Scottish Lawnmowers

[barry luxton]

To be fair thats not at all how i read it. He, and others, have shown that the "all fish gone by 2048 scenerio " is rubbish.

 

So Iceland have problems atm. My take would be that having problems is the normal state for anyone trying to manage fisheries: the interesting bit is surely about the ability of management to react to those changes. Given the importance of fisheries to Iceland then i'd imagine its going to be quicker than us. As i read it the Faroese have been quite willing to change their whole fisheries regime within months because the fishstocks count so much to their economy. It seems to be a 20 to 30 yr wait for change here, and even then it will get warped by all the interest groups (and i include RSA in that).

 

Its one thing to say that RSA lobby "sticks up for more and better fish" but what does that actually mean in real terms?

 

Could it mean an obsession with a preferred species and damn the ones that just happen to not be of interest to anglers (mainly SE anglers from what i see )

 

Could it mean a "who cares" attitude to just where the displacement of effort goes when a particular RSA group (and none of them stand for all RSA , or even a significant minority) influences government?

 

I'd be interested to know where the Scots pair trawlers that used to fish bass down your way are fishing now? On "endangered" cod stocks in the northern north sea maybe?

 

Ok then i'll put it another way, The guy wasn't making a statement regarding Europe, it was dispelling the myth of meltdown in 2048.

 

It's not a normal problem in Iceland at present when they had to cut quota by thirty% they have not done that before and that appears to be rather a large amount to call normal. It appears to be boom our bust at the moment, i agree, they will get it right and quickly. Perhaps the uk will take note, not.

 

You intimate that change could take a long time here and that all fingers in the pie could 'cock' it up, i.e. it could go tits up just like the myth the guy is trying to dispel. The rsa involvement and their wants, more and bigger fish, can't be a bad thing can it?

 

Being a rather tenacious chap, the hot topic at present is the bass, yes it does affect me, no doubt thousands of others, to see a fishery go from very good to crap over a period of time, yes i will do and say whatever to make it better that doesn't make it selfish over other issues. Today a reply was received to an email sent to mr shaw that detailed dissapointment to his decision, the reply wasn't worth printing on bog paper as it did not dispel fears for the dismal bass stock at present that they consider sustainable. Worse it made a point of mentioning all the good things the new rsa managers are going to do for the rsa industry in the future, look forward to that like a hole in the head, that will be the next hot topic. there has been a decrease in the average size of the bass all along the channel that is why i feel the commercial need the juvenile stock, i do concede that it appears to be sustainable, it does not help stock improvement however. My opinion of the cod stocks also are the same for the bass, too much emphasis is put on targetting juvenile and not on allowing the stock to grow. As said, at present it's the bass.

 

Touche, when scottish guys and north sea guys say the bass issue, not our problem, or the south guys are asked to support a different specis, don't affect us, why bother, this is where the rsa is in trouble, unlike the nffo, where they appear to have an attitude of all for one and one for all. The attitude of the rsa appears to be, don't concern me, why should i worry, in my mind all rsa should be concerned with all rsa issues or not bother.

 

Couldn't tell you where the Scottish 'lawnmower' pairs are at the moment, could it be the value of bass fish meal has dimminished.

Edited November 3, 2007 by barry luxton

[Jaffa]

Ok then i'll put it another way, The guy wasn't making a statement regarding Europe, it was dispelling the myth of meltdown in 2048.

 

It's not a normal problem in Iceland at present when they had to cut quota by thirty% they have not done that before and that appears to be rather a large amount to call normal. It appears to be boom our bust at the moment, i agree, they will get it right and quickly. Perhaps the uk will take note, not.

 

You intimate that change could take a long time here and that all fingers in the pie could 'cock' it up, i.e. it could go tits up just like the myth the guy is trying to dispel. The rsa involvement and their wants, more and bigger fish, can't be a bad thing can it?

 

Being a rather tenacious chap, the hot topic at present is the bass, yes it does affect me, no doubt thousands of others, to see a fishery go from very good to crap over a period of time, yes i will do and say whatever to make it better that doesn't make it selfish over other issues. Today a reply was received to an email sent to mr shaw that detailed dissapointment to his decision, the reply wasn't worth printing on bog paper as it did not dispel fears for the dismal bass stock at present that they consider sustainable. Worse it made a point of mentioning all the good things the new rsa managers are going to do for the rsa industry in the future, look forward to that like a hole in the head, that will be the next hot topic. there has been a decrease in the average size of the bass all along the channel that is why i feel the commercial need the juvenile stock, i do concede that it appears to be sustainable, it does not help stock improvement however. My opinion of the cod stocks also are the same for the bass, too much emphasis is put on targetting juvenile and not on allowing the stock to grow. As said, at present it's the bass.

