allies.

 

And realise that in fighting to keep a tight grip of everything, it is in danger of losing most of it.

 

Whereas conceeding a little, and demonstrating a willingness to share and to work with others for mutual benfits, it could shape a very different future than the one that is developing now.

 

Commercial fishermen work as in accordance with management policy and law, unless any changes are applicible to all EU member states then I see no reason to bring about measures that will only be applied to English vessels which will disadvantage them, to the gain of other EU member states.

QUOTE/ But there's no escaping the fact that they are the ones often fighting against proposals that will fix some of the problems, rejecting further restrictions for conservation purposes, arguing against scientific advice.

QUOTE/ Whereas conceeding a little, and demonstrating a willingness to share and to work with others for mutual benfits, it could shape a very different future than the one that is developing now.

 

With regard to the above 2 quotes the anglers combined with DEFRA have brought about the 40cm mls for bass which will not have any effect other than to reduce the biomass of bass stocks and to the gain of other EU member states. Our scientists say that the bass were sustainably before the increase in mls. I also have a letter from Joe Borg Fisheries Commissioner that states that he cannot increase the mls for bass because ICES say that the bass fishery is being fished at sustainable levels, it is these reasons that commercial fishermen have resisted the increase.

 

steve

[Leon Roskilly]

Commercial fishermen work as in accordance with management policy and law, unless any changes are applicible to all EU member states then I see no reason to bring about measures that will only be applied to English vessels which will disadvantage them, to the gain of other EU member states.

QUOTE/ But there's no escaping the fact that they are the ones often fighting against proposals that will fix some of the problems, rejecting further restrictions for conservation purposes, arguing against scientific advice.

QUOTE/ Whereas conceeding a little, and demonstrating a willingness to share and to work with others for mutual benfits, it could shape a very different future than the one that is developing now.

 

With regard to the above 2 quotes the anglers combined with DEFRA have brought about the 40cm mls for bass which will not have any effect other than to reduce the biomass of bass stocks and to the gain of other EU member states. Our scientists say that the bass were sustainably before the increase in mls. I also have a letter from Joe Borg Fisheries Commissioner that states that he cannot increase the mls for bass because ICES say that the bass fishery is being fished at sustainable levels, it is these reasons that commercial fishermen have resisted the increase.

 

steve

 

 

If we are moving onto talking about bass, the request to increase the mls wasn't all about sustainability (although it would have resulted in a more robust and valuable stock).

 

Bass can live over 25 years, grow to over 20lbs (and spawn up to around 15 times).

 

But when they are fished to an mls of just 36cm, that radically changes the size and age structure to be found within the stock, eliminating many of the fish of a size that would delight anglers.

 

And that has impacts on businesses and livelihoods within the sector that services recreational sea anglers, as well as reducing participation by denying anglers access to the kind of fish they would like to be catching.

 

It wasn't anglers who asked for an increase to just 40cm.

 

At 40cm, anglers looking for a better stamp of fish wouldn't really notice any difference, and a fish killed 2 cm short of first spawning might as well be killed at 20cm short for all the good it will do.

 

No, anglers were looking for a meaningful increase to 45cm, doubling the size of fish that can legally be taken from 1lb to just over 2lb, and ensuring every female will have spawned at least once, leading to a more robust and a more valuable stock of bass for everyone's benefit, and to naturally boost the numbers of 5-8lb fish that anglers would really appreciate catching.

 

It was the lobbying from the commercial sector that limited the increase to a meaningless 4cm, rather than to see anglers see any benefit.

 

It was commercial fishermen who bought about an increase to just 40cm with probably no benefit of note to anyone.

 

In another determined and selfish effort it seems to make enemies rather than friends.

Edited March 3, 2007 by Leon Roskilly

[barry luxton]

If we are moving onto talking about bass, the request to increase the mls wasn't all about sustainability (although it would have resulted in a more robust and valuable stock).

 

Bass can live over 25 years, grow to over 20lbs (and spawn up to around 15 times).

 

But when they are fished to an mls of just 36cm, that radically changes the size and age structure to be found within the stock, eliminating many of the fish of a size that would delight anglers.

 

And that has impacts on businesses and livelihoods within the sector that services recreational sea anglers, as well as reducing participation by denying anglers access to the kind of fish they would like to be catching.

 

It wasn't anglers who asked for an increase to just 40cm.

 

At 40cm, anglers looking for a better stamp of fish wouldn't really notice any difference, and a fish killed 2 cm short of first spawning might as well be killed at 20cm short for all the good it will do.

 

No, anglers were looking for a meaningful increase to 45cm, doubling the size of fish that can legally be taken from 1lb to just over 2lb, and ensuring every female will have spawned at least once, leading to a more robust and a more valuable stock of bass for everyone's benefit, and to naturally boost the numbers of 5-8lb fish that anglers would really appreciate catching.

 

It was the lobbying from the commercial sector that limited the increase to a meaningless 4cm, rather than to see anglers see any benefit.

