Bag Limits for Devon?

[smudgertoo]

Never said there was a "lack" of bass Mr Gathergood, just a lack of sizable fish over 7-8lbs from the shore round here, sure theres a few come out every year over 10 but how many hours of effort from the beach will it take to catch one ?

 

As you've stated on here many times on here that the "housewife" demands plate size fish did you put the bigguns back ?

[steve good]

Never said there was a "lack" of bass Mr Gathergood, just a lack of sizable fish over 7-8lbs from the shore round here, sure theres a few come out every year over 10 but how many hours of effort from the beach will it take to catch one ?

 

As you've stated on here many times on here that the "housewife" demands plate size fish did you put the bigguns back ?

 

Yes of coarse I did I motored all the way into Hayling beach and let them go by groyne 23

 

[H.A.]

Your picture of the gilled dog is to make what point HA?

 

* That monofilament should be banned?

* That nets should be banned?

*That anything that entangles a dogfish should be banned?

 

If i put up a picture of wildlife entangled in lost angling gear (a fact of life in the rocky north) does that mean we should ban angling, or call all anglers "shitehawks" ?

 

The notion that its bad for COMMERCIAL fishermen to think about profit is somewhat confusing too

 

*That monofilament NETS should be banned

Stop putting ideas in my head

 

*That nets should be banned?

 

Yes, ban all nets and dredges which cause and contribute to benthic damage.

 

Create a 1 mile (minimum from SFC baselines) to become an area tightly controlled by the district Sea Fisheries Committee (or by whichever authority acts as the SFC in that district) where by default all net fishing (including trawling) is banned, unless an ‘enabling byelaw’ is put in place.

 

Such ‘enabling byelaws’ would only be implemented after consultation with all stakeholders, and approved by the Secretary of State, to ensure that there were special reasons to enable netting within a given area, subject to necessary restrictions.

 

*That anything that entangles a dogfish should be banned?

 

Well, let's take a leaf out of Florida's book, shall we?

 

Gill nets and all entanglement fish nets will be banned in Florida's state waters, and seine nets larger than 500 square feet will be banned within a mile of Florida's east coast and three miles of its west coast.

The state constitutional amendment calling for the ban was passed November 9 1995 by an

overwhelming margin by Florida voters: 2,858,227 to 1,122,949.

 

I am motivated by a desire to do three things before it is too late:

 

Protect the marine environment from untold damage from indiscriminate use of trawls, dredges and entanglement nets.

Stop the over-exploitation of what fisheries are left.

Help the development of nursery areas and No Take Zones where all commercial fishing is banned.

 

Hope that clarifies matters for you.

 

[Toerag]

Could you tell me who had made an industry out of commercial licences, was it the goverment or the commercial industry itself? If it was the latter, it means that the prohibitvely expensive licence situation was caused commercially, who,s fault was that.

I think the government created the license situation knowing that VCUs would gain a monetary value. You can actually give a license/VCUs to another person if you want to, or you can sell it to someone. The government receives no money, it all goes to the vendor/broker. They're similar to shares in that there is a market value, which does vary (usually upwards). I for one am a supporter of the scheme - it stops people jumping on the bandwagon to make a fast buck, and has the effect of stopping vessel size and power increasing as fast as it would have without the scheme. The only problem with it is the ability to get a license based on tonnage and horsepower instead of VCUs only - this has led to a lot of static gear (gillnets/trammel nets/potters) skippers selling their monohulls and buying a cat of the same tonnage and power that has more deckspace to allow more gear to be used . There is also no restriction of where a boat can fish, so big vessels simply steam round the country wiping out areas as they go - this provides no incentive for the 'local' skippers to look after their own patch.

[dartangler]

This is well off topic now! Indeed it was never on topic, as there is still not to my best knowledge as a Committee Member, any attempt to reintroduce the subject to Devon SFC. The original article stemmed from an edited version of the Devon SFC Chairman's personal opinion on a possible way forward in dealing with an obvious problem of illegal fishing. Nevertheless there has been some interesting debate once again in this Forum.

 

Its a good few years now since the Government introduced the Licensing Scheme and Yes there were many beneficiaries at the time including RSA Charter Skippers. However any new entrant to the commercial fleet now will pay a high price to get a licence, if they can find one to fit their vessel! We should not lose sight of the fact that any new acquistion or indeed aggregation of smaller licences to fit a new vessel will attract an immediate 10% penalty loss, previously of VCU's now of Kw and Tonnage.

By that means the size of the British Commercial Fishing Fleet is constantly being reduced. In time this means the value of the remaining licences could increase. A gamble as the Government could change the system at any time, with or without compensation?

 

Toerag, look forward to meeting with you and exchanging views, when our new Cat is finally finished and my partners and I get over to Guernsey.

[barry luxton]

This is well off topic now! Indeed it was never on topic, as there is still not to my best knowledge as a Committee Member, any attempt to reintroduce the subject to Devon SFC. The original article stemmed from an edited version of the Devon SFC Chairman's personal opinion on a possible way forward in dealing with an obvious problem of illegal fishing. Nevertheless there has been some interesting debate once again in this Forum.

 

 

 

Toerag, look forward to meeting with you and exchanging views, when our new Cat is finally finished and my partners and I get over to Guernsey.

 

I'm sure one of the mods would be more than happy to put up an un-edited version of the article for all to see if Mr Venmore feels that the wrong end of the stick was put forward. However i am of the opinion that the fix put forward by your committee collegue was way out of order when it was suggested to either licence or bag limit the rsa to what has now been down graded to a local issue concerning illegal non-licenced commercial sellers.

 

Be carefull as and when you reach guernsey i don't know if the issue concerning the greedy mainland fisherman along with the Jersey guys who were percieved to be robbing the guernsey stock has been sorted yet. The locals might still be a bit edgy.

Edited September 14, 2007 by barry luxton

[Jaffa]

*That monofilament NETS should be banned

Stop putting ideas in my head

 

*That nets should be banned?

 

Yes, ban all nets and dredges which cause and contribute to benthic damage.

 

Create a 1 mile (minimum from SFC baselines) to become an area tightly controlled by the district Sea Fisheries Committee (or by whichever authority acts as the SFC in that district) where by default all net fishing (including trawling) is banned, unless an ‘enabling byelaw’ is put in place.

 

Such ‘enabling byelaws’ would only be implemented after consultation with all stakeholders, and approved by the Secretary of State, to ensure that there were special reasons to enable netting within a given area, subject to necessary restrictions.

 

*That anything that entangles a dogfish should be banned?

 

Well, let's take a leaf out of Florida's book, shall we?

The state constitutional amendment calling for the ban was passed November 9 1995 by an

overwhelming margin by Florida voters: 2,858,227 to 1,122,949.

 

I am motivated by a desire to do three things before it is too late:

 

Protect the marine environment from untold damage from indiscriminate use of trawls, dredges and entanglement nets.

Stop the over-exploitation of what fisheries are left.

Help the development of nursery areas and No Take Zones where all commercial fishing is banned.

 

Hope that clarifies matters for you.

 

 

We all have our own motivations, experiences and convictions which is great, but does have obvious dangers like deciding to strap a bomb onto ones lovehandles or worse still,; deciding that shouting at people in big bold type will lead everyone to nirvana?

 

Great for the people of Florida if they have found something that works for them , but before "taking a leaf out of their book" I'd like to hear the case for it translated and put forward

 

You want a 1 mile area thats "tightly controlled" and spew it out as though you wanting it is enough for it to work. I, on the other hand can't see the sense in it at all. I'm chuffed that it seems to be only SFC areas in England and Wales your bothered about, but worry what will creep up here if it gets in.

 

Couple of questions if you don't mind? -

 

1. Why create this "zone" where people need permission (your enabling bylaws) to do stuff and the default is no one gets to do anything, when the "problems" faced by anglers around the Uk are so different? FWIW this looks like a nightmare of paperwork to me,;with fishery officers stuck in a local "court" giving evidence to a fighting rabble of interests; instead of being out there doing there jobs....

 

2. If such a law was passed then would all the fishermen that work inside a mile :

A ) Give up?