 

Touche, when scottish guys and north sea guys say the bass issue, not our problem, or the south guys are asked to support a different specis, don't affect us, why bother, this is where the rsa is in trouble, unlike the nffo, where they appear to have an attitude of all for one and one for all. The attitude of the rsa appears to be, don't concern me, why should i worry, in my mind all rsa should be concerned with all rsa issues or not bother.

 

Couldn't tell you where the Scottish 'lawnmower' pairs are at the moment, could it be the value of bass fish meal has dimminished.

 

"Lawnmower" pairs ! Weird thing is, my lawn keeps springing up however many times i keep chopping it ! Admitedly everyones idea of what constitutes a "lawn" is different Mine has patchs of yellow when the yaks have sat to long, long grass around various obstacles that im too lazy to deal with, and an increasing area of massive disturbance where the lawn has been ploughed up by my wifes latest idea. Still seems to be a lawn there though, if not one a 1950's gardening book might approve of. I wonder if it still in fact a "Lawn" !

 

Bass as fishmeal.whats that about about? Are you saying theres some kind of directed fishery on bass for meal, or that it regularly happens for some reason , or is some freak trip where everything went wrong and the fish ended up in an inedible state, so were sent for meal rather than be wasted?

 

It seems we agree that Iceland will react more quickly than us to the creation of their perfect lawn?

 

Okay, Bass does affect or effect you (im not taking the ****; i can never remember which means which) and in your opinion, and apparently that of loads of Southern Anglers, it has declined "angling quality wise" over the last couple of decades, whatever the figures coming from other people say.

 

Its importance to the economy of these areas has also been highlighted by anglers. Lets hope every area will enjoy the benefits of the angler with cash thats willing to travel.

 

Currently thats sort of the case around here, but its a very different situation to the charter boat thing you seem to have. We have a lot of anglers that come up to shore- fish the Angus coast (no surprise;its in the angling press enough). We also have a few charter boats, skippered by hobbyists (who i would mostly guess are reasonably sussed about commercial fishing and ex commercials ).

 

FWIW I don't imagine they are at the angling "standards" you guys on the south assume to be right; its cheap and cheerful, get out on a boat a wee way offshore and have fun. Little "serious" gear or " technique (in cutting edge angling terms) - almost wholly drifting for cod. Taking home almost everything edible for the pot is the norm (and these are "endanaged" cod mostly .

 

If the weathers bad, or time is short, then Arbroath harbour is a very popular fishing spot; one that is still a commercial harbour where RSA and the commercials get on well. Move north and i understand Peterhead breakwater is an important venue. Again I'd assume (though ever been so could be wrong) that the anglers/commercials have built up a relationship that works for them. Get further north and it gets hard to seperate out who is commercial and who is RSA; its just fishing and something everyone does.

 

Into this swims the"conviced im right Southern RSA Whale with its absolute conviction its songs are the truth

 

They write into the fishing news telling the commercials how good all these new regulations will be for them, and how dumb they must be not to see it ( this in the only UK newspaper that has ever imho seriously discussed fish conservation, because it REALLY DOES matter to its readers ).

 

I can believe Southern sea Anglers have a problem with inshore netting though it does not seem unreasonable to believe, given the population down there, that there might be a few issues at play ?

[barry luxton]

Ha Ha, very good Jaffa. Allright then Just a quickie. I don't like lawns, much rather prefer the meadow where all the cows can chew the cud.

[kleinboet]

Here's a quicky - Ask him if he EATS fish!!!

If the answer is yes, ask him where is he going to get his fish - import it??

If no - then he shouldn't comment on something he knows nothing about!!!

[H.A.]

then he shouldn't comment on something he knows nothing about!!!

 

This is the stock answer of the commercially biased fisherman who is actually krapping in his pants at the thought of the next regulation to control his fishing!

 

It repeats over and over again.

Fishermen who fish for profit CANNOT be bothered with conservation issues. It IS their livelihood and they mean to make as much money in as short as possible time and devil take the hindmost.

 

The lawn that grows every year is a lovely analogy .... take it a stage further and look what an arable farmer does to ensure a rich crop. He puts something back; he nurtures the topsoil and replenishes nutrient and seed. Being a livestock farmer involves even greater 'failsafe' stock-calculation and replenishment.

 

How long do commercial fishermen think they can mow their lawns.

To be honest, I have never met a netsman who is not a tiny bit concerned about diminishing stocks.

But ask him to let some ground lie fallow or adhere to a quota or switch target species or increase mesh size and shape and he ALWAYS comes up with "YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT"!

 

Well let me tell you something, Sir, commercial fishermen may know their methods and their own patches, but they know sod all about good fishery management and business plans.

 

They are out and out ASSET STRIPPERS ....

