marine white paper

[Leon Roskilly]

I think every one heard about that bass landing, again in the light of what is happening locally in the channel isles with regards to bag limits, it's like an own goal.

 

 

See Andy Marquis Letter in today's paper, with a response from the SFC

 

http://www.thisisguernsey.com/discus/messa...html?1175176480

 

(letters are reproduced as 'forum' entries - see you have had some published as well Barry )

[barry luxton]

See Andy Marquis Letter in today's paper, with a response from the SFC

 

http://www.thisisguernsey.com/discus/messa...html?1175176480

 

(letters are reproduced as 'forum' entries - see you have had some published as well Barry )

 

Only a few Leon, again i have just read the reply to Andy's excellant letter and at the bottom is the same old garbage, that bag limits are what we all need to stop illegal selling, it stinks in my mind if there is no real control on the recruitment fishing for these bass in any event. I can feel another guernsey letter coming on.

 

I have just re-read Jon Torode's letter and his last para does have inaccuracy in it regarding sfc control of rsa bass bag limits.

Edited March 29, 2007 by barry luxton

[FishingGuernsey]

A shame that the response from SFC does not really answer the questions. There is still no advance on the bag limit situation other than it has been referred to politicians who have no idea whatsoever.

 

I hope we see some commercial response to this but I very much doubt it will happen.

[wurzel]

A shame that the response from SFC does not really answer the questions. There is still no advance on the bag limit situation other than it has been referred to politicians who have no idea whatsoever.

 

I hope we see some commercial response to this but I very much doubt it will happen.

 

Hello fishingGuernsey

 

I'll comment as a commercial if I may, on bass fishing in general as I have never fished any where near Guernsey.

 

First on the whole commercials don't care much what anglers do, any suggestion of bag limits by commercials is only in retaliation to angler pressure on issues such as the BMP, banning gill nets and the golden mile, DEFRA of coarse will make a meal of it, I think anglers threw the first custard pie.

The only good point that I could foresee on bag limits are if they apply to hobby and unlicensed gill netters, but I think if that is a problem it is a separate issue all together.

 

I notice John Leballeur's ( of Bass Angler's Sportfishing Society) letter ''Call for inshore gill net ban'', this weeks fishing news, is becoming increasingly like the NGO's by using state of fear tactics to try and get his own misguided points across, by referring to the unregulated impenetrable maze of gill nets surrounding the British Isles endangering salmon and sea trout stocks, indiscriminate nature of gill nets, ridicules low price of netting and silly references to how they are rigged. In my experience has no baring on reality and does nothing but intensifying commercial hostility leading to more calls for restrictions on anglers.

 

 

 

 

As Andy Marquis states in his letter he knows nothing about trawling and refers to towing with his car, about the only accurate thing he said .

 

In reality I should imagine the trawlers new instantly that they had hit a large shoal and preceded to haul straight away. a haul of that size takes time to get aboard with the net laying along side it is not possible to lift in one go and has to be lifted in manageable bites, perhaps Challenge is better qualified to explain how this is done. It is not an every day occurrence and I imagine it made up for lots of days or weeks when it doesn't, the same has happened with me with drift nets, you can haul 5 fleets for hardly a fish then 1 with 20 box's in it , it's the way bass shoal in very tight shoals at times. I can't think of a way of regulating that side of fishing.

 

Hello Barry luxton

 

Quote

it stinks in my mind if there is no real control on the recruitment fishing for these bass in any event.

 

What about the nursery areas that in some cases include whole estuary systems?

 

All fisheries rely on recruitment no matter what size limit is in place.

[barry luxton]

Hello Barry luxton

 

Quote

it stinks in my mind if there is no real control on the recruitment fishing for these bass in any event.

 

What about the nursery areas that in some cases include whole estuary systems?

 

All fisheries rely on recruitment no matter what size limit is in place.

 

Hi Wurzel, you know what i am referring to. Bag limits for the rsa to prevent black selling, again it stinks from my point of view, all bonifide rsa will go the extra mile to protect improve the bass stock.

 

As with my previous posts, i don't have a problem with netting etc regarding the bass as it has more benifit regarding discard. I look at the commercial guys off portland with amasement, i wish i was half as good as them with the bass.I think it's unreasonable to continue trawling for them based on the discard that the nffo are stating that they are concerned with.

 

As you are aware Wurzel, a lot of the areas you mention would only hold baby bass in any event so in makes no sence for commercial fishing in these areas, so nothing has been given away. I agree that all fisheries rely on recruitment, this is why myself again is 'p' off that the mls has been deferd.

 

The first custard pie for me was when a certain chairman of a sfa accused rsa in a full blown press article of black fishing, selling, decimating his fish stock. Openly i have asked him to prove, substantiate his comments, to date ziltch, nothing, no reply. Untill that date i had no real opinion. It would be good if the case was either proved or dismissed. I feel more comfortable with Andy's post in the guernsey press, than the b.........d who started it all and to date remains openly silent.

Edited March 31, 2007 by barry luxton

[steve good]

Hi Wurzel, you know what i am referring to. Bag limits for the rsa to prevent black selling, again it stinks from my point of view, all bonifide rsa will go the extra mile to protect improve the bass stock.

 

As with my previous posts, i don't have a problem with netting etc regarding the bass as it has more benifit regarding discard. I think it's unreasonable to continue trawling for them based on the discard that the nffo are stating that they are concerned with.

 

As you are aware Wurzel, a lot of the areas you mention would only hold baby bass in any event so in makes no sence for commercial fishing in these areas, so nothing has been given away. I agree that all fisheries rely on recruitment, this is why myself again is 'p' off that the mls has been deferd.

 

Hi Barry

 

QUOTE/ I think it's unreasonable to continue trawling for them based on the discard that the nffo are stating that they are concerned with.

 

The NFFO made several points to DEFRA discards were one of them.

 

QUOTE/ As with my previous posts, i don't have a problem with netting etc regarding the bass as it has more benifit regarding discard.

 

The mortelity of bass escaping from set nets(discards) may well be higher than discards from trawlers over a yearly peroid.

 

Good management practice and decision making when increasing mls is to fully understand and take account of all variables that may undermine the increase in that mls,that may lead to collalpse of the fishery

 

Just 2 of these variables are by increasing the mms will lead to a more focused and directed fishery aimed at the breeding stock, there will be a large increase in the amount of set nets used and in turn the catches of breeding stock will increase thus depressing the landing prices. After a peroid of time the biomass of breeding stock will decrease and then the prices will increase, these are the laws of supply and demand

 

The question is will the increased landings of breeding stock lead to a decrease in recuitment. Dr Pawsons evidence states that " I assume that there will be little or no increase in fishing effort with set nets" that is just his own personal veiw.

 

The increase in volume of sets nets directed at the breeding stock will lead to increased levels of mortelity by escaping bass (discards).

 

Taking in to account that the other EU members states will still be catching and at increasing levels 36 cm and above, discards by UK trawlers and the disparity between the mls in Scotland,Wales and England there will not be more larger bass about in fact there will be less and if the mls is raised it may well collaplse the fishery

 

It is important that the right decision is reached for the sake of the bass fishery, what I see on this website is most anglers have tunnel vision, hell bent on getting an increase in the mls of bass at any cost. DEFRA have been lead down the path by this tunnel vision, perhaps Mr Bradshaw has seen the light by meeting the NFFO.

 

I am sure that both anglers and commercials do not want any harm to come to our bass fishery, with regard to the mls increase for bass one of us is wrong, so if any one wants to send this post to Dr Pawson, ICES or any other body that may have a good understanding of good fishery management then please feel free to do so

 

Anglers think that commercials are resisting the bass mls increase because of greed, thats not the case it is being resisted for the sake of the fishery itself, allowing for all the varibles it is the wrong decision for the fishery.

 

Both Dr Pawson and Mr Bradshaw say that the mls increase is not based on conservation it is to give anglers bigger bass and a better prices for commercials, on both counts they are WRONG and under EU law it is illegal.

 

regards steve

[barry luxton]

Hi Barry

 

QUOTE/ I think it's unreasonable to continue trawling for them based on the discard that the nffo are stating that they are concerned with.

 

The NFFO made several points to DEFRA discards were one of them.

 

QUOTE/ As with my previous posts, i don't have a problem with netting etc regarding the bass as it has more benifit regarding discard.

 

The mortelity of bass escaping from set nets(discards) may well be higher than discards from trawlers over a yearly peroid.

 

Good management practice and decision making when increasing mls is to fully understand and take account of all variables that may undermine the increase in that mls,that may lead to collalpse of the fishery

 

Just 2 of these variables are by increasing the mms will lead to a more focused and directed fishery aimed at the breeding stock, there will be a large increase in the amount of set nets used and in turn the catches of breeding stock will increase thus depressing the landing prices. After a peroid of time the biomass of breeding stock will decrease and then the prices will increase, these are the laws of supply and demand

 

The question is will the increased landings of breeding stock lead to a decrease in recuitment. Dr Pawsons evidence states that " I assume that there will be little or no increase in fishing effort with set nets" that is just his own personal veiw.

 

The increase in volume of sets nets directed at the breeding stock will lead to increased levels of mortelity by escaping bass (discards).

 

Taking in to account that the other EU members states will still be catching and at increasing levels 36 cm and above, discards by UK trawlers and the disparity between the mls in Scotland,Wales and England there will not be more larger bass about in fact there will be less and if the mls is raised it may well collaplse the fishery

 

It is important that the right decision is reached for the sake of the bass fishery, what I see on this website is most anglers have tunnel vision, hell bent on getting an increase in the mls of bass at any cost. DEFRA have been lead down the path by this tunnel vision, perhaps Mr Bradshaw has seen the light by meeting the NFFO.

 

I am sure that both anglers and commercials do not want any harm to come to our bass fishery, with regard to the mls increase for bass one of us is wrong, so if any one wants to send this post to Dr Pawson, ICES or any other body that may have a good understanding of good fishery management then please feel free to do so

 

Anglers think that commercials are resisting the bass mls increase because of greed, thats not the case it is being resisted for the sake of the fishery itself, allowing for all the varibles it is the wrong decision for the fishery.

 

Both Dr Pawson and Mr Bradshaw say that the mls increase is not based on conservation it is to give anglers bigger bass and a better prices for commercials, on both counts they are WRONG and under EU law it is illegal.

 

regards steve

 

Mornin Steve, i think this is where we go around and around. Discard between trawling and netting, o dear, Wurzel has stated previously that netting discard is minimal compared with trawling , who am i to believe, where does the truth lie. Does this mean i am to change my opinion? I don't have a problem changing if i knew who is closer to reality. However Stavy's post 67 on bradshaw bottles it topic, the download provided states that gill netting is highly selective? Sounds good to me.

 

The only way in which the uk bass fishery will collapse is due to the take. No commercial guy would intentinally collapse a fishery would they? As you have posted, intentionally target the breeding stock, surly not. Then closed season's spring to mind. From what you have posted it now appears that more regulation to protect the stock could be required. The mortality of the bass regarding netting, must lessen if the net size increase. Again this would mean a better class of fish landed. That in turn would take the pressure off the smaller sized fish, coming on surly. What do the wag assembly know compared with Bass to attempt to create disparity between them and the rest of the uk i wonder?

 

Nffo, after all of the time, money spent on the consultation period, evidance provided, it's a bit strange that defra has gone back on what it must have taken care to decide, so the 'argument ' put up by nffo and the hidden chairman of an angling club must be so compelling. I can't wait to see exactly what is is. Have you any idea?

 

Again i do not see why the nffo are spending so much effort on resisting what is considered improvement, value of the bass stock for all, based on the minimal amount of worth of the bass landings by commercial means anually. The value to the rsa anually, they require bigger fish, so yes they are asking for the mls to be raised. It has not been tried before so again based on the value of the rsa requirement it is worth a try, particulary based on the work that Bass provided. Or do we all look for other more stringent regulation to meet that resonable requirement. I am amazed that bradshaw would do something that is not inline with conservation, that is what all of the white paper is about, or is it all just a waste of space.

 

The disparity between the uk and the eu is for bradshaw to sort out, that is what we are paying his wages for. Obviously my concern is for the uk stock.

Edited March 31, 2007 by barry luxton

[barry luxton]

Barry, you should have learned by now that NFFO is only good at one thing, to oppose any improvement proposed. Sometimes their opposition becomes rather comic as when one NFFO officer doesn't know what another has said on behalf of the NFFO as this cod example shows:

 

http://fis.com/fis/worldnews/worldnews.asp...b=1&id=4389

 

Parliament hears case for retaining fisheries

 

UNITED KINGDOM

Tuesday, November 05, 2002

The UK Parliament was warned this week that the demersal fishing industry would be wiped out if the North Sea and related fishing grounds are closed.

