Voluntary Bag limits

[Coddy]

Following the club meeting, where I asked what the members thought about a voluntary bag limit on Cod and Bass for recreational anglers, I said I would put it up on the forum for all to debate.

 

This idea was suggested at the Poole District Sea Angling Association meeting where the idea was bounced around to provide a method of allowing the fishery officers to catch un-licensed anglers who catch boxes of fish and then goes on to sell them, which of course is illegal.

 

The idea is that the local authority can pass a by-law which limits the number of fish caught by each angler to be brought back for the table. If the fishery officer stops a boat who exceeds the limit then action can be taken against the skipper/angler. Normal commercial licensed fishermen will not be affected by this by-law as they may have limits anyway.

 

The problem at the moment is that any angler can bring back as many fish as they wish, subject to minimum size, and the fishery officers have no powers to stop this happening, the problem arises if someone tries to sell their catch. This then can become a Police matter and/or Fishery

[Paul J]

I think the numbers involved does make a difference- do we assume it's 6 for the purpose of this discussion?

 

Personally, i would sign up to this but am wary of where this might lead. I don't have much trust in the authorities that govern our fisheries and would not want these numbers to be dwindled down to nothing over time in response to whinging commercials that are unhappy with quotas

 

Perhaps this would give us leverage to make Bass a quota species- now that would make sense or even better a recreational only species - ( i know im dreaming again)

 

PJ

[plaicemat]

However..................this is not going to stop anything that is going on now as there is already legislation to stop recreational anglers from taking large numbers of fish and selling them. This has proved to be ineffective (as could be seen from a TV item regarding chinese 'poachers') and is not implemented so why would any new regulation be imposed any more vigorously?

 

I'm not trying to be contentious, just pragmatic. It seems to be the custom these days just to keep passing legislation which it is not possible to enforce; if it is not going to be enforced then it is bad legislation.

 

Wouldn't it be better, if impractical, to have more fishery officers enforcing the laws that are already in place? This is unlikely to happen as making laws and rules costs nothing but enforcing them does. If authority can be seen to be doing something, no matter how ineffective, they convince themselves that people think they are doing their job. Hey! We're not fooled.

 

Terry.

[Wedger]

This is likely to be the thin end of the wedge and there will be no turning back.

 

The theory is all fine and dandy if we get hard hitting and full execution of the new bylaw by the fisheries officers. But you're still trying to put out the volcano with a garden hose. The victim will be the easy target again - you and I. Sadly, all too often, change such as this only penalise the innocent whilst the criminal carries on the deception - business as usual.

 

We would need to have real tangible evidence that the fisheries officers have the will and the capability of enforcement to a very high degree. History shows little promise, the MLS is evidence enough of that. If they are not capable of preventing undersized fish being landed and sold blatantly, despite being fully covered in law, what make you think this bag limit will work.

 

If I had the task of stopping the movement of black fish I would be investigating ways of hitting the buyers as well. Prevent the buying of black fish and the business collapses.

 

Rarely, if ever have I landed more than 6 bass per angler, but I do not wish to have the freedom of choice removed. It is my right and my freedom to choose when and what I take for my own use. There has to be another way of dealing with the scumbags other than taking away the rights of honest and well minded recreational anglers.

 

[great white]

This idea is very worrying to me.

 

We have no idea how the Fisheries would translate any signal raised by this.

 

We also do not know what numbers are involved. 6 per species, 3? Less ?

 

Is that per angler or per boat?

Is that per day or per trip?

 

Remembering back to last years discussions about bag limits in the channel Islands for charter boats from the UK. It initially read as nothing to panic about.

 

Untill they got down to serious discussions, Bag limits then discussed were for the whole trip and low

It would have stopped a lot of boats going over, and spending a lot of money on the Islands in the evenings. For me trips to the Islands are not about topping up Ice boxes, but bringing some fish home helps to justify the expense to FPO.

[ to be honest, 2 flatties and a few pollack would be cheaper in Harrods]

 

I am not one to top my boat up with dead fish, We catch and release a good proportion of what we catch when we can. But sometimes when in deep water Pollack and Cod do not go back well and more are retained for the table because of it.

Usually we try to change plans and target other fish at these times but its not always possible.

 

I would not like to steam to mid channel, hit some quick fish and then because of a voluntery bag limit, that has been changed to a byelaw, have to cut my fishing day short.

 

What would be even more against my principles would be the thought of RSA's disposing of edible fish as any form of over quota/bag limit. just to keep bigger fish.

 

Definatly the thin end of the wedge, and I am not convinced that if this does not apply to the people who take fish for profit. there is any benifit in it.

 

I believe we only have 5 sea fisheries officers from Lyme regis to Littlehampton.

I can not see how they can possibly enforce this, without leaving the commercials to do as they wish.

As someone said on Thursday night we are a much softer target.

 

 

 

All that said.

The PDSA have asked us to discuss this, and we have started to do so, which is good.

 

If those discussions can convince me and others that it is worth persuing.

