- Joined
- Feb 26, 2009
- Messages
- 277,087
- Reaction score
- 8
Bass measures failing to protect spawning stocks in the South and East England
- Thread starter FishingMagic
- Start date
It is good to see the Angling Trust supporting the need to allow fish to spawn in peace . . . . . . . one hopes said concern will filter over into the Coarse fishing arena . . . . .
robertroach
Well-known member
We all need to support organisations like the Angling Trust. We need desperately to pile more pressure on our politicians who have no interest in conservation of fish stocks but only ever give way to the fishing industry.
Bass have far more value as a recreational resource than a commercial resource and should be protected like they are in the USA.
Bass have far more value as a recreational resource than a commercial resource and should be protected like they are in the USA.
no-one in particular
Well-known member
I am not sure of the whole Bass picture and I wouldn't disagree that it is wrong to deliberately catch spawning fish.
However, bans and quotas have been going on since the 60's since we first became aware of the decline in sea fish stocks. All sorts of permutations have been tried for the last 60 years and none of them have had much effect. Mackerel. Bass, Whiting, Plaice and just about everything else continues to decline. Cod have made some resurgence but nothing near the levels they once were.
They don't work, its a case of always playing catch up. Introduce a new quota or ban, find a couple of years later it has not worked and introduce a more stringent quota or ban, its always behind the game and fish just continue to decline; it might slow it down a bit but the end result will be the same and Bass will continue to decline despite these efforts watered down or not; as will almost everything else...
How long does a thing have to not work before someone wakes up!
The only system I have heard of that does work is to introduce large PERMANENT no go - no fishing areas to act as larders for the rest of the seas. Agreed internationally and easy to police whereas semi bans/quotas/size limits are not. For one thing they could easily be observed by satellites. The ocean floor will thrive as will everything else in these areas. They will spill over into the rest of the oceans for us to harvest while ALWAYS maintaining a good base stock of fish species and sea life..
However, bans and quotas have been going on since the 60's since we first became aware of the decline in sea fish stocks. All sorts of permutations have been tried for the last 60 years and none of them have had much effect. Mackerel. Bass, Whiting, Plaice and just about everything else continues to decline. Cod have made some resurgence but nothing near the levels they once were.
They don't work, its a case of always playing catch up. Introduce a new quota or ban, find a couple of years later it has not worked and introduce a more stringent quota or ban, its always behind the game and fish just continue to decline; it might slow it down a bit but the end result will be the same and Bass will continue to decline despite these efforts watered down or not; as will almost everything else...
How long does a thing have to not work before someone wakes up!
The only system I have heard of that does work is to introduce large PERMANENT no go - no fishing areas to act as larders for the rest of the seas. Agreed internationally and easy to police whereas semi bans/quotas/size limits are not. For one thing they could easily be observed by satellites. The ocean floor will thrive as will everything else in these areas. They will spill over into the rest of the oceans for us to harvest while ALWAYS maintaining a good base stock of fish species and sea life..
Last edited:
robertroach
Well-known member
Mark, totally agree. I have an idea that about 20 such areas were suggested just a few years ago but hardly any of them were implemented. The local fishermen objected and the politicians didn't have the cojones to push the plan through.
Hugh Fearnley whatsisname was a strong advocate of this plan.
Hugh Fearnley whatsisname was a strong advocate of this plan.
no-one in particular
Well-known member
I believe many small areas have been put in place Rob and been very successful, which is my point, it works and should be expanded whereas 60 years of bans, quotas, size limits has had little effect. I envisaged areas where commercial fishermen are taken into account as part of it; a compromise with them would have to be sought. Areas away from the main fishing ports and their grounds with spawning grounds, depths, species would all have to be considered. The ocean should be big enough to find areas that will accommodate all these considerations.
But I am sure they will just keep bashing the problem with a hammer. They have the cojones for that!
Last edited: