Nigel many times I have been stood on the shore/rock edges and had conversations with other anglers and talked about a total ban on commercial fishing and for the UK commercial fisherman to be subsidised for about say three - five year by the government in order for all fish stocks to replenish would this be feasible...
TOTAL BAN
- Thread starter STEVO
- Start date
In theory it always sounds a good idea, however, there are significant ecological, social, economic and management reasons why such a ban would be both unworkable and unacceptable.
From a perspective of the North Sea as a whole and playing devils advocate on some issues;
• fish do not recognise boundaries,
• many species spend a limited time inside the 12nm limited before migrating out again
• most of the major spawning grounds are offshore (well outside the 12nm limit),
• fishing effort may well cease, but you can’t guarantee successful spawning,
• environmental factors, of which we have no control over, play a significant role in the success or otherwise of recruitment,
• the ecological implications would need to be established first, such as interactions with other species, which would take time therefore an immediate ban would not be viable,
• would any ban include species considered to be within safe biological limits
• if so, then its possible that they would out-compete those species which any recovery plan (ban) would try to re-establish,
• if not, then a significant proportion of effort would be shifted to target those species, with a further decline in stocks which are presently sustainable,
• the great majority of large trawlers fish outside the 12nm limit,
• to be effective any ban would need to be multi-lateral (include all EU member states),
• the cost as a consequence of a multi-lateral closure would be prohibitive,
• enforcement would be a significant issue with different member states administering varying degree’s of enforcement,
• illegal fishing effort inshore would increase significantly,
• there would be significant objection from the public, not just in the UK but throughout all members states, to pay huge amounts of money to fishermen, who have after all contributed to a greater or lesser degree, to the current state of fish stocks and the marine habitat,
• social unrest and possibly crime would increase (fishermen + lots of spare cash + lots of spare time =?????),
• who would support the service industries,
• who would support the processing sector,
• any such ban would increase effort massively outside EU waters, impacting third world nations and their own fishing rights and grounds,
• aquaculture would spread, impacting local habitats (salmon fish farms etc. and impacts as a result of),
These are just a few of the problems or issues that the proposed implementation of any such ban would raise. There would be benefits to the angler; however, these may be on a local or regional basis, and very short scale, a pain in the a**e if your area is not one to benefit significantly.
From a perspective of the North Sea as a whole and playing devils advocate on some issues;
• fish do not recognise boundaries,
• many species spend a limited time inside the 12nm limited before migrating out again
• most of the major spawning grounds are offshore (well outside the 12nm limit),
• fishing effort may well cease, but you can’t guarantee successful spawning,
• environmental factors, of which we have no control over, play a significant role in the success or otherwise of recruitment,
• the ecological implications would need to be established first, such as interactions with other species, which would take time therefore an immediate ban would not be viable,
• would any ban include species considered to be within safe biological limits
• if so, then its possible that they would out-compete those species which any recovery plan (ban) would try to re-establish,
• if not, then a significant proportion of effort would be shifted to target those species, with a further decline in stocks which are presently sustainable,
• the great majority of large trawlers fish outside the 12nm limit,
• to be effective any ban would need to be multi-lateral (include all EU member states),
• the cost as a consequence of a multi-lateral closure would be prohibitive,
• enforcement would be a significant issue with different member states administering varying degree’s of enforcement,
• illegal fishing effort inshore would increase significantly,
• there would be significant objection from the public, not just in the UK but throughout all members states, to pay huge amounts of money to fishermen, who have after all contributed to a greater or lesser degree, to the current state of fish stocks and the marine habitat,
• social unrest and possibly crime would increase (fishermen + lots of spare cash + lots of spare time =?????),
• who would support the service industries,
• who would support the processing sector,
• any such ban would increase effort massively outside EU waters, impacting third world nations and their own fishing rights and grounds,
• aquaculture would spread, impacting local habitats (salmon fish farms etc. and impacts as a result of),
These are just a few of the problems or issues that the proposed implementation of any such ban would raise. There would be benefits to the angler; however, these may be on a local or regional basis, and very short scale, a pain in the a**e if your area is not one to benefit significantly.
For what its worth and to put the record straight, the Spanish do not have access to the North Sea, they cannot fish it.
They were a tad canny in 2000 (I think) they asked for access to the North Sea, and were offered the Irish Box instead, which is what they actually wanted in the first place, but knew if they went straight for that they would be refused, with nowhere else to go. They knew if they asked for access to the North Sea that would be a political hot potato and stood a better chance of getting what they wanted - the Irish Box.
Its all down to politics and having very good representatives to push your case.
Cheers
Doc
[Edited on 9/11/2005 by Doc]
They were a tad canny in 2000 (I think) they asked for access to the North Sea, and were offered the Irish Box instead, which is what they actually wanted in the first place, but knew if they went straight for that they would be refused, with nowhere else to go. They knew if they asked for access to the North Sea that would be a political hot potato and stood a better chance of getting what they wanted - the Irish Box.
Its all down to politics and having very good representatives to push your case.
Cheers
Doc
[Edited on 9/11/2005 by Doc]
The golden mile will benefit angling, in that it provides access for anglers to those fish that do get through and are within reach. Many species use the nearshore as migratory corridors, and the nearshore has a wide range of habitats, more so than further offshore. Different habitats have different functions in terms of fish communities, sandy bays often function as juvenile plaice and dab areas, estuaries function as juvenile nursery areas for a range of species including bass, other types of habitat function as feeding areas for both juvenile and adults alike.
Functionality is the important component of inshore areas and consequently the golden mile will protect a significant proportion of these key habitats and the fish that use them.
Cheers
Doc
Functionality is the important component of inshore areas and consequently the golden mile will protect a significant proportion of these key habitats and the fish that use them.
Cheers
Doc
RobAdair
Well-known member
The \"Golden Mile\" might stop the netters, but what about the longliners (sandliners)??
How hard would they be to police? (That\'s if they\'re doing anything illegal?) The way I see it is, if the inshore fishing improved, someone, somewhere would exploit it for monetary gain (the only upside being that more informed anglers (ie NESA) would be more aware and hopefully \"shop\" the t*ssers)
How hard would they be to police? (That\'s if they\'re doing anything illegal?) The way I see it is, if the inshore fishing improved, someone, somewhere would exploit it for monetary gain (the only upside being that more informed anglers (ie NESA) would be more aware and hopefully \"shop\" the t*ssers)
i agree with rob on that we as responsable anglers have to pull together on this issue iff you see someone longlining report them . ban the nets to a further distance . the future of shore angling exists on it not just for us fishing the shorelines now. think of the next crop of casters(so to speek) iff my elders never took me fishng what would i be doing now as a pass time ??? drugs / robbing/ steeling it could have been keep the shores alive lol (i am drinking lol ) 
YoursTruly
Well-known member
Doc, i have said this once before the Golden Mile will not help anglers in noth east as the whole coastline is netted off between Roker Pier and South Shields pier. S/S pier is one mile long, you dont need to be a rocket scientist to work that one out.
one other thing you mentioned in a meeting was the 10mtr rule, once again take the ends of both piers and you will find they are both more than 10mtrs deep even at bottom tide.
So in fact the Golden Mile will only help the rest of the country and not the north east.
At the risk of repeating myself , i will say the NFSA will have to be seen to be doing something for anglers here in the north east before any individual will consider paying hard earned cash to join there ranks.
I take your point, but these are the sort of issues we have to include in the dialogue, there is as you rightly say, very little to be gained by implementing any scheme that only benefits anglers in certain parts of the country. However, even if anglers in the NE are still convinced that the NFSA only works for south coast anglers, remember that the south coast also has a number of long piers, Dover breakwater for example. There are also many other areas that have a headland with an adjoining bay, and yes there is the potential for fish to be caught before they hit the beachs, but then that is always going to be the case, we cannot close down the whole of the North Sea, although I\'m sure many would wish that to be the case!!! LOL
If you consider SS pier as an extention of the land then you could expect no netting within a mile of it, rather than just an arbitary 1 mile distance from the shore.
In addition, the 10m depth ruling applies throughout the district, however, as I understand the situation, there is additional protection supposedly in force for the NE, I will try and determine what this is and to what extent it is/not being enforced.
Cheers
Doc.
If you consider SS pier as an extention of the land then you could expect no netting within a mile of it, rather than just an arbitary 1 mile distance from the shore.
In addition, the 10m depth ruling applies throughout the district, however, as I understand the situation, there is additional protection supposedly in force for the NE, I will try and determine what this is and to what extent it is/not being enforced.
Cheers
Doc.
YoursTruly
Well-known member
Thanks for that doc, i look forward to your findings.
Terry
Terry
Nickid
Well-known member
Call in the Icelandic Navy to sink ALL the Spanish and French commercial fleet and our waters might stand a chance
Failing that, give Sless a box of 6oz gripper grenades and get him to do his famous 7 mile casts at the bast*rds
like your way of thinking