Perhaps just Perhaps and after very serious discussions with other interested parties some good could come of this.

 

Charlie

 

 

[Newboy]

I think the Australian has it suzzed, they have bag limit in whole, not trip. You are allowed so many fish in procession, so all fish you have including one in your freezer count.

[Jim]

Right !

Last year was the first time I have ever caught COD. This was only possible because I was invited out with Dave on Wight Magic.

Last year I caught no Sizeable Bass - only little ones so I put them all back.

I had some Bream on one trip - again thanks to Dave.

I had some Flatties - Again thanks to Dave.

I also had some Wrasse, which always go back.

I've been going fishing since the age of 6 or 7 ( and still crap )

I've been sea fishing for about 12 years ( yes and still crap )

I just enjoy getting getting out on a boat and " dangling me maggit " - -If I actually catch something - - - - - What a bonus ! ! !

If by some fluke, I get more than 1/2 a dozen. Well if anyone want's to take them off me - - - - they're gonna look silly eating shredded wheat with no teeth.

I think this rule will be the same old story - - - - pick on the SOFT TARGET yet again.

I for one am getting sick of being a Soft Target

 

Jim

[codpiece]

If I had the task of stopping the movement of black fish I would be investigating ways of hitting the buyers as well. Prevent the buying of black fish and the business collapses.

 

I agree with Trev, It comes own to the old court saying''remove the receiver and you lose the thief'' Derek.

[Brian]

Another law that won't be enforced where the problem really lies is like "Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic".

 

We need fisheries officers who are willing to enforce the existing laws regarding the selling of fish by unlicenced people.

An example is the fisheries officer coming alongside me in Poole Harbour to check what I had caught and what bait I was using, whilst ignoring the dozen or so boats thet were illegally clam dredging in Holton Mere.

I was the easy target.

[Fugazi]

Reading this I'm disappointed that we recreational anglers still seem to be in denial regarding depleting fish stocks. Were not the cause of the problem it

[TomBettle]

I may only get out on my boat half a dozen times in a year.

If I am lucky, I'll also get two or three trips out on oterh club members boats.

 

Half of the fishing on my boat is offshore and for the very few times I go, I damn well hope to have good days.

Typically my catch will be Pollack and Ling, but if they are there, I will try my hardest for Summer Cod.

 

For the tiny number of times I go, I will certainly attempt to catch more than 6. I pay a huge amount to operate my boat and to bring a few fish back is a very small bonus.

I don't go nuts and anyone who has fished on my boat when the Cod are on the banks will know I am the first to start returning fish when I have had a sensible number.

 

Bass? Well I am not a good enough Bass angler anyway, and I will count myself lucky to catch half a dozen in a session with maybe 50% being returned. I am not so bothered by Bass as the trips are invariably inshore and only a few pounds of fuel has been spent chasing them.

 

In my view, rather than going for us, the soft target, concentrate resource and effort on the people conducting the illegal activity. Many of us know who they are, they just need catching in the action.

Leave those of us who are responsible enough to conduct our own fishery management alone.

 

Tom

[Coddy]

(snip)

 

I think the numbers involved does make a difference- do we assume it's 6 for the purpose of this discussion?

 

PJ

Paul and all

 

The number of fish per angler I have quoted was a suggested number and it could be less or more depending on what the majority agree on if an agreement is ever reached.

 

Please remember that for this suggestion it is JUST Cod and Bass bag limits.

 

I understand the thoughts that it may be extended towards other species at some time but for now we are looking just these two species.

 

Perhaps we could also get a Fisheries Officer to come to a club night so members can ask them how they carry out there role. It might be a brave person that agrees to this night!

 

Anyway, good to see some ideas and thoughts comming out, keep them coming.

 

Coddy

[TomBettle]

It will be a nail in the coffin of my club membeship if I was expected to go by these rules.

 

I am all for conservation and all for managing a fishery responsibly, but I am not all for it when we are clobbered, but those that are behaving illegally simply continue to get away with it.

 

Instead of hammering the decent law abiding members of a local angling club, the powers that be should put their resources into catching the culprits. They know who most are, they simply need to be monitored.

 

Ask them to put a quota on Haddock and Coalfish. I can deal with those and SSFC certainly believe there is a substantial Coaley fishery in the Solent.

[Maverick Martin]

I think a few people are missing the point here.

 

Firstly if agreed it won't be a voluntary agreement. it will in fact be a local byelaw. That will meen it will be illegal for anybody to exceed the agreed quota/limit.

 

2ndly why should anglers have bag limits enforced on their catches when commercial fishermen can land as many as they like. Bass are not a quota species so why should we have limits imposed on us! Seems ridiculous to me that we are considering bag limits on what we catch when commercials who by default cause the most destruction to the species are left to do whatever they like

 

I have nothing against fish limits but it must be seen to be equitable between both RSA's and commercials or it will be a total waste of time and do nothing but further the divide between anglers and fishermen.