B ) Start pursuing the same fishery outside 1 mile

c. ) Find a way around it?

d ) Come up with something you have not yet imagined?

 

Would the results of any of these lead to better fish stocks ?

 

2. Im curious as to where this "1 mile" limit came into your thinking? 1 mile on sandy/muddy flats where the tide retreats a long way into still shallow water/ 1 mile where rocks lead straight into water an ocean liner could navigate. ....... Its hard to imagine what these sites have in common yet its all to be 1 mile?!

 

Then you get onto " Benthic damage" and I have not a clue what you actually mean by that: perhaps you could explain (without the use of emotive photographs as the sum total of your case )

 

You should perhaps pay attention to Barrys link and not assume that angling is to be allowed by who you think are anglings friends ?

 

Pew fellowship anyone?

 

Chris

[H.A.]

.... but does have obvious dangers like deciding to strap a bomb onto ones lovehandles or worse still,; deciding that shouting at people in big bold type will lead everyone to nirvana?

 

Pew fellowship anyone?

Look, I'm quite prepared to discuss and put ideas forward; but I honestly can't be bovvered with folks who write this kind of verbal dihorrea.

 

I, on the other hand can't see the sense in it at all. I'm chuffed that it seems to be only SFC areas in England and Wales your bothered about, but worry what will creep up here if it gets in.

Fine by me!

 

Why create this "zone" where people need permission (your enabling bylaws) to do stuff and the default is no one gets to do anything

That's the idea of regulations. These are generally brought in when the 'default' doesn't seem to be working and according to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) only 25 to 30 per cent of fish stocks around Britain have been fished sustainably since 2001.

 

If such a law was passed then would all the fishermen that work inside a mile :

A ) Give up?

B ) Start pursuing the same fishery outside 1 mile

c. ) Find a way around it?

d ) Come up with something you have not yet imagined?

It's simple and plain .... KEEP OUT; NO NETTING! (Yes, I'm shouting, so everyone is clear what is meant!)

 

Im curious as to where this "1 mile" limit came into your thinking? 1 mile on sandy/muddy flats where the tide retreats a long way into still shallow water/ 1 mile where rocks lead straight into water an ocean liner could navigate. ....... Its hard to imagine what these sites have in common yet its all to be 1 mile?!

The first mile from the shoreline is extremely important for RSAs and comprises shallow warm water, nutrient rich, encompassing estuaries and bays, the nursery and spawning grounds of many organisms and which set up the food webs for a location.

The area should extend much further than 1 mile in some circumstances ie closing lines of estuaries and bays.

 

This would be for local SFCs to define, as they do now with Byelaws. The principle would be similar to the ban on fixed nets under the Salmon & Freshwater Fisheries act whereby the placing of any fixed net is illegal unless the local Sea Fisheries Committee has made a byelaw enabling it to take place, in that area, at that time, using certain mesh sizes etc.

 

Then you get onto " Benthic damage" and I have not a clue what you actually mean by that: perhaps you could explain

I think you understand better than you are letting on .... don't want to see the pictures, then?

 

'Benthic damage' comprises the collateral damage resulting from dragging nets and dredges, often with rollers, chains, and heavy wooden or steel doors (otter boards) and scooping-up everything in their path and digging deeply into the surface layers of the sea-bed.

During a fishing trip, a single pass of a trawl removes some 5-20 per cent of the benthic organisms. After 5-20 passes, the seabed is barren of life. This habitat alteration has been compared to strip mining or global deforestation through clear-cutting.

In my area, scallop dredgers have removed a large proportion of fan-coral reefs off Lyme Bay, despite an agreement (without Byelaws enacted) to give these areas a wide berth. The SFC is now considering banning beamers and scallopers for 3 miles from the shoreline.

 

The information I give here is meant for anglers on this angler's forum.

It's wasted effort on commercial propogandists.

 

[steve good]

We all have our own motivations, experiences and convictions which is great, but does have obvious dangers like deciding to strap a bomb onto ones lovehandles or worse still,; deciding that shouting at people in big bold type will lead everyone to nirvana?

 

Great for the people of Florida if they have found something that works for them , but before "taking a leaf out of their book" I'd like to hear the case for it translated and put forward

 

You want a 1 mile area thats "tightly controlled" and spew it out as though you wanting it is enough for it to work. I, on the other hand can't see the sense in it at all. I'm chuffed that it seems to be only SFC areas in England and Wales your bothered about, but worry what will creep up here if it gets in.

 

Couple of questions if you don't mind? -

 

1. Why create this "zone" where people need permission (your enabling bylaws) to do stuff and the default is no one gets to do anything, when the "problems" faced by anglers around the Uk are so different? FWIW this looks like a nightmare of paperwork to me,;with fishery officers stuck in a local "court" giving evidence to a fighting rabble of interests; instead of being out there doing there jobs....

 

2. If such a law was passed then would all the fishermen that work inside a mile :

A ) Give up?

B ) Start pursuing the same fishery outside 1 mile

c. ) Find a way around it?

d ) Come up with something you have not yet imagined?

 

Would the results of any of these lead to better fish stocks ?

 

2. Im curious as to where this "1 mile" limit came into your thinking? 1 mile on sandy/muddy flats where the tide retreats a long way into still shallow water/ 1 mile where rocks lead straight into water an ocean liner could navigate. ....... Its hard to imagine what these sites have in common yet its all to be 1 mile?!

 

Then you get onto " Benthic damage" and I have not a clue what you actually mean by that: perhaps you could explain (without the use of emotive photographs as the sum total of your case )

 

You should perhaps pay attention to Barrys link and not assume that angling is to be allowed by who you think are anglings friends ?

 

Pew fellowship anyone?

 

Chris

 

Hi Jaffa

 

Perhaps H A can cast his bait one mile from the beach, if not then whats the point in having it

 

steve

[steve good]

Look, I'm quite prepared to discuss and put ideas forward; but I honestly can't be bovvered with folks who write this kind of verbal dihorrea.

Fine by me!

That's the idea of regulations. These are generally brought in when the 'default' doesn't seem to be working and according to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) only 25 to 30 per cent of fish stocks around Britain have been fished sustainably since 2001.

 

 

It's simple and plain .... KEEP OUT; NO NETTING! (Yes, I'm shouting, so everyone is clear what is meant!)

The first mile from the shoreline is extremely important for RSAs and comprises shallow warm water, nutrient rich, encompassing estuaries and bays, the nursery and spawning grounds of many organisms and which set up the food webs for a location.

The area should extend much further than 1 mile in some circumstances ie closing lines of estuaries and bays.

 

This would be for local SFCs to define, as they do now with Byelaws. The principle would be similar to the ban on fixed nets under the Salmon & Freshwater Fisheries act whereby the placing of any fixed net is illegal unless the local Sea Fisheries Committee has made a byelaw enabling it to take place, in that area, at that time, using certain mesh sizes etc.

I think you understand better than you are letting on .... don't want to see the pictures, then?

 

'Benthic damage' comprises the collateral damage resulting from dragging nets and dredges, often with rollers, chains, and heavy wooden or steel doors (otter boards) and scooping-up everything in their path and digging deeply into the surface layers of the sea-bed.

During a fishing trip, a single pass of a trawl removes some 5-20 per cent of the benthic organisms. After 5-20 passes, the seabed is barren of life. This habitat alteration has been compared to strip mining or global deforestation through clear-cutting.

In my area, scallop dredgers have removed a large proportion of fan-coral reefs off Lyme Bay, despite an agreement (without Byelaws enacted) to give these areas a wide berth. The SFC is now considering banning beamers and scallopers for 3 miles from the shoreline.

 

The information I give here is meant for anglers on this angler's forum.

It's wasted effort on commercial propogandists.

 

 

Hi HA

 

QUOTE/ 'Benthic damagethe collateral damage resulting from dragging nets and dredges, often with rollers, chains, and heavy wooden or steel doors (otter boards) and scooping-up everything in their path and digging deeply into the surface layers of the sea-bed.' comprises

 

Same as baitdigging then

 

steve