 

It was commercial fishermen who bought about an increase to just 40cm with probably no benefit of note to anyone.

 

In another determined and selfish effort it seems to make enemies rather than friends.

 

I don't doubt then it was commercial pressure that made wag decide not to have any increase. No doubt commercial are happy to see the public going home with dinner plate sized bass as opposed to a 5-8lb fish. Who is the looser long term, we all are. I still call it child molesting.

[steve good]

If we are moving onto talking about bass, the request to increase the mls wasn't all about sustainability (although it would have resulted in a more robust and valuable stock).

 

Bass can live over 25 years, grow to over 20lbs (and spawn up to around 15 times).

 

But when they are fished to an mls of just 36cm, that radically changes the size and age structure to be found within the stock, eliminating many of the fish of a size that would delight anglers.

 

And that has impacts on businesses and livelihoods within the sector that services recreational sea anglers, as well as reducing participation by denying anglers access to the kind of fish they would like to be catching.

 

It wasn't anglers who asked for an increase to just 40cm.

 

At 40cm, anglers looking for a better stamp of fish wouldn't really notice any difference, and a fish killed 2 cm short of first spawning might as well be killed at 20cm short for all the good it will do.

 

No, anglers were looking for a meaningful increase to 45cm, doubling the size of fish that can legally be taken from 1lb to just over 2lb, and ensuring every female will have spawned at least once, leading to a more robust and a more valuable stock of bass for everyone's benefit, and to naturally boost the numbers of 5-8lb fish that anglers would really appreciate catching.

 

It was the lobbying from the commercial sector that limited the increase to a meaningless 4cm, rather than to see anglers see any benefit.

 

It was commercial fishermen who bought about an increase to just 40cm with probably no benefit of note to anyone.

 

In another determined and selfish effort it seems to make enemies rather than friends.

 

 

Whether the mls is 40 or 45 cm it will not make any differance whatsoever unless it is an EU law

[barry luxton]

Whether the mls is 40 or 45 cm it will not make any differance whatsoever unless it is an EU law

For kick off's i know 1.5 mill anglers that would put them all back so that has to be a good thing for the bass. Bring it on i say.

[Leon Roskilly]

Whether the mls is 40 or 45 cm it will not make any differance whatsoever unless it is an EU law

 

If you look at the latest science Steve, it confirms that few bass tagged in UK coastal waters are subsequently being taken outside of 6 miles.

 

And anyway out in deeper water most bass taken are already over the new mls (at under 40cm nearly all bass stay in water shallower than 20 metres, principally in estuaries and shallow bays etc).

 

So nearly all of the benefit of the increase will accrue to both UK anglers and UK inshore commercial fishermen.

Edited March 3, 2007 by Leon Roskilly

[steve good]

If you look at the latest science Steve, it confirms that few bass tagged in UK coastal waters are subsequently being taken outside of 6 miles.

 

And anyway out in deeper water most bass taken are already over the new mls (at under 40cm nearly all bass stay in water shallower than 20 metres, principally in estuaries and shallow bays etc).

 

So nearly all of the benefit of the increase will accrue to both UK anglers and UK inshore commercial fishermen.

 

 

Hi Leon

 

QUOTE/ If you look at the latest science Steve, it confirms that few bass tagged in UK coastal waters are subsequently being taken outside of 6 miles

 

If ??????? thats the case, the science only supports what the rate of DISCARDS are going to be

 

steve

[Leon Roskilly]

Hi Leon

 

QUOTE/ If you look at the latest science Steve, it confirms that few bass tagged in UK coastal waters are subsequently being taken outside of 6 miles

 

If ??????? thats the case, the science only supports what the rate of DISCARDS are going to be

 

steve

 

 

No need for heavy discards Steve, trawlers can avoid trawling for bass in shallow water where a large proportion of bass are under 40cm.

 

Or if they are going for (say) sole, trawl at 2 to 3 knots to avoid the bass and yet still catch sole etc.

 

Netting, if set properly and using the correct mesh sizes, is very selective and can be fished to avoid taking bass below 40cm.

 

There will always be a few unavoidable discards, but fishermen fishing irresponsibly, and taking large hauls of undersized bass, will not only bring the ire of bad publicity down on the industry, but risk the introduction of further restrictive measures (no trawling areas, no netting areas, further measures to govern the ratio of headrope to net length and twine diameter etc).

 

But what's the point of catching undersized fish that have to be discarded, reducing the possibility of future better catches of those fish when they are both sizeable and of greater value?

 

Time can better be spent fishing in places and ways where the catch is mostly over 40cm, and skilled fishermen can surely manage that.

[Newt]

All I have seen on this forum is anglers blaming commercials because anglers cannot catch fish,

 

If that is all you have seen, you have the most selective vision I have ever heard of.

 

There are opinions blaming the fish shortages on global warming, RSA, Commercials, EU leadership, and a host of other things. Space aliens is about the only group that has not been blamed.

 

Then there are the not infrequent comments saying there is no problem.