Mike Fox

Great piccies Lofty - and a smashing trip. I'd advise strongly against going anywhere near the St. Aldheim's Head race until you've seen it first hand from a much bigger boat in moderate conditions such as a F4. Frankly, it would be unfishable at best, and lethal at worst, and could easily blow up to that. If you want a tow out to the Dolphin Sands from Boscombe or somewhere some time let me know, as there's pack tope often there. Mike

Frisky is also around 6 tons, but we only have 28 bhp to play with; as soon as Manta Ray has kit on board, you must take the title of the "heaviest boat in the club". An awesome craft, suitable for fishing anywhere in the Channel at almost all times. Definitely an ultimate dream machine. Hope you have as much fun with ownership as I have with my 6-tonner! Mike

Now that the flurry of interest has died down a bit, I'll add my three: 1. Closer liaison with Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC). The Angling Trust has no real "teeth", so why not borrow the biggest out there. Improved links should improve capture and conviction rates, and the penalties of boat confiscation that the HMRC can impose are a real deterrent. Fining convicted "black fish" individuals doesn't act as a deterrent it seems compared to the profits that can be made, so make sure that the tax on the millions of pounds worth of illegal fish IS paid, and if it bankrupts them, then so be it. Also gives "quick wins", and publicity. 2. Increase the minimum mesh sizes of fixed nets set within 1 mile of shore. The size increase should be significant, and meaningful, with massive penalties for contravention. The "grandfather rights" might be enshrined in law, but the mesh size should be changeable by local by-laws. I believe mesh sizes should be increased to a level where catches are not economically viable, and the practice is stopped once and for all. 3. Make sandeels a quota species, and reduce the quota to zero. Any undersized, spiny, inedible and unwanted fish landed as an unfortunate by-catch from banning discards should be turned into fish meal instead. The food chain needs to be restored desperately, for the benefit of all predatory fish, birds, seals, dolphins etc. Mike PS. If I was allowed a fourth , I'd go with increasing focus on inshore beam trawling, and use every means possible to get this damaging practice stopped within 6 miles of the shore by ALL sizes of vessel.Being realistic, this might be the biggest battle of all, with the most to gain.

I posted the same link Chris at the same time!

Black fish scam, large fines, etc...here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-nort...etland-17153085 I'm appalled that the level of fines does not match the value of the fish landed illegally, and there's no references to boat confiscation, or removal of rights to trade in the case of the shore-based operators. I'd love to know if the Angling Trust can claim any involvement to date, or if they are able to involve HMRC to reclaim "lost" taxes and finally drive these characters out of the fish business? Mike

The best way for their numbers to be controlled is to get a celebrity chef to declare them a delicacy... Mike

Thanks for the tips folks. Do any of these places hold whiting too at the moment? Mike

Well done for giving it a try Steve! I guess most species are now thinking about spawning, and moving out to deeper water. I think this weekend will be my last chuck until the anti-fouling has been done! Mike

Hoping to take Frisky out on Saturday for a rather unusual trip. George has a biology practical on Monday, and wants a dogfish for dissection purposes. Now, does anyone know anywhere we might reliably find one in late February? Possible crew space available if anyone wants to join to dangle for a late whiting (are they still in?) or a bonus cod. Probably doing the 9.30 and 3.30 bridge lifts. Mike

Think I'd be tempted to go to a breaker's yard and get a

I'm dead impressed Stuie! You're building a great lead! Mike

I'm not sure using bass as bait will be appreciated by some members, mind, if they were over the minimum size.... Good luck with the plastics! Mike

If the marine toilet has gone empty, it will need to be primed. Try putting a gallon of water into the bowl and then pumping it through...the pump system will then be full of water, and will "suck" properly instead of just trying to move air. Mike

That sounds a chunky outfit Andrew. I have 40m of 8mm chain with a 35lb CQR, so share your concerns. Mind, my boat is over 6 tonnes. I resolve it by having a separate fishing anchor (a small Bruce clone) to chain and 110m of 12mm nylon, using the Alderney Ring system. I keep this in a plastic basket, and deploy it from the bow for fishing in up to 100' of water. There are drawbacks: - getting the fishing anchor rigged, - keeping the main anchor available for emergencies, - the fishing anchor is seriously undersized (to aid handling) and breaks out easily However, this might be an option to consider? Mike

In case you weren't aware, antifoul won't stick to bare fibreglass, and you will need a primer coat first. The other thing to consider is that a bare hull is ideal for osmosis prevention via the painting on of several layers of an epoxy coating. It's not cheap or quick, but if you plan to keep the boat for many years, it might be a long-term investment. Alternatively, some of the members never antifoul as they use dry stack storage. Mike

Taking a different slant on this... If the Angling Trust was aware of this case, what practical actions could they have taken to influence an increased penalty? Mike

Gutted for you Nigel. Mike

Looks good! I think I'd put an extra eye on the rod to achieve it, and use a hacksaw and file to open the eye smoothly and allow it to be engaged for retrieving, and disengaged for casting. I think anything else would be cut through by the line abrasion over time. Something to think about! Mike

I read the original post as being a job advert, seeking applicants to write a Feasibility Study. It might be nice to give the lucky candidate the benefit of our considered opinion however! Mike

Good luck and take care - it'll be bitterly cold out there! Mike

Some interesting statistics, explaining some entrenched positions: - Consumer purchases of seafood exceeded

Interesting the lack of comments here! It tends to suggest no-one is really sure. Perhaps the Angling Trust should be providing information and adverts on what IS illegal (in terms of commercial fishing) and HOW we should respond if we witness anything! Mike

Some carefully considered comments there Duncan and Reg, thanks. Mike

All, I found David Mitchell's talk to be fascinating at our club meeting on Thursday 2nd February 2012, and I did talk to him afterwards about some of the points raised. It's a complex topic, and I am starting to see why the Angling Trust is spread thinly, particularly relating to restoration of fish stocks available to recreational sea anglers. In summary, my understanding of the 4 main issues presented were: - Multiple "battlegrounds" on which to fight; - Multiple stakeholders to involve and influence; - Complex legal framework at local, national and international levels; - Lack of funding to help make major achievements. This thread I've left to last to start, as I personally believe it's the most complex. On a simplistic level, the more money the Angling Trust has coming in, the more it can consider attempting on behalf of the membership, which I think we can all understand. However, the real decision-makers in this country (the politicians) and the EU don't really care about the Angling Trust, they're just another emerging stakeholder. DECISION-MAKING The pressures on key decision-makers (from our RSA perspective) can be summarised as follows (not in any particular order): - Remaining in office to serve their party's political interests (plus get their wages etc); - Not going against the 4 "P"'s (Personal Preferences of Powerful People); - Considering existing and potential impacts to their political party funding; - Working within the framework of existing UK and EU legislation and assessing the practical changes that they can get agreed while in office; - Working within their Department's financial budget (set elsewhere), including the hiring of special advisers and legal representation, as well as civil service machinery; - The timing of controversial decisions and the implications that they might have on by-elections and General Elections; - Considering unemployment impacts in the commercial fishing sector for direct and supporting industries, and impacts on communities (and voting) arising; - Appreciating impacts on imports and exports arising from decisions that impact the balance of trade, potentially leading to changes to Gross Domestic Product, and Deficit implications. - Validating commercial sector lobbying and (expensive) legal representations to favour their views over other stakeholders; - The impacts on direct and indirect taxation from any decisions taken over the current and future financial years; - The transition arrangements necessary to phase in change, and the phasing of cash flow implications and impact on annual financial budgets; - The source, credibility, and evidence of advice reviewed and considered during consultation phases, taking great care to ensure this is supported by the Powerful People (see above). - A hierarchy of political advisers are needed for decision making at this level, including Civil Servants, Government Departments, and NGOs (Non-Governmental Organisations) and others that exist to filter information from interest groups. - Avoid making any wrong decisions while in office to avoid impacting their re-election prospects. This means blaming the previous administration by ratifying their decisions in the first part of their term in office, and avoiding making new controversial decisions that can possibly be deferred until the next incumbent arrives. Anything I've missed? As you can see, decision-making at this level is fraught with difficulty, most items directly linked to FINANCE and multiple factors need to be clearly addressed before a decision will be taken. The best the Angling Trust can achieve here is exerting influence through the legitimate channels open to them (see Stakeholder thread). Not sure if this thread helps (or is that exciting to read!), but I wanted to try to clarify some of these issues, and to record some of the political constraints that makes it so difficult to achieve even "sensible" change. My simplistic view is that the Angling Trust needs some quick wins on it's RSA "Battlegrounds", to convince existing and potential members to back them, thereby providing them with the funding to influence more and more "Stakeholders" to assess key stock conservation and restoration topics including the RSA perspective, and achieve changes to the "Legals" that will making sea angling better for all RSAs. Mike

I know that bag limits are a controversial subject for anglers (why pay membership to the AT if they're pushing to limit MY catches..?). However, the suggestion of bag limits for "own consumption", limited to "sensible" levels can be seen to make some sense, and could be linked to other suggestions relating to some angling boats catching bass as "black fish" as illegal commercial activities I'll add "Bag Limits per species per angler per day at sensible levels to distinguish RSAs from illegal commercial fishermen" above, for further consideration. Keep them coming folks, and your TOP THREE remember... Mike