 

Martin

 

[shytalk]

well said, the powers that be need to realise the differences between anglers and fishermen ive heard it best described thus "fishermen catch fish to make money anglers make money to catch fish " !!!!!! once a voluntary limit is set it will not take long to be made mandatory

[Maverick Martin]

It will be a nail in the coffin of my club membeship if I was expected to go by these rules.

 

It is not and will not be anything to do with the club Tom. As I understand it The Poole and District Sea Angling Assc have just asked for our views and input. I believe this is not even a proposal as yet.

 

I personally would object on principle to bag limits unless commercial fishermen where also included within that.

 

There are already rules to deal with RSA's that sell their catch it just needs proper policing. I feel a better way forward would be carcass tagging so each commercially caught fish can be traced from capture to table. That should make it easier to see where the fish are coming from and permit enforcement at point of sale, ie no tagg Mr. chef you

[Paul J]

The Poole and District Sea Angling Assc have just asked for our views and input

 

Indeed thats all this is, nothing more nothing less

 

PJ

[codpiece]

I have probably missed a point, (it's my age) But are we exploring thoughts on a National ''raft'' of limits or a local one with others? I am suspicious of either, one being the thin edge of a wedge, the other the thick end, both will hurt!! I think Martin makes a great deal of sense for consideration of both. I am very concious of our ''soft underbelly'' Derek.

[TomBettle]

I think a few people are missing the point here.

 

Firstly if agreed it won't be a voluntary agreement. it will in fact be a local byelaw. That will meen it will be illegal for anybody to exceed the agreed quota/limit.

 

Martin

Martin

 

I agree wholeheartedly about if we are subject to bag limits then so should the commercials, but the bit I have saved from your post is the bit I am unsure about.

 

I am sure that Coddy brought it up at the meeting as being a voluntary limit for local clubs to get involved in.

 

So my understanding:

 

1) It's voluntary to take part

2) But once participating, we (members) would be subject to the limits

 

Not withstanding that, I thoroughly agree that if we started something on a voluntary basis it would be very shortly mandatory.

 

Count me out.

 

Tom

 

PS: The tagging system sounds great.

[Maverick Martin]

Martin

 

I agree wholeheartedly about if we are subject to bag limits then so should the commercials, but the bit I have saved from your post is the bit I am unsure about.

 

I am sure that Coddy brought it up at the meeting as being a voluntary limit for local clubs to get involved in.

 

So my understanding:

 

1) It's voluntary to take part

2) But once participating, we (members) would be subject to the limits

 

Not withstanding that, I thoroughly agree that if we started something on a voluntary basis it would be very shortly mandatory.

 

Count me out.

 

Tom

 

PS:  The tagging system sounds great.

Tom

 

Read the following passage from Dave

[TomBettle]

Tom

 

 

This then wouldn't be voluntary if taken forward and passed would mean that all of us would have to abide by the ruling or fall foul of the law.

 

Martin

In which case, your tagging system has to be the only way forward.

 

It can be forged / got round, but surely it is better than wrecking our few days afloat for the sake of some stupid, greedy, unlicensed fisherman.

[tom]

You don't have to be licenced to sell fish !!! read the bye laws

[TomBettle]

You don't have to be licenced to sell fish !!! read the bye laws

Tom

 

Without reading the byelaws, isn't it that beach anglers or boat anglers in an un powered boat under 6m can legally sell their catch?

 

If so, then why not have a red tag for commercially caught fish and a blue tag for fish "legally sold" by anglers.

These can have reference numbers that can be traced back to individuals.

It's not hard.

[Paul J]

These byelaws are not very clear:

 

If you wish to fish commercially (i.e. sell your catch) within the Southern Sea Fisheries District, your vessel must hold a current Southern Sea Fisheries District permit, which will be issued to a vessel providing that:

Application forms can be requested by telephone, post or email. Full contact details can be viewed by clicking here.

On applying for your vessel

[petesnr]

Clear as Poole Harbour mud!

The suggestion from Chris Holloway at the PDSA meeting was designed to 'catch out' those who return with boxes of fish (but say they are fishing for their own use i.e. recreational fishing which would include unlicensed netters) by having a local byelaw to limit bag size for all recreational fishing of certain species.

It is an attempt to move from a position of being victims of decisions made by the faceless ones to being pro-active in taking some action that might help local fish stocks. In that respect I admire his viewpoint as he would actually be supporting those who fish legally whether recreational or commercial.

Whether it would get support from the SSFC is debatable but he argues that engagement with the committee is far more likely to have positive, long term outcomes that sitting in our clubs and moaning about how we are being 'done down' all the time. It was quite clear at the meeting with the deputy fisheries officer that despite all our discussions and our angling press the local Sea Fishery Committee is pretty much out of touch with the recreational sea angler's aspirations and thoughts.

The most important point is that we need to tell these people what we think, not at a raucous public meeting but sitting down around the table with some positve proposals--the nature of these proposals need to be agreed by discussion within angling clubs and forums.

Peter