 

and soon it'll be gone and they won't be able to get cab drivers' licences as easily as they get commercial fishing licences.

 

[ColinW]

Here's a commercial fisherman's idea of a lawnmower

 

[wurzel]

How long do commercial fishermen think they can mow their lawns.

To be honest, I have never met a netsman who is not a tiny bit concerned about diminishing stocks.

But ask him to let some ground lie fallow or adhere to a quota or switch target species or increase mesh size and shape and he ALWAYS comes up with "YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT"!

 

 

 

Well he sussed you out straight away.

[Jaffa]

Ha Ha, very good Jaffa. Allright then Just a quickie. I don't like lawns, much rather prefer the meadow where all the cows can chew the cud.

 

Me too

 

 

All that beauty, all those species dependent on that environment. Just as well man was never involved eh?!

 

Okay, chewing over this " plate sized" cud, how about this?

 

I think I can understand how important the Bass issue is to you guys down south,; i can imagine how cheap nylon netting (and line come to that), a huge population competing for a relatively small area of sea, cheap electronics and people with the cash to have the boats to fit them too, and a ready market for both legal and "backdoor" bass is lkely to result in problems and tensions. I can't see any reason why restriction on anglers are not just as justified and important as those on commercials, if the aim is to create the fishery you want.

 

To you its not the real issue if the fishery scientists say the "fishery is sustainable" ; I take it you want more bigger fish because its good for your angling experience and apparently good for the economies of the areas you care about. Thats fair enough, but IMHO the way the campaign went , it opened up a pandoras box that lead to harm to other fish species, conflict between RSA and commercial, harm to the UK commercials (and before the usual suspects gloat, that just means another country benefits), and succour to the animal rights/ greens.

 

I don't see a problem with BASS's ideas being done along the south coast, if thats what people there see as in their interest, but they were pushing for changes in the law that effect areas way beyond that, and now it seems all Englands anglers face paying licence fees to a management that are going to be more open to lobbying and infliltration by th greens/peta than the apparently very bad situation of no management that anglers have enjoyed to date.

 

From my point of view this all looks alarming and I don't want to see it up here thank you very much

 

Chris

 

PS Still curious about that bass/ fishmeal comment you made. Whats that about then?

Edited November 7, 2007 by Jaffa

[barry luxton]

Me too

All that beauty, all those species dependent on that environment. Just as well man was never involved eh?!

 

Okay, chewing over this " plate sized" cud, how about this?

 

I think I can understand how important the Bass issue is to you guys down south,; i can imagine how cheap nylon netting (and line come to that), a huge population competing for a relatively small area of sea, cheap electronics and people with the cash to have the boats to fit them too, and a ready market for both legal and "backdoor" bass is lkely to result in problems and tensions. I can't see any reason why restriction on anglers are not just as justified and important as those on commercials, if the aim is to create the fishery you want.

 

To you its not the real issue if the fishery scientists say the "fishery is sustainable" ; I take it you want more bigger fish because its good for your angling experience and apparently good for the economies of the areas you care about. Thats fair enough, but IMHO the way the campaign went , it opened up a pandoras box that lead to harm to other fish species, conflict between RSA and commercial, harm to the UK commercials (and before the usual suspects gloat, that just means another country benefits), and succour to the animal rights/ greens.

 

I don't see a problem with BASS's ideas being done along the south coast, if thats what people there see as in their interest, but they were pushing for changes in the law that effect areas way beyond that, and now it seems all Englands anglers face paying licence fees to a management that are going to be more open to lobbying and infliltration by th greens/peta than the apparently very bad situation of no management that anglers have enjoyed to date.

 

From my point of view this all looks alarming and I don't want to see it up here thank you very much

 

Chris

 

PS Still curious about that bass/ fishmeal comment you made. Whats that about then?

 

Mornin, plate sized, don't know what spin guy thought that up for a 36cm bass, i would want two on my plate minimum for a feed, unless one is used with a huge amount of veg etc to bulk it out. The main issue for the bass stock, not for me as an angler i hope it's understood is to improve the pitiful average size of the stock for all, to get back to what it was as recent as the seventies . Mr shaw missed that point or ignored it, mr deas bullshined his way through with the minister as well no doubt, on the suggestion that a working party be set up as he stated before the decision was made. gone quiet now though.

It's been picked up that the word 'sustainable' has been used for the bass stock, big deal, again that is the differance between a lawn and a meadow, now this sustainable word is being changed to a huge population that could affect other stocks, where has that come from, perhaps you could let us know. Again all that is required is to repair the stock to what it was for all to benifit. There is a figure of 1.4% being used as the total amount of landing by the rsa for all fish compared to commercial. I am trying to sustantiate that, however i have been told if you put this figure to defra or the goverment it will not be denied. If it is true, would there be a need for bag limits?

 

Perhaps you would like to comment on one of the articles sacn did regarding the bass stock where anything landed from the shore under say six or seven pounds wasn't worth reporting. Treid loading it here but could not, someone will hopefully.

 

As the bass breading stock gets it's annuall hammering i can understand why commercialy there is a need for these juvenile 36cm fish to be caught and used for the 'plate' it doesn't do anything for the stock though, this is where there is short sightedness, perhaps desperation to keep targetting this. This is where the fish meal came from when they land them in brixham, can't sell them in the market so use them for meal. Don't worry i will go back and retreive the information for you.

 

Ah yes, the cheats, still haven't heard a good argument against gill tagging yet. Again, if the stock was given a chance to grow, the two would go hand in hand nicely, get rid of the cheats and the recievers, Can't see where the conflict arrises from if it puts value on the commercial landings as well, should be thanked for that.

 

Couln't agree more regarding defra making new laws to affect all, don't want it down here as well, do you think we aught to join forces just like the nffo or would it be better to act like the snp, tell me what you recon.

 

ColinW, na thats just a 'flymo' you really want a ride on.

Edited November 7, 2007 by barry luxton

[wurzel]

Mornin, plate sized, don't know what spin guy thought that up for a 36cm bass, i would want two on my plate minimum for a feed, unless one is used with a huge amount of veg etc to bulk it out. The main issue for the bass stock, not for me as an angler i hope it's understood is to improve the pitiful average size of the stock for all, to get back to what it was as recent as the seventies . Mr shaw missed that point or ignored it, mr deas bullshined his way through with the minister as well no doubt, on the suggestion that a working party be set up as he stated before the decision was made. gone quiet now though.

It's been picked up that the word 'sustainable' has been used for the bass stock, big deal, again that is the differance between a lawn and a meadow, now this sustainable word is being changed to a huge population that could affect other stocks, where has that come from, perhaps you could let us know. Again all that is required is to repair the stock to what it was for all to benifit. There is a figure of 1.4% being used as the total amount of landing by the rsa for all fish compared to commercial. I am trying to sustantiate that, however i have been told if you put this figure to defra or the goverment it will not be denied. If it is true, would there be a need for bag limits?

 

Perhaps you would like to comment on one of the articles sacn did regarding the bass stock where anything landed from the shore under say six or seven pounds wasn't worth reporting. Treid loading it here but could not, someone will hopefully.

 

As the bass breading stock gets it's annuall hammering i can understand why commercialy there is a need for these juvenile 36cm fish to be caught and used for the 'plate' it doesn't do anything for the stock though, this is where there is short sightedness, perhaps desperation to keep targetting this. This is where the fish meal came from when they land them in brixham, can't sell them in the market so use them for meal. Don't worry i will go back and retreive the information for you.

 

Ah yes, the cheats, still haven't heard a good argument against gill tagging yet. Again, if the stock was given a chance to grow, the two would go hand in hand nicely, get rid of the cheats and the recievers, Can't see where the conflict arrises from if it puts value on the commercial landings as well, should be thanked for that.

 

Couln't agree more regarding defra making new laws to affect all, don't want it down here as well, do you think we aught to join forces just like the nffo or would it be better to act like the snp, tell me what you recon.

 

ColinW, na thats just a 'flymo' you really want a ride on.

 

Hello Barry

I would like to make a few points that might clarify things a bit.

 

The only commercial fishermen who target 36 cm bass would be a gill netter using 90mm nets.

 

The inshore trawlers that the NFFO represented mainly from the South and south west have a very mixed fishery, they don't necessarily target bass, bass make up part of their catch and a proportion of those bass are under 40 cm, I suspect that due to the large year classes of 2000 and 2001 coming into the fishery bass have featured more in their catches than previous years and due to the age of those fish a bigger proportion are under 40cm, as it does in anglers catches.

It is not practical for the trawlers to increase the meshes to a size that would release bass of under 40 cm as they would then not catch Dover sole, lemon sole, red mullet and other valuable fish such as squid which all make up their days work, so the bass under 40cm would still be caught but discarded, this would not benefit the stock what so ever as the same amount would still be caught, whether landed or not.

 

I think the angling reps only had a gill net fishery in mind when the bmp was first hatched and were completely guzzumped by the trawler discard issue and due to their lack of knowledge and total mistrust of any thing to do with commercial fishing they failed to find or even look at a compromise so came a way with nothing.

 

On a brighter note those large year classes of bass are now either over or very near to 40 cm so what you wanted to achieve is happening naturally, whether the French pair teams make a killing on them remains to be seen but the out come of the BMP would have had no effect on them anyway.