(..)

Mr Morrison and National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations chief executive Barrie Deas said there was no chance of survival if boats were tied up for a year.

 

They said that the scientific proposals for complete closures would have "a catastrophic effect on fishing ports" and said that instead of a ban, existing measures like larger mesh sizes and more decommissioning of boats should be considered.

(..)

NFFO president Sam Lambourn told the committee that cod appeared to be improving in other areas such as the English Channel.

It was also said that a cod stock collapse would be less catastrophic than a complete closure.

But NFFO Assistant chief executive Doug Beveridge has another view on mls increases as stated in the NFFO NEWS a month before the above were said by Dias and Lambourn. NFFO NEWS September/October 2002 issue

http://www.nffo.org.uk/indexes/index22.html (page 4):

 

"MOVES to end the 110mm mesh size derogation in the North Sea would prove disastrous for the fishing fleet with an increase to 120mm bringing unacceptable losses of haddock and whiting.

The EC has stated its intention – by default - to end the derogation on 1 January 2003 and the NFFO is now pressing UK ministers to vigorously fend-off the proposal. Independent studies have shown that an increase in the mesh size would decrease the amount of whiting caught by between 48 and 80 per cent depending on size.

Losses of haddock would increase by around a quarter. These predicted catch reductions come against the background of the publication of a recent Seafish costs and earnings survey which highlighted the difficult economic conditions fishermen were currently experiencing.

Assistant chief executive Doug Beveridge says:

“Such losses would be unsustainable and we are actively engaged in lobbying both UK ministers and the EU to ensure the derogation is not scrapped.”

So there you have it the NFFO way of lobbying, opposing a cod closure arguing that an increase in the mls would be a better solution but at the same time they predict disaster if the mls is changed

 

Someone said the other week, have your cake and eat it, they want the bakery as well.Unfortunatly the bakery has only crumbs left to fight over.

Edited March 31, 2007 by barry luxton

[steve good]

Mornin Steve, i think this is where we go around and around. Discard between trawling and netting, o dear, Wurzel has stated previously that netting discard is minimal compared with trawling , who am i to believe, where does the truth lie. Does this mean i am to change my opinion? I don't have a problem changing if i knew who is closer to reality. However Stavy's post 67 on bradshaw bottles it topic, the download provided states that gill netting is highly selective? Sounds good to me.

 

The only way in which the uk bass fishery will collapse is due to the take. No commercial guy would intentinally collapse a fishery would they? As you have posted, intentionally target the breeding stock, surly not. Then closed season's spring to mind. From what you have posted it now appears that more regulation to protect the stock could be required. The mortality of the bass regarding netting, must lessen if the net size increase. Again this would mean a better class of fish landed. That in turn would take the pressure off the smaller sized fish, coming on surly. What do the wag assembly know compared with Bass to attempt to create disparity between them and the rest of the uk i wonder?

 

Nffo, after all of the time, money spent on the consultation period, evidance provided, it's a bit strange that defra has gone back on what it must have taken care to decide, so the 'argument ' put up by nffo and the hidden chairman of an angling club must be so compelling. I can't wait to see exactly what is is. Have you any idea?

 

Again i do not see why the nffo are spending so much effort on resisting what is considered improvement, value of the bass stock for all, based on the minimal amount of worth of the bass landings by commercial means anually. The value to the rsa anually, they require bigger fish, so yes they are asking for the mls to be raised. It has not been tried before so again based on the value of the rsa requirement it is worth a try, particulary based on the work that Bass provided. Or do we all look for other more stringent regulation to meet that resonable requirement. I am amazed that bradshaw would do something that is not inline with conservation, that is what all of the white paper is about, or is it all just a waste of space.

 

The disparity between the uk and the eu is for bradshaw to sort out, that is what we are paying his wages for. Obviously my concern is for the uk stock.

 

Hi Barry

 

OH DEAR, theres that tunnel vision I was talking about, did you not understand what I was saying.

 

I will answer your post and call it a day I think.

 

QUOTE/ Mornin Steve, i think this is where we go around and around. Discard between trawling and netting, o dear, Wurzel has stated previously that netting discard is minimal compared with trawling , who am i to believe, where does the truth lie. Does this mean i am to change my opinion? I don't have a problem changing if i knew who is closer to reality. However Stavy's post 67 on bradshaw bottles it topic, the download provided states that gill netting is highly selective? Sounds good to me.

 

The truth is, Wurzel is right in what he is saying hes talking about what discards he gets in his setnets when he brings them on to his boat. Where as I am talking about the mortelity of escaping fish (another form of discards) from the nets that are still in the water, whilst they are fishing (soak time).

 

Every mesh size will only gill retain and hold a certain range of fish sizes (selectivity), fish mortelity by escaping fish is caused by, when a fish that is just under the range that the mesh size will hold gets caught and then later escapes, then dies from injuries it received when caught in the net (discards). The same thing happens to larger fish that are above the mesh holding size. The more net that is worked the higher the (discard) rate of mortelity by escaping fish. It will affect all fish not just bass, and this is why I say that setnets subject to how much is used all around the country may have more discards than trawls only on the subject of the bass fishery

 

The mortelity of escaping fish (discards) is consistant and relitive to all mesh sizes. it does not lessen if the mesh size is increased it may or may not be less in number but it will be up in weight

 

QUOTE/ The only way in which the uk bass fishery will collapse is due to the take. No commercial guy would intentinally collapse a fishery would they? As you have posted, intentionally target the breeding stock, surly not. Then closed season's spring to mind. From what you have posted it now appears that more regulation to protect the stock could be required. The mortality of the bass regarding netting, must lessen if the net size increase. Again this would mean a better class of fish landed. That in turn would take the pressure off the smaller sized fish, coming on surly. What do the wag assembly know compared with Bass to attempt to create disparity between them and the rest of the uk i wonder?

 

If the mls and mms goes up then DEFRA will be forcing fishermen to concentrate their fishing effort on the breeding stock. QUOTE/ No commercial guy would intentinally collapse a fishery would they? As you have posted, intentionally target the breeding stock, surly not. no commercial fishermen would not do that but if thats the law they will have to.

 

At the moment commercial fishermen are fishing on the whole range of bass sizes, when the mls increases then there will be a direct, aimed bass fishery on the breeding stock, complete with the right sized mesh to catch the most of this breeding stock. It may as you say take the pressure off the smaller sized bass however so many years down the road will the breeding stock be able to produce much of the smaller stock.

 

The disparity between the mls in the UK may mean that 36 cm bass may in certain parts of England still be landed

 

QUOTE/ Nffo, after all of the time, money spent on the consultation period, evidance provided, it's a bit strange that defra has gone back on what it must have taken care to decide, so the 'argument ' put up by nffo and the hidden chairman of an angling club must be so compelling. I can't wait to see exactly what is is. Have you any idea?

 

Yes the consultation was a waste of money and had a predetermined outcome for a reason best known to DEFRA, I submitted a 11 page reply covering all the reasons as to why the mls should not be increased and I cannot believe the NFFO have found one that I missed it proves to me that DEFRA never read peoples replies

 

QUOTE/ Again i do not see why the nffo are spending so much effort on resisting what is considered improvement, value of the bass stock

 

It is only improvement value in bass stocks when you have tunnel vision, To accept the mls and mms and implement it regardless of cost, it will be one of the biggest blunders that DEFRA could make and for the sake of the bass fishery the NFFO have taken a laudable stance and Mr Bradshaw and DEFRA are acting responsable in there actons to look at the problems that may be created.

 

It was not done on grounds of conservation it was to give anglers more larger fish, DR Pawson, DEFRA, Joe Borg EU and ICES all have stated that the bass fishery is being fished sustainably

 

QUOTE/ The disparity between the uk and the eu is for bradshaw to sort out, that is what we are paying his wages for. Obviously my concern is for the uk stock

 

Mr Bradshaw cannot sort out anything to do with the disparity between the UK and the EU because of the above paragraph.

 

Your concern for the, as you say UK stock is not factual because it is European stock and I am afaid to say that Europeans have more say and entiltment to it, than what we in the UK have.

 

regards steve

[barry luxton]

Hi Barry

 

OH DEAR, theres that tunnel vision I was talking about, did you not understand what I was saying.

 

I will answer your post and call it a day I think.

 

QUOTE/ Mornin Steve, i think this is where we go around and around. Discard between trawling and netting, o dear, Wurzel has stated previously that netting discard is minimal compared with trawling , who am i to believe, where does the truth lie. Does this mean i am to change my opinion? I don't have a problem changing if i knew who is closer to reality. However Stavy's post 67 on bradshaw bottles it topic, the download provided states that gill netting is highly selective? Sounds good to me.

 

The truth is, Wurzel is right in what he is saying hes talking about what discards he gets in his setnets when he brings them on to his boat. Where as I am talking about the mortelity of escaping fish (another form of discards) from the nets that are still in the water, whilst they are fishing (soak time).

 

Every mesh size will only gill retain and hold a certain range of fish sizes (selectivity), fish mortelity by escaping fish is caused by, when a fish that is just under the range that the mesh size will hold gets caught and then later escapes, then dies from injuries it received when caught in the net (discards). The same thing happens to larger fish that are above the mesh holding size. The more net that is worked the higher the (discard) rate of mortelity by escaping fish. It will affect all fish not just bass, and this is why I say that setnets subject to how much is used all around the country may have more discards than trawls only on the subject of the bass fishery

 

The mortelity of escaping fish (discards) is consistant and relitive to all mesh sizes. it does not lessen if the mesh size is increased it may or may not be less in number but it will be up in weight

 

QUOTE/ The only way in which the uk bass fishery will collapse is due to the take. No commercial guy would intentinally collapse a fishery would they? As you have posted, intentionally target the breeding stock, surly not. Then closed season's spring to mind. From what you have posted it now appears that more regulation to protect the stock could be required. The mortality of the bass regarding netting, must lessen if the net size increase. Again this would mean a better class of fish landed. That in turn would take the pressure off the smaller sized fish, coming on surly. What do the wag assembly know compared with Bass to attempt to create disparity between them and the rest of the uk i wonder?

 

If the mls and mms goes up then DEFRA will be forcing fishermen to concentrate their fishing effort on the breeding stock. QUOTE/ No commercial guy would intentinally collapse a fishery would they? As you have posted, intentionally target the breeding stock, surly not. no commercial fishermen would not do that but if thats the law they will have to.

 

At the moment commercial fishermen are fishing on the whole range of bass sizes, when the mls increases then there will be a direct, aimed bass fishery on the breeding stock, complete with the right sized mesh to catch the most of this breeding stock. It may as you say take the pressure off the smaller sized bass however so many years down the road will the breeding stock be able to produce much of the smaller stock.

 

The disparity between the mls in the UK may mean that 36 cm bass may in certain parts of England still be landed

 

QUOTE/ Nffo, after all of the time, money spent on the consultation period, evidance provided, it's a bit strange that defra has gone back on what it must have taken care to decide, so the 'argument ' put up by nffo and the hidden chairman of an angling club must be so compelling. I can't wait to see exactly what is is. Have you any idea?

 

Yes the consultation was a waste of money and had a predetermined outcome for a reason best known to DEFRA, I submitted a 11 page reply covering all the reasons as to why the mls should not be increased and I cannot believe the NFFO have found one that I missed it proves to me that DEFRA never read peoples replies

 

QUOTE/ Again i do not see why the nffo are spending so much effort on resisting what is considered improvement, value of the bass stock

 

It is only improvement value in bass stocks when you have tunnel vision, To accept the mls and mms and implement it regardless of cost, it will be one of the biggest blunders that DEFRA could make and for the sake of the bass fishery the NFFO have taken a laudable stance and Mr Bradshaw and DEFRA are acting responsable in there actons to look at the problems that may be created.

 

It was not done on grounds of conservation it was to give anglers more larger fish, DR Pawson, DEFRA, Joe Borg EU and ICES all have stated that the bass fishery is being fished sustainably

 

QUOTE/ The disparity between the uk and the eu is for bradshaw to sort out, that is what we are paying his wages for. Obviously my concern is for the uk stock

 

Mr Bradshaw cannot sort out anything to do with the disparity between the UK and the EU because of the above paragraph.

 

Your concern for the, as you say UK stock is not factual because it is European stock and I am afaid to say that Europeans have more say and entiltment to it, than what we in the UK have.

 

regards steve

 

Ok just a quick one then as i haven't disected all yer post, not within six miles they don't