-
Welcome to the DeeperBlue.com Forums, the largest online community dedicated to Freediving, Scuba Diving and Spearfishing. To gain full access to the DeeperBlue.com Forums you must register for a free account. As a registered member you will be able to:
- Join over 44,280+ fellow diving enthusiasts from around the world on this forum
- Participate in and browse from over 516,210+ posts.
- Communicate privately with other divers from around the world.
- Post your own photos or view from 7,441+ user submitted images.
- All this and much more...
You can gain access to all this absolutely free when you register for an account, so sign up today!
Seabass ban next year
- Thread starterpolspear
- Start date
Thread Status: Hello
, There was no answer in this thread for more than 60 days.
It can take a long time to get an up-to-date response or contact with relevant users.
It can take a long time to get an up-to-date response or contact with relevant users.
Yeah 10K is excellent hey 
It could do with some more air time to try for that parliament slot though, I wonder if the admins could help at all, it affects all UK spearos and while no one likes to get involved with debates on politics, but this is win win for all UK spearos hey.
It could do with some more air time to try for that parliament slot though, I wonder if the admins could help at all, it affects all UK spearos and while no one likes to get involved with debates on politics, but this is win win for all UK spearos hey.
Last edited:
I guess when Noddy and Winnie the pooh 'peer-review' the research on the state of the bass stocks next winter and see that there has still been a decline despite their 'intelligent' guidance in 2016 will we see REAL changes... I just hope 2017 won't be too late.
This is just another sham of influential individuals misrepresenting data for nothing other than financial gain with incomprehensible decision making. New NHS contracts and no bass... can't wait.
This is just another sham of influential individuals misrepresenting data for nothing other than financial gain with incomprehensible decision making. New NHS contracts and no bass... can't wait.
Yeah agree 100%, not much makes my blood boil but stuff like this makes me want to go and land a 250lb politician...
Yeah 10K is excellent hey
We have so many organisations trying to protect bass stocks but with such a divided base, it only ever yields strong worded rhetoric and sadly, I can only see this happening again.
As much as it annoys me that we as a community of fisherman cannot get anything done, I would like to see Hugh involved again.
That is classic Nigel, he was bang on the money there, regardless of your opinion of him, you would have to be a raving lunatic to disagree with what he was saying............................ like that labour bloke, what's his name................. me old son, fantastic, the chairperson was in shock, that's about as good as it gets Excellent point about the stripped Bass, Nigel you did well there, thanks for trying and dealing out the home truths, a politician voicing what the people that voted for him wants to be said................. we have democracy at last
Excellent point about the stripped Bass, Nigel you did well there, thanks for trying and dealing out the home truths, a politician voicing what the people that voted for him wants to be said................. we have democracy at lastCrikey! Farage isn't really to my taste but he does put the point rather well. I'm glad they were 'debating' it but it just seemed to end in the whole thing being closed down.
I'm all in favour of reasonable bass limits and a closed season for both recreational and commercial fishermen because after all what we really want is a healthy bass population and the odd chance to have a pop at them. This policy is crackers and unduly punitive to a big body of people who care about the bass and the marine environment.
I'm all in favour of reasonable bass limits and a closed season for both recreational and commercial fishermen because after all what we really want is a healthy bass population and the odd chance to have a pop at them. This policy is crackers and unduly punitive to a big body of people who care about the bass and the marine environment.
He completely nailed it, at least someone is speaking up.
We got a response to the petition, as you would expect...
Dear tony eynon,
The Government has responded to the petition you signed – “The decision to water down the recent European decision on the bass stocks”.
Government responded:
The petition title misrepresents the EU process. UK Government successfully ensured anglers could fish for sport and the derogation for gillnets excluded driftnets that take most UK netting catches.
The UK Government has not sought to water down the EU decision to protect bass stocks agreed in the EU fisheries Council on 15 December 2015, as suggested in the petition title. The terms of the petition are either a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of the EU process and the UK Government’s approach.
It is actually the UK Government that has consistently pressed for EU action to address the decline of the stock, and we secured emergency action in 2015. We were not the authors of the recent proposal for 2016, however – this was a Commission proposal – nor indeed of the derogations offered in the compromise deal tabled at Council. However the agreement for 2016 is tougher on most sectors than that for 2015.
The UK Government did manage to achieve some key outcomes to adjust both the proposal and the related compromise deal. These help to protect the EU bass stock’s progress to sustainable fishing and the interests of both recreational and small scale commercial fishermen as EU bass fisheries move towards that goal, as follows.
We fought for and secured continuation of a recreational catch and release fishery for recreational sea anglers during the 6 month moratorium on bass catches, which was under threat in the Commission proposal wording. This means that anglers and charter vessels can continue sport-fishing activity throughout the year, subject to the ban proposed by the Commission on keeping bass during the first six months, coupled with a single fish daily bag limit per person in the second half of the year.
While accepting the principle of the proposed 6 month moratorium and a subsequent catch limit of 1 tonne per vessel per month for most commercial fisheries, we aimed to avoid disproportionate impacts on the lower impact, small-scale inshore hook and line and inshore fixed gillnet fisheries during the first 6 months. But as the UK Government position was for a more modest derogation than that offered on the day, we sought to reduce the impact of this on bass stocks.
Our negotiating position was based on different fisheries’ relative impacts and reflected several factors. Hook and line has the highest degree of selectivity for the right size of bass taken – though gillnets also perform well compared with other fishing methods. We also needed to consider the proportion of the bass catch taken by UK vessels using these methods: although the nets gear group has previously accounted for half of the annual UK bass total landings (46% average from 2011-2013), drift-netting is estimated to account for up to 90% of this, as the Commission are aware, and drift-netting was not agreed for inclusion in the derogation.
In the final compromise these two commercial fisheries (hook and line and fixed gillnets) were given identical derogations for all Member States fishing for bass (February-March moratorium and 1.3 tonne catch limit all year). The UK Government negotiating position in advance of the Council decision had been to press for lower – and differentiated – catch limits for derogations to apply for these two EU fisheries (excluding drift-netting) during the moratorium. But while the compromise offered higher monthly catch limits for netting, matching the limits for hook and line, these are not applicable to the majority of UK netting activity and are combined with the complete closure for two months.
It was necessary to agree EU-level measures for bass in this way because we share the fishery with other Member States who need to be fully signed up if we are to achieve stock recovery. We now at least have a firm timetable with Member States’ and Commission agreement, to achieve sustainable fishing of bass by 2018, and the EU’s interim management package will increasingly be complemented by regional measures, including in the context of multi-annual management plans driven by the Member States concerned, as well as national ones.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Click this link to view the response online:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/116747?reveal_response=yes
The Petitions Committee will take a look at this petition and its response. They can press the government for action and gather evidence. If this petition reaches 100,000 signatures, the Committee will consider it for a debate.
The Committee is made up of 11 MPs, from political parties in government and in opposition. It is entirely independent of the Government. Find out more about the Committee: https://petition.parliament.uk/help#petitions-committee
Thanks,
The Petitions team
UK Government and Parliament
We got a response to the petition, as you would expect...
Dear tony eynon,
The Government has responded to the petition you signed – “The decision to water down the recent European decision on the bass stocks”.
Government responded:
The petition title misrepresents the EU process. UK Government successfully ensured anglers could fish for sport and the derogation for gillnets excluded driftnets that take most UK netting catches.
The UK Government has not sought to water down the EU decision to protect bass stocks agreed in the EU fisheries Council on 15 December 2015, as suggested in the petition title. The terms of the petition are either a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of the EU process and the UK Government’s approach.
It is actually the UK Government that has consistently pressed for EU action to address the decline of the stock, and we secured emergency action in 2015. We were not the authors of the recent proposal for 2016, however – this was a Commission proposal – nor indeed of the derogations offered in the compromise deal tabled at Council. However the agreement for 2016 is tougher on most sectors than that for 2015.
The UK Government did manage to achieve some key outcomes to adjust both the proposal and the related compromise deal. These help to protect the EU bass stock’s progress to sustainable fishing and the interests of both recreational and small scale commercial fishermen as EU bass fisheries move towards that goal, as follows.
We fought for and secured continuation of a recreational catch and release fishery for recreational sea anglers during the 6 month moratorium on bass catches, which was under threat in the Commission proposal wording. This means that anglers and charter vessels can continue sport-fishing activity throughout the year, subject to the ban proposed by the Commission on keeping bass during the first six months, coupled with a single fish daily bag limit per person in the second half of the year.
While accepting the principle of the proposed 6 month moratorium and a subsequent catch limit of 1 tonne per vessel per month for most commercial fisheries, we aimed to avoid disproportionate impacts on the lower impact, small-scale inshore hook and line and inshore fixed gillnet fisheries during the first 6 months. But as the UK Government position was for a more modest derogation than that offered on the day, we sought to reduce the impact of this on bass stocks.
Our negotiating position was based on different fisheries’ relative impacts and reflected several factors. Hook and line has the highest degree of selectivity for the right size of bass taken – though gillnets also perform well compared with other fishing methods. We also needed to consider the proportion of the bass catch taken by UK vessels using these methods: although the nets gear group has previously accounted for half of the annual UK bass total landings (46% average from 2011-2013), drift-netting is estimated to account for up to 90% of this, as the Commission are aware, and drift-netting was not agreed for inclusion in the derogation.
In the final compromise these two commercial fisheries (hook and line and fixed gillnets) were given identical derogations for all Member States fishing for bass (February-March moratorium and 1.3 tonne catch limit all year). The UK Government negotiating position in advance of the Council decision had been to press for lower – and differentiated – catch limits for derogations to apply for these two EU fisheries (excluding drift-netting) during the moratorium. But while the compromise offered higher monthly catch limits for netting, matching the limits for hook and line, these are not applicable to the majority of UK netting activity and are combined with the complete closure for two months.
It was necessary to agree EU-level measures for bass in this way because we share the fishery with other Member States who need to be fully signed up if we are to achieve stock recovery. We now at least have a firm timetable with Member States’ and Commission agreement, to achieve sustainable fishing of bass by 2018, and the EU’s interim management package will increasingly be complemented by regional measures, including in the context of multi-annual management plans driven by the Member States concerned, as well as national ones.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Click this link to view the response online:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/116747?reveal_response=yes
The Petitions Committee will take a look at this petition and its response. They can press the government for action and gather evidence. If this petition reaches 100,000 signatures, the Committee will consider it for a debate.
The Committee is made up of 11 MPs, from political parties in government and in opposition. It is entirely independent of the Government. Find out more about the Committee: https://petition.parliament.uk/help#petitions-committee
Thanks,
The Petitions team
UK Government and Parliament
I think that they don't bother mentioning the different forms of recreational fishing and just lump everything that isn't commercial into recreational. The catch and release allowance obviously doesn't apply to spearfishing so basically that's it for us, the fact that were not catch and release, stressing out undersize fish and the fact that spearfishing is the most selective form of fishing isn't mentioned either. I doubt that politicians even give us a second thought, we seem to be massively under represented and under considered!?
Good little write up below although I don't know what's sadder, the obvious lies from the govt or the fact that the petition only got 14K worth of signatures.
http://www.anglingtrust.net/news.as...gs§ion=29§ionTitle=Angling+Trust+News
http://www.anglingtrust.net/news.as...gs§ion=29§ionTitle=Angling+Trust+News
Wow, quite a performance. Well done Nigel! How many other politicians of note have spoken out on behalf of anglers/recreational fishers - let alone as well as that?
By the way, is it ok we catch and then release dead fish (like commercial fishers)?
But did you notice how empty the place was? And that the law was set without any debate or involvement of elected MEPs? That is not democracy! Nor is it effective government. And how bored the chair person was, poor thing - I wonder when she last went fishing? (Unlike Nige who was featured boat fishing on the cover of the 2 main UK sea angling mags a while back.)
By the way, is it ok we catch and then release dead fish (like commercial fishers)?
I was explaining commercial fishing limits to my son once and he just said "but they're dead". Not much I could say to that really but I do hope that the next generation manage the sea better than we do, otherwise there will be nothing left. We have the technology but not the wisdom and that's not just applicable to fishing, that across the board, I think!
Kids can be so logical. When my son was really small, on the way to Kindergarten, we were talking about the second Gulf War and my son asked "why?" I tried to keep it simple and said "because they are bad" to which my son replied "but Dad you said everybody always thinks the other side is bad!" So then I said "they have weapons of mass destruction" (a lie it turns out, perpetrated by B'Liar) to which he replied "Don't we have weapons of mass destruction?". Out-debated by my son when he was just starting Kindergarten!
Back on topic, I found this rather confusing article today (like everything about the EU, vague & unreliable - everybody trying to take credit for everything & responsibility for nothing): "MEP wins battle for Dorset sea bass" / http://mags4dorset.co.uk/mep-wins-battle-for-dorset-sea-bass
"Yes, officer, honestly there was an article on-line by one of those MEP fellows and I can assure you that he said we could fish for bass, in Weymouth and Portland, despite the EUs bass fishing ban this year, until June 1st. Yes, officer I know Weymouth and Portland are both on land but they are near the sea. What do you mean Osmington isn't Weymouth?!"
And to quote tonyeynon above:
So then I said "they have weapons of mass destruction" (a lie it turns out, perpetrated by B'Liar) to which he replied "Don't we have weapons of mass destruction?". Out-debated by my son when he was just starting Kindergarten!Back on topic, I found this rather confusing article today (like everything about the EU, vague & unreliable - everybody trying to take credit for everything & responsibility for nothing): "MEP wins battle for Dorset sea bass" / http://mags4dorset.co.uk/mep-wins-battle-for-dorset-sea-bass
"Yes, officer, honestly there was an article on-line by one of those MEP fellows and I can assure you that he said we could fish for bass, in Weymouth and Portland, despite the EUs bass fishing ban this year, until June 1st. Yes, officer I know Weymouth and Portland are both on land but they are near the sea. What do you mean Osmington isn't Weymouth?!"
And to quote tonyeynon above:
Last edited:
J
Johndory Hunter
Guest
I spearfish to feed myself or barter with farmer friends for eggs, milk and bacon and no faceless bureaucrat will take that away from me.
How can it be enforced? Will I be fined if I kill a bass? Seems a farcical situation.
How can it be enforced? Will I be fined if I kill a bass? Seems a farcical situation.
The public/angler/public official (e.g. harbour master/fisheries/councillor/...) with a chip on their shoulder? Probably a fine. Although freshwater baliffs can typically confuscate all your gear & your transport, so perhaps best to leave the Buggati Veyron & C4 spearguns at home
Last edited: