bennygesserit
Well-known member
triple points for dropping the S Bomb !
Bass Shambles!
- Thread starter FishingMagic
- Start date
triple points for dropping the S Bomb !
black kettle
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2014
- Messages
- 143
- Reaction score
- 0
In between the rush to nail each other to barn doors, someone asked the reason for the demise of European sea bass off our shores and presumably elsewhere around the seas of Europe?
The reasons are more complex than over fishing.
Firstly sea bass are slow growing and it can take between 4-7 years for males and females to reach maturity. The females like most species of fish are larger than the males.
The species enjoyed a rise in population from the 1900's to mid 2000's in the Northeast Atlantic due to increased sea temperatures via climate change. However, juvenile sea bass do not fare well in cold winters and we have experienced more of those since 1980. Commercial over fishing especially with the use of pair trawlers working at bass spawning sites where adults and juveniles gather to spawn has also contributed to the species decline. This practice has also resulted in the loss of whole spawning sites in some cases.
In culinary terms, sea bass, especially in the restaurant and hotel trade, experienced a huge rise in popularity so sales and demand for the species went through the roof. This popularity is still the same today so demand for these fish remains high. As the old saying goes, money talks.
The true answer for sea bass conservation does not rely on fish quotas alone because the species as a whole remains extremely susceptible to climate change and that is something we cannot ever hope to control especially in light of how the worlds largest polluters view making contributions aimed at lowering the effects that their own pollution causes. Even those nations trying to do something about climate change fail to meet their targets year upon year. But of course, its very easy to blame man for either increases in sea temperatures or indeed falls of the same but the truth is the world has seen all these changes before and they had nothing to do with man at all. The 100,000 year cycle for Ice Ages is a perfect example when nature alone causes half the world to freeze over and modern science still can't fathom out why this event occurs conclusively.
Fortunately, there are a lot of conservation organisations tasked with protecting our seas and the creatures contained within them so its not all doom and gloom.
As for Martin Salter and the AT, I wouldn't trust em to fry the chips let alone cook the fish.
Regards,
BK.
The reasons are more complex than over fishing.
Firstly sea bass are slow growing and it can take between 4-7 years for males and females to reach maturity. The females like most species of fish are larger than the males.
The species enjoyed a rise in population from the 1900's to mid 2000's in the Northeast Atlantic due to increased sea temperatures via climate change. However, juvenile sea bass do not fare well in cold winters and we have experienced more of those since 1980. Commercial over fishing especially with the use of pair trawlers working at bass spawning sites where adults and juveniles gather to spawn has also contributed to the species decline. This practice has also resulted in the loss of whole spawning sites in some cases.
In culinary terms, sea bass, especially in the restaurant and hotel trade, experienced a huge rise in popularity so sales and demand for the species went through the roof. This popularity is still the same today so demand for these fish remains high. As the old saying goes, money talks.
The true answer for sea bass conservation does not rely on fish quotas alone because the species as a whole remains extremely susceptible to climate change and that is something we cannot ever hope to control especially in light of how the worlds largest polluters view making contributions aimed at lowering the effects that their own pollution causes. Even those nations trying to do something about climate change fail to meet their targets year upon year. But of course, its very easy to blame man for either increases in sea temperatures or indeed falls of the same but the truth is the world has seen all these changes before and they had nothing to do with man at all. The 100,000 year cycle for Ice Ages is a perfect example when nature alone causes half the world to freeze over and modern science still can't fathom out why this event occurs conclusively.
Fortunately, there are a lot of conservation organisations tasked with protecting our seas and the creatures contained within them so its not all doom and gloom.
As for Martin Salter and the AT, I wouldn't trust em to fry the chips let alone cook the fish.
Regards,
BK.
Judas Priest
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2008
- Messages
- 1,292
- Reaction score
- 2
Well put across BK but...........
Can you please not refer to them as sea bass, we don't have a freshwater bass over here and the term appears to have been coined by restuaranters and sales gurus over the last few years and is a pet hate of mine and aimed purely at making the ordering of it more exciting.. After all we don't say sea cod do we
Can you please not refer to them as sea bass, we don't have a freshwater bass over here and the term appears to have been coined by restuaranters and sales gurus over the last few years and is a pet hate of mine and aimed purely at making the ordering of it more exciting.. After all we don't say sea cod do we
robertroach
Well-known member
I think BK is right. There are freshwater (largemouth) bass in Southern Europe, so it's OK to call the saltwater bass the European Sea Bass.
I hope he is not an apologist for climate change however. What has happened over the last 50 years is nothing to do with the huge climate changes that have occurred over long time periods in the distant past and is entirely man made (in my opinion).
I hope he is not an apologist for climate change however. What has happened over the last 50 years is nothing to do with the huge climate changes that have occurred over long time periods in the distant past and is entirely man made (in my opinion).
black kettle
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2014
- Messages
- 143
- Reaction score
- 0
Hi Judas,
I think you might find the correct name for the species is "Altantic Sea Bass". Not to be confused with either the Black Sea Bass or the Chilean Sea Bass which is in actual fact the Patagonian Toothfish.
The species is known as "sea bass" right throughout UK and EU government agencies, a host of conservation organisations like ICES for example and even B.A.S.S. (Bass Anglers Sportfishing Society) refer to the species as "Sea Bass"
Here is an extract from their website;
" The Bass Anglers’ Sportfishing Society (BASS) is both a fishing club and an organisation dedicated to the conservation of the European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax). The Society believes that its members have the ability to encourage the conservation, research and protection of the European sea bass, as well as, to improve and educate others in the techniques of angling for this premier sporting fish."
So it appears its official title is indeed "Sea Bass"
Apologies for appearing to be picky but respect your liking for the species to be simply called "bass". Bass? Sea Bass? No matter really because we all know what we mean.
Regards,
BK.
---------- Post added at 05:18 ---------- Previous post was at 04:40 ----------
It is perhaps also interesting to note that a recent report. (Read the report here
Blue Marine Foundation | Bass stocks inch closer to precipice)
Bass fishing in the UK states that recreational bass caught by amateurs is worth 3 times more to the economy than commercially caught sea bass. Normally, such financial hocus pocus relies upon taking every conceivable penny spent in relation to the amateur going fishing for bass. Such as Tackle cost, tackle trades, bait cost, cost of transportation to and from venues, clothing, accommodation, uncle Tom Cobbly and all which on the face of it is all very well and good. But can the report seriously compare all that to the cost of ocean going fishing vessels, the cost of running all ports that land catches of fish in the UK and right across Europe, the cost of the vast network involved on land that distributes the catch to the customer, the revenue gained from every hotel, restaurant, supermarket and shop that sell sea bass, the revenue gained from taxes both personal and commercial gleaned from the commercial sea bass fishing industry? I seriously doubt it.
The fact is for the foreseeable future is the EU are being strongly influenced by the argument that the commercial fishing industry is putting forward in defense of their lively hood. I happen to disagree with this argument simply because their sums don't add up and we have all been here before when conservation organisations were warning about the dire threat that cod populations were facing. And we all know how that one ended up?
So going back to a very old gripe of mine; UK angling does NOT have a unified all powerful voice when it comes to campaigns like this. If it did, it would involve the whole weight of a 100% unified body, millions, coming down to bear against an ecological disaster waiting to happen because trust me, money talk will keep on talking till there is nothing left where it will then simply move on to the next species it can exploit for profit until that too is pushed towards the brink of extinction. I have long criticised the AT for the way it is set up and the way it operates simply because when it comes to any serious campaigning for angling it just doesn't have the weight of numbers to be any where near effective. That is not the angling majorities fault, its the AT fault for not listening to criticism or taking on board the need for change so that it can win the hearts and minds of angling that would work towards all UK anglers being a part of a unified org working for anglers.
Instead, all we hear is the same old tired rhetoric over and over and this is why the majority of anglers simply refuse to join the AT.
Inspire anglers to join and they will come. Talk down to them and they will stay away.
Regards,
BK.
I think you might find the correct name for the species is "Altantic Sea Bass". Not to be confused with either the Black Sea Bass or the Chilean Sea Bass which is in actual fact the Patagonian Toothfish.
The species is known as "sea bass" right throughout UK and EU government agencies, a host of conservation organisations like ICES for example and even B.A.S.S. (Bass Anglers Sportfishing Society) refer to the species as "Sea Bass"
Here is an extract from their website;
" The Bass Anglers’ Sportfishing Society (BASS) is both a fishing club and an organisation dedicated to the conservation of the European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax). The Society believes that its members have the ability to encourage the conservation, research and protection of the European sea bass, as well as, to improve and educate others in the techniques of angling for this premier sporting fish."
So it appears its official title is indeed "Sea Bass"
Apologies for appearing to be picky but respect your liking for the species to be simply called "bass". Bass? Sea Bass? No matter really because we all know what we mean.
Regards,
BK.
---------- Post added at 05:18 ---------- Previous post was at 04:40 ----------
It is perhaps also interesting to note that a recent report. (Read the report here
Blue Marine Foundation | Bass stocks inch closer to precipice)
Bass fishing in the UK states that recreational bass caught by amateurs is worth 3 times more to the economy than commercially caught sea bass. Normally, such financial hocus pocus relies upon taking every conceivable penny spent in relation to the amateur going fishing for bass. Such as Tackle cost, tackle trades, bait cost, cost of transportation to and from venues, clothing, accommodation, uncle Tom Cobbly and all which on the face of it is all very well and good. But can the report seriously compare all that to the cost of ocean going fishing vessels, the cost of running all ports that land catches of fish in the UK and right across Europe, the cost of the vast network involved on land that distributes the catch to the customer, the revenue gained from every hotel, restaurant, supermarket and shop that sell sea bass, the revenue gained from taxes both personal and commercial gleaned from the commercial sea bass fishing industry? I seriously doubt it.
The fact is for the foreseeable future is the EU are being strongly influenced by the argument that the commercial fishing industry is putting forward in defense of their lively hood. I happen to disagree with this argument simply because their sums don't add up and we have all been here before when conservation organisations were warning about the dire threat that cod populations were facing. And we all know how that one ended up?
So going back to a very old gripe of mine; UK angling does NOT have a unified all powerful voice when it comes to campaigns like this. If it did, it would involve the whole weight of a 100% unified body, millions, coming down to bear against an ecological disaster waiting to happen because trust me, money talk will keep on talking till there is nothing left where it will then simply move on to the next species it can exploit for profit until that too is pushed towards the brink of extinction. I have long criticised the AT for the way it is set up and the way it operates simply because when it comes to any serious campaigning for angling it just doesn't have the weight of numbers to be any where near effective. That is not the angling majorities fault, its the AT fault for not listening to criticism or taking on board the need for change so that it can win the hearts and minds of angling that would work towards all UK anglers being a part of a unified org working for anglers.
Instead, all we hear is the same old tired rhetoric over and over and this is why the majority of anglers simply refuse to join the AT.
Inspire anglers to join and they will come. Talk down to them and they will stay away.
Regards,
BK.
Judas Priest
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2008
- Messages
- 1,292
- Reaction score
- 2
Apologies BK wasn't having a go it's just that sea bass and folks who use sat navs whilst hogging the middle lane of the motorway are just two of my many grumbles these days.
black kettle
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2014
- Messages
- 143
- Reaction score
- 0
No need for apology Judas, I understood the viewpoint.
Not afflicted by the middle lane sat nav drivers though. I own a sat nav but blast past everyone in the outside lane in the beast 4x4.
As for climate change Rob Roach? Do any of us know the "real" truth? So many eminent experts say one thing whilst so many eminent experts totally disagree. Fill a room with experts in the same field and the first thing you'll get is total disagreement especially if a lot of their opinion is based upon theories. Here is one set of opinions;
Sources | Climate Change | US EPA
Here is another;
What are the main sources of greenhouse gas emissions? | What's Your Impact
And another;
Agriculture and Livestock Remain Major Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Worldwatch Institute
And yet another;
Cow 'emissions' more damaging to planet than CO2 from cars - Climate Change - Environment - The Independent
Dreary me yet another;
Just 90 companies caused two-thirds of man-made global warming emissions | Environment | The Guardian
I could actually go on and on and on but all this illustrates is my point that there are loads of expert opinions out there but guess what? Which ever set of experts you go with or whatever set of experts world governments decide to go with, the one thing that is being generated far more than green house gases rising up into our planets atmosphere is the amount of money being pumped into all these experts coffers who study and research this topic very often on behalf of universities who receive huge grants for undertaking them. This topic has actually spawned the rise of a huge money grabbing industry and that's the only part that I actually know for sure is changing.
Regards,
BK
Not afflicted by the middle lane sat nav drivers though. I own a sat nav but blast past everyone in the outside lane in the beast 4x4.
As for climate change Rob Roach? Do any of us know the "real" truth? So many eminent experts say one thing whilst so many eminent experts totally disagree. Fill a room with experts in the same field and the first thing you'll get is total disagreement especially if a lot of their opinion is based upon theories. Here is one set of opinions;
Sources | Climate Change | US EPA
Here is another;
What are the main sources of greenhouse gas emissions? | What's Your Impact
And another;
Agriculture and Livestock Remain Major Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Worldwatch Institute
And yet another;
Cow 'emissions' more damaging to planet than CO2 from cars - Climate Change - Environment - The Independent
Dreary me yet another;
Just 90 companies caused two-thirds of man-made global warming emissions | Environment | The Guardian
I could actually go on and on and on but all this illustrates is my point that there are loads of expert opinions out there but guess what? Which ever set of experts you go with or whatever set of experts world governments decide to go with, the one thing that is being generated far more than green house gases rising up into our planets atmosphere is the amount of money being pumped into all these experts coffers who study and research this topic very often on behalf of universities who receive huge grants for undertaking them. This topic has actually spawned the rise of a huge money grabbing industry and that's the only part that I actually know for sure is changing.
Regards,
BK
robertroach
Well-known member
BK, I agree, experts are always divided. I suppose the only thing to do is try to take a broad consensus of expert opinions, filter out the ones obviously driven by self interest, mix thoroughly with some common sense and come up with a politically acceptable solution. Easy peasy.
I once had a long conversation with someone I knew very well who was a marine biologist about fish stocks in the North Sea. He said he couldn't say there was a problem with overfishing because there wasn't enough scientific evidence to prove it. Sometimes commonsense should actually trump science, and the problem is that while the scientists are spending years trying to prove things and agree things, the fish stocks are crashing. I guess this is where our politicians should come in.
Robert
I once had a long conversation with someone I knew very well who was a marine biologist about fish stocks in the North Sea. He said he couldn't say there was a problem with overfishing because there wasn't enough scientific evidence to prove it. Sometimes commonsense should actually trump science, and the problem is that while the scientists are spending years trying to prove things and agree things, the fish stocks are crashing. I guess this is where our politicians should come in.
Robert
thecrow
Well-known member
Politicians and common sense in the same post, next you will be saying that ex politicians are worth listening to on the subject