are our Bass reports encouraging a change in legislation?

i know it's a hard one to call, Bass reports attract attention from all sides and many catches may go unreported!
these catches/reports may add feul to the fire to open up the "fishing for a living people" (well 6 months anyway!)
if only we posted the Bass blanks to show the need to keep the ban going.
i know i would be posting a lot more!!!, not to mention my friend Noel in Mayo!!! sorry noel!
maybe we should be encouraging a one a day between 400mm and 500mm and all under and over c&r.
all biggies returned to breed......

I believe this could be a great thread RHT, the start of something. At the moment in respect of the current FIF proposal all the relevant people/bodies have made submissions to various government ministers, these bodies are the one with so-called 'weight' behind them - the fisheries boards, bord failte, etc, etc.

Minister Sean Connick continues to receive on a daily basis letters from anglers and other interested stakeholders.

It appears to me that the BIG wheels have stopped turning in respect of a strategy for the future in relation to continued protection - in other words what are BF the CFB and the other boards doing now to consolidate/create a plan to put any future submission beond the reach of FIF.

The collection of hard data in respect of a few key drivers - financial, social well-being, enjoyment, impact on other indirect stakeholders, perception of the Nation, sustainability, development of the fishery and the fishery structure must surely be one of the ways forward.

So imagine you're an ordinary or extraordinary Bass Fisherman. It doesnt matter where you are from but before you go bass fishing in this country you are encouraged from all angles to enter some simple data to a DB - this is live and available from many locations - the CFB, the other bords websites, The IFSA, forums, blogs etc -

Simple questions like Time, spend, general location, travel time, B+B etc - keeping it short and sweet. It applies to all bass fisherman.

Lets imagine the database had been available since the first posting on this forum in relation to the Bass Issue - and data had been entered and continues to be entered all over the summer/autumn and into the future by more and more bass anglers - casual/beginning/tourists/ etc

Its possible to make the DATA LIVE and visual on an hourly basis - what a picture might begin to emerge - and it doesnt and may never ask HOW MANY FISH YOU CAUGHT? But it does require you to provide feed back to strengthen the fishery.............it measures other things that are more beneficial to people than tonnes of dead fish

Creating a live database is an excellent idea going forward, there is a lot of scope there for the accumulation of hard data if people are willing to take the time to populate it.

As regards not reporting blanks, just take a look at my blog, we have blanked every week since the New Year and it up there for everyone to see. We have already put in hundreds of hours around our coastline this year.

Danny.

i know it's a hard one to call, Bass reports attract attention from all sides and many catches may go unreported!
these catches/reports may add feul to the fire to open up the "fishing for a living people" (well 6 months anyway!)
if only we posted the Bass blanks to show the need to keep the ban going.
i know i would be posting a lot more!!!, not to mention my friend Noel in Mayo!!! sorry noel!
maybe we should be encouraging a one a day between 400mm and 500mm and all under and over c&r.
all biggies returned to breed......

hey thomas i ONLY practise catch and release with my bass!! trouble is....i aint caught any yet! good idea though,report ALL bass sessions,and rentintion of only one bass in twenty four hours.

one bass per angler per day and a maximum and minimum size is the way forward as it shows anglers willing to take a hit for the betterment of their sport if we ask for changes to the law we as anglers will be the guardians of our precious bass for our next crop of anglers and some day they will see the sights of the sixties and seventies when bass were like the shoals of mullet around our cost

fully agree with you on reducing the daily catch to one bass, interesting to note that i suggested this a short while ago and didnt get a favourable response,

Guysi hate to be the bearer of bad tidings but there are lot of anglers out there who don't know or don't respect the current rules what makes you think they would this one.

Great idea imo,but it would be very hard to get everyone on board even from this site.All you have to do is look at the attitudes of certain so called well respected anglers[recent reports] towards the bass in general,that im afraid will make it difficult but if enough of us so called bass lovers get on board,then bring it on.
Tight lines

Interesting ideas all right. But having spent a few earlier years in commercial fishing I can tell you nobody out there pays any heed at all to what anglers are up to or not up to, its all about whats coming aboard and how much it can be sold for. Thats how they judge the "health" of stocks.

That said, I've always thought posting blanks is useful anyway for our own information, but going further, maybe a total ban on bass posts should be considered? That would choke off a source of information for the chancers with a bit of a net who like to convert poached bass into piss at their local. If the protection is lifted and free-range Irish bass is openly on sale again, there will be an explosion in their pillaging. Most bass posts are now so cryptic anyway as to be useless for anything but entertainment, and that only sometimes.

I'm all for a minimum and maximum size limit, but not the one-a-day rule - many people blank for months then might catch two on the trot, then back to blanking. Should bass angling maybe be licensed and regulated in the same way as sea trout, with a tag system? There'd be some chance of enforcement, voluntary regulation (the banks!!) never works.

i'd be for a 1 fish a day, wouldnt make much difference to me, i usually put them back anyway as i dont eat fish. im also for a maximum keeping size and also think that the 40cm minimum is too small. i had a lot of 40-44cm fish last year and couldnt contemplate taking one that size.

i also think that if the FIF proposal is passed it could mean an end to the 2 fish per day rule, why would an angler who fishes for the table put back his/her 3rd Bass knowing that a boat a few miles away(or a few hundred yards ) could be hauling up a net with 100 Bass in it to sell on.

Hiyez

I think the size on the continent is 42 cms for minimum size, and I would agree with a 1 per day rule and an upper limit as well to protect the bigger female fish / bigger spawners.

Better chance of a magical double figure fish that way too...

;0)

Sorry lads but I think a license is the only way to go. It could be incorporated with the Sea Trout one which is ridicules as far as I'm concerned. €58 per annum is way to steep and it should not be mixed with salmon. But it would offer some security in the fishing around the coast.

By paying for a license it would be proof that anglers are willing to pay for the sport as well as respect the law. It would certainly harden any case against allowing commercial fishing for them.

a licence is the only way to go. It could be incorporated with the Sea Trout one

Good idea there. We could have the traditional Game licence (salmon/trout/sea trout) and a Saltwater Game licence (bass/sea trout). Might be good bargaining chip to offer.

a licence is the only way to go. It could be incorporated with the Sea Trout one

Good idea there. We could have the traditional Game licence (salmon/trout/sea trout) and a Saltwater Game licence (Bass/sea trout). Might be good bargaining chip to offer.

this seems like a good idea...BUT..and heres the but,whos going to supervize this,what happens the money we pay,do we get a special coastal baliff