Seatrout over 40 cms ?

That's harsh, Kevin. Attack the points of the debate, don't make personal attacks. You may wish to consider editing that post or making an apology to fishermanfinn.

I didnt fully understand the point of this thread right from the start, even less so now that its wandered off into generalised vitriol. Time for the mods to shut it down?

Thanks Kevin your reply to my post only reinforces my earlier comments.I see it from both sides having spent 15 years as a commercial fisherman and an angler since i was.Its time to take the blinkers off,and its not the first time ive had a personal attack from a so called "angler" again thank you kevin for you well balanced reply.

Thanks Kevin your reply to my post only reinforces my earlier comments.I see it from both sides having spent 15 years as a commercial fisherman and an angler since i was.Its time to take the blinkers off,and its not the first time ive had a personal attack from a so called "angler" again thank you kevin for you well balanced reply.

apologies if you felt offended.......sometimes i lose the run of myself and then sometimes i hit the nail on the head

Lol think you may have hit the thumb that time wasnt offended as such more saddened that fish and fishing has come this far that it divides people so much,a far better way forward would be for anglers and commercial men to stand together the one voice will be a lot louder as i said before its in the commerical mans own interest to preserve fish stocks.United we stand divided we fall one voice against the madness that comes out of Brussels!

As someone who has a foot in both sides I can see that each opinion has its merits.

My solution to the whole debate is to increase the minimum catching(killing) size for all species to 2cms above their spawning length.

This rule should apply to EVERYONE who takes fish from the sea...NO exceptions.

This would be harsh,and would take about 5 years I reckon, while stocks would have a chance to recover.

This rule should be adopted worldwide...ambitious yes ...needed though.

The trend with both competition angling and commercial interests is to go small.

Conservation goes out the window because the hook damage has much more impact on a small immature mouth than on a larger more robust and mature one.

Subsidies be used as an incentive for commercial vessel based on the percentage of mature fish caught.As the number of large fish increases the subsidy reduces.

Worth a trial maybe ..we have over 100 hundred SFPA officers to regulate it....might get value for money !!

that wont stop them dumping all the smaller fish and by produce dead out at sea or ripping up mussel beds and reefs. no i think we should look at alaska strict timing on what they can take. and cut the size of the boats .and impose a 12 mile limit on all comercial fishing boats .this should give fish stocks a chance to regroup

Twinkle you hit the nail on the head there

I agree with the time limits on catching but smaller boats and a 12 limit just puts mens lives at risk bigger boat=safer boat.A 12 mile limit would put a lot of people out of work.

I agree with the time limits on catching but smaller boats and a 12 limit just puts mens lives at risk bigger boat=safer boat.A 12 mile limit would put a lot of people out of work.

not if the smaller boats went back to longlining within a set limit of say five miles just no trawling with in twelve miles

agree

Would be a good idea bit of a snag though most small boats dont have a longline track record on their license! One of the boats i have worked on off the north coast was stopped longlining and thats with a full presure stock license but because the longline track record was sketchy it had no quota and its now trawling there is no easy answer to it all with the common fisheries policy.