We’re skirting around the main point. The regulated commercial fleet are under increasing pressure through quota cuts, etc, and their representatives are trying hard to defend the indefensible. One of their most vociferous critics is the angling community. As such, the last thing they need to do is to supply the commercials with these kind of details. It will be argued that recreational anglers are now catching more fish than the inshore fleet, and that these catch reports are typical of all recreational angler’s catches. I have no doubt that the allegation will also be raised, that, for the quantities caught, there is no way that it is for personal consumption, and that much of it going for sale. I say again, politicians and “Joe Public” do not know what is going on in real life out at sea, so these reports will be believed as being typical. This kind of information can only persuade the politicians that we have to be regulated, and so hasten the introduction of the sea fishing licence, plus an inevitable bag limit. People who publish these types of catch reports are not only cutting their own throats, but those of every other angler.
Paranoid ?
- Thread starter ScottyJim
- Start date
Oblickta
Well-known member
Maybe it would be just as benificial to let the politicians and Joe public know that an angler has to pay £530 + (94 hours) and be taken to Norway for 15 hour fishing sessions to have a good days fishing, that used to be the norm for all the charter boats not that long ago!
mark
Well-known member
Cheiftain is virtually the only boat in the country that takes anglers far enough off for long enough a length of time to make such hauls, and they don't have catches like the last 2 that often
there's still way way more commercial boats fishing than charter boats, even trips like the chieftain are putting in are small potatoes compared to the take, environmental damage, discards etc of the commercial fleet
would they raise it as an arguement for an RSA licence, maybe maybe not, doubt it would add any weight to all the arguements that were thrown up last time
the commerical industries problems lie squarely with the quota system and the way its being traded - basically gets traded like futures get traded on the stock exchange, some anonymous plc buys a whole heap of quota, then rents it back to the boats marked up to make a healthy profit for the share holders and sod everything else.
Learnt this week that one of the largest holders of UK fish quotas at the moment is Manchester United plc! explain than one to me if you can!
there's still way way more commercial boats fishing than charter boats, even trips like the chieftain are putting in are small potatoes compared to the take, environmental damage, discards etc of the commercial fleet
would they raise it as an arguement for an RSA licence, maybe maybe not, doubt it would add any weight to all the arguements that were thrown up last time
the commerical industries problems lie squarely with the quota system and the way its being traded - basically gets traded like futures get traded on the stock exchange, some anonymous plc buys a whole heap of quota, then rents it back to the boats marked up to make a healthy profit for the share holders and sod everything else.
Learnt this week that one of the largest holders of UK fish quotas at the moment is Manchester United plc! explain than one to me if you can!
Your right about the trading of the quota system, Mark. Up here in Scotland we have separate control of most fishing issues, incuding quotas. The Scottish parliament has a consultation document out about this. The key points being,
1. To safeguard Scotland’s traditional fishing rights for now and the future by keeping them in Scotland.
2. Make sure Scottish fishermen get their fair share of quota providing stability and security so that businesses can plan for the future.
3. Make sure fishing quotas are only held by businesses who fish them.
4. Encourage new blood into the industry by seeking to develop a new entrants scheme that will allow new fishermen to access quota.
5. Reform licensing to make it simpler and user-friendly so reducing business costs.
At least they are trying to get a grip on these kinds of issues up here. Point 3 will mean that the Man Utd issue should get eliminated.
1. To safeguard Scotland’s traditional fishing rights for now and the future by keeping them in Scotland.
2. Make sure Scottish fishermen get their fair share of quota providing stability and security so that businesses can plan for the future.
3. Make sure fishing quotas are only held by businesses who fish them.
4. Encourage new blood into the industry by seeking to develop a new entrants scheme that will allow new fishermen to access quota.
5. Reform licensing to make it simpler and user-friendly so reducing business costs.
At least they are trying to get a grip on these kinds of issues up here. Point 3 will mean that the Man Utd issue should get eliminated.
Red5
Well-known member
You'd probably find that those people going to Norway, still aren't going to keep 176 stone of cod with practically every single fish being returned.
It was mentioned in the white paper on the licence about RSA's selling fish on the black market and I agree with Scotty Jim about the commercial fleet (who are for the first time in 100 years coming under intense scrutiny), looking for us anglers as scapegoats. Doesn't matter about statictics because people take out of them the bits that they want to belive or feel relevant. Instead of not discussing their huge catches why don't they put most of the fish back and enjoy the days fishing or is catching and killing as many as you can all that fishing is about like the macky bashers on the piers
jason
Well-known member
one thing that has not been mentioned is that the chieftain fishes a wreck at the most twice a year. They are there for selective and allows the wreck to recover its eco system when fishing is finished, they are the only boat who goes out that far and will therefore be the only boat to fish those wrecks.
I know a couple of eco-friendly fishermen. If somebody would like to send me some gps coordinates of some good productive wrecks, I’ll pass them on to them. Being eco-friendly they’ll promise not to trawl the area, as that damages the sea bottom and results in dead bycatch. I’ll get them to promise only to use gill nets and long lines. Please don’t worry now, even though they’ll be keeping every fish they catch. They’ll only visit your wreck twice a year. That of course means there will be plenty of time for the fish to restock, before they come back to “eco-fish” it again. They’ll also promise not to pass these coordinates on, so no one else will fish it in between visits, meaning of course, that you’ve nothing to worry about. Oh , also, if the wreck is a little further out, that’s ok. Everyone knows, of course, that fish never migrate inshore, or any of their resultant offspring, so everything is hunky dory. Isn’t it ? What’s that you say ? Your not too keen on commercial fishermen doing this ? Well, still send me some coordinates. I know some eco-friendly recreational anglers …….. !
davem2005
Well-known member
I've been watching this thread with intrest for a few weeks and wanted to comment but its interesting to see how others think.
Both sides of the arguement hold water...we have a right to catch them and our fishing is recognised as being sustainable and enviromentally friendly.
But to post pics of massive final bags after a marathon session by 12 anglers wont do our case any good when it comes to any discussion on bag limits.
The good news is that in all my trips down to westminster etc ...what is happening up here does not get a look in...so a few good bags of cod are likely to go un noticed.
Scotty the scottish consultation and attitude is very different to ours...basically if it doesn't contain the word BASS no one in the uk reads it.
I have spent some time trying to make Defra and NAtural England realise that it is next to impossible for NE anglers to get a fair representaion at talks due to the distances and cost of attending meetings. Defra could not seem to give a dam but Natural England do "hope" to hold more meetings up here.
The good news is for every picture you can post of anglers showing off their " one in a lifetime catch" I could probably post an equivalent one of commercials dumping perfectly good fish back dead due to their reluctance to accept more selective fishing methods.
And lets not forget that they do it daily!!!
Cheers
Dave
Both sides of the arguement hold water...we have a right to catch them and our fishing is recognised as being sustainable and enviromentally friendly.
But to post pics of massive final bags after a marathon session by 12 anglers wont do our case any good when it comes to any discussion on bag limits.
The good news is that in all my trips down to westminster etc ...what is happening up here does not get a look in...so a few good bags of cod are likely to go un noticed.
Scotty the scottish consultation and attitude is very different to ours...basically if it doesn't contain the word BASS no one in the uk reads it.
I have spent some time trying to make Defra and NAtural England realise that it is next to impossible for NE anglers to get a fair representaion at talks due to the distances and cost of attending meetings. Defra could not seem to give a dam but Natural England do "hope" to hold more meetings up here.
The good news is for every picture you can post of anglers showing off their " one in a lifetime catch" I could probably post an equivalent one of commercials dumping perfectly good fish back dead due to their reluctance to accept more selective fishing methods.
And lets not forget that they do it daily!!!
Cheers
Dave
jason
Well-known member
i think that i too could post pictures of trips when we have caught one or two fish or even blanked. the other point i forgot to point out how fish friendly is it in major charter ports where the boats hit the same wrecks everyday - not only in the fish caught and cleaning a wreck of all fish but all the lost sets of gear hanging on the wreck with up to 6 hooks hanging there to catch which is one of the reasons i now do not fish with more than 3 hooks whether jigger with 2 above or 3 above a lead (apart from daylites for mackeral fishing again all would get used as bait or taken home). So i am conciencious of what i catch and make sure that i only have what i know will get eaten on the few days after capture with the odd day where i will freeze down for later. I only ever give fish to a few who i know will appreciated it and not waste it.
davem2005
Well-known member
Jason,
I would not worry in the sligtest about a few bits of lost gear.
I dont have the details on this pc but tomorrow will post estimated figures supplied by commercials of gear lost in the Northumberland European Marine Site annually. This is the marine equivalent of an SSSI and represents a very small proportion of our shoreline. It puts your lost jigger and a few daylights into prospective.
Another point brought up by Oblikta in post #21 I think. 12 anglers paid 530 quid each. lets say each also spent a few hundred on gear/travel/new equipment and bait for that trip.
So thats say 12 X 600 quid into the coffers of UK PLC...vat on 3000 quid goes straight to the gov. Theres no discards...no wasteage...value for money as far as the gov go ...and argueably sustainable usage of our natural resources. The chieftain is providing a service and paying taxes on it. There would be no need to travel that far and go for days on end if things were not in a bad state. Its not my chosen kind of fishing but there are plenty who are prepared to pay for it.
I would not worry in the sligtest about a few bits of lost gear.
I dont have the details on this pc but tomorrow will post estimated figures supplied by commercials of gear lost in the Northumberland European Marine Site annually. This is the marine equivalent of an SSSI and represents a very small proportion of our shoreline. It puts your lost jigger and a few daylights into prospective.
Another point brought up by Oblikta in post #21 I think. 12 anglers paid 530 quid each. lets say each also spent a few hundred on gear/travel/new equipment and bait for that trip.
So thats say 12 X 600 quid into the coffers of UK PLC...vat on 3000 quid goes straight to the gov. Theres no discards...no wasteage...value for money as far as the gov go ...and argueably sustainable usage of our natural resources. The chieftain is providing a service and paying taxes on it. There would be no need to travel that far and go for days on end if things were not in a bad state. Its not my chosen kind of fishing but there are plenty who are prepared to pay for it.
jason
Well-known member
absolute fair comment - i have just watched a post on you tube called cod crusaders and there was an old commercial guy on there who really could not see the issue of what he saw as the good old days of catch what you like, land what you like and go where you like. I appreciate they are wanting to make a living but it is the miss management of the sea that is the real problem - just like a farmer planting the same crop in the same field every year without crop rotation and correct management the crop will eventually fail.
davem2005
Well-known member
The example of a farmer is almost right.
It just happens that this particular farmer does not plant any seed, does not fertilise his grounds or practice any kind of set aside or crop rotation....he just harvests whatever grows.
Oh and if the crop fails....thats not a problem ...we can get a subsidy to see us through till something grows again.
It just happens that this particular farmer does not plant any seed, does not fertilise his grounds or practice any kind of set aside or crop rotation....he just harvests whatever grows.
Oh and if the crop fails....thats not a problem ...we can get a subsidy to see us through till something grows again.
mark
Well-known member
Anyone who is of the opinion that ALL commercials are just there to rape the sea should take a trip out on one.
just been talking to a couple of my chums in scotland who have tied there boats up for a month or 2. why? because there's too much cod being caught.
the large commercials, with traded quota are hammering them, so there's plenty being landed so the price has dropped right back again - as low as £1.60 a kilo, thats 80p a pound, but it costs them nearly a grand a day in fuel, so they've tied up to save their quota, wait till the price recovers. They have also self imposed themselves bans on fishing in a couple of areas because they were seeing lots of juvenile fish. They have to log every trawl, catch, co-ordinates etc with the ministry. so what do the big internationals do?? pick up that information and steam straight out there and hoover everything up.
But it appears that the majority of anglers believe if you're a commercial fisherman you are automatically responsible for the state of fish stocks
quotas don't restrict what people can catch, just what they can land, that is the heart of the problem.
The large commercials (mainly international vessels) that have quota will
stay at sea for days on end, discarding tons of fish, so they can max out whatever it is they are targeting, and yet its the smaller and largely responsible boats that take the flak. If they are out there and start hitting larger numbers of a particular fish they pick up the phone and do some trading, buy extra quota and keep going till they've have made enough cash for the quota owner and themselves
just been talking to a couple of my chums in scotland who have tied there boats up for a month or 2. why? because there's too much cod being caught.
the large commercials, with traded quota are hammering them, so there's plenty being landed so the price has dropped right back again - as low as £1.60 a kilo, thats 80p a pound, but it costs them nearly a grand a day in fuel, so they've tied up to save their quota, wait till the price recovers. They have also self imposed themselves bans on fishing in a couple of areas because they were seeing lots of juvenile fish. They have to log every trawl, catch, co-ordinates etc with the ministry. so what do the big internationals do?? pick up that information and steam straight out there and hoover everything up.
But it appears that the majority of anglers believe if you're a commercial fisherman you are automatically responsible for the state of fish stocks
quotas don't restrict what people can catch, just what they can land, that is the heart of the problem.
The large commercials (mainly international vessels) that have quota will
stay at sea for days on end, discarding tons of fish, so they can max out whatever it is they are targeting, and yet its the smaller and largely responsible boats that take the flak. If they are out there and start hitting larger numbers of a particular fish they pick up the phone and do some trading, buy extra quota and keep going till they've have made enough cash for the quota owner and themselves
Oblickta
Well-known member
The Chieftain report has only attracted three replies so far (AnglersNet), two from a "Chieftain regular" and the other is a negative, indicating that this kind of report, doesn't attract the back slapping that it used to. I'm not sure if this is due to changing attitudes of anglers or people dont bother anymore for fear of ridicule.
ScottyJim re post #27, this is a discussion mate, no need for sarcasm
Chieftain also provides 10, 12 and 18 hour trips and I cant recall a single report from one of these shorter inshore trips. It's only the long haul 70, 84 and 94 hour trips that yield these big catches because of the location of the wrecks and the cost of tending commercial nets that far offshore isn't worth the haul. During my 70 hour trip out there we seen only one commercial boat (French) which Michelle photographed because it was rare to see anyone else in those waters. Not one of the many wrecks we fished was netted. This is why the catches can be good and why Chieftain should not be classed as typical. I dont think even the hardest anti RSA or politician could disagree!
Chieftain has a lot of regulars who dont do any other kind of sea angling except for an annual or biannual trip away from our shores. Is it OK to go fishing inshore every week for 6 months and bring 5lbs of fillets each time as apposed to going fishing once or twice a year to more lucarative grounds and bringing back one or two good catches (not guaranteed)?
I return most of what I catch but if given the chance to fish aboard Chieftain again I would but I would limit what I took home to what would fit in my one freezer box.
ScottyJim re post #27, this is a discussion mate, no need for sarcasm
Chieftain also provides 10, 12 and 18 hour trips and I cant recall a single report from one of these shorter inshore trips. It's only the long haul 70, 84 and 94 hour trips that yield these big catches because of the location of the wrecks and the cost of tending commercial nets that far offshore isn't worth the haul. During my 70 hour trip out there we seen only one commercial boat (French) which Michelle photographed because it was rare to see anyone else in those waters. Not one of the many wrecks we fished was netted. This is why the catches can be good and why Chieftain should not be classed as typical. I dont think even the hardest anti RSA or politician could disagree!
Chieftain has a lot of regulars who dont do any other kind of sea angling except for an annual or biannual trip away from our shores. Is it OK to go fishing inshore every week for 6 months and bring 5lbs of fillets each time as apposed to going fishing once or twice a year to more lucarative grounds and bringing back one or two good catches (not guaranteed)?
I return most of what I catch but if given the chance to fish aboard Chieftain again I would but I would limit what I took home to what would fit in my one freezer box.
Last edited:
Red5
Well-known member
Then you've got to remember Mark that it is the 'Smaller, responsible' boats that are fishing inside 6 miles and cleaning up the areas that hold the fish that most recreational anglers are finding are disappearing.It's not the big industrial ships we see off our shores 2-300yards in the winter months when they get wind of where the cod fishing is most productive.
If I had a quid for how many times in the past 10 years I've heard commercials say, aye there's plenty of cod and haddock going around, contrary to that ICES and WWF and tens of other environmental groups say the complete oppposite. I know who I believe.
If one commercial stood up and said " we are going to set a precedent and fish in a sustainable manner and only target the species that we intend to, instead of catching tens of tonnes of haddock, cod, coalfish, dogfish, smoothhound, crabs, starfish etc etc etcto chuck back , to land a couple of boxes of langoustines". Why can't they fish selectively? I think until they do so they will continue to be seen as the bad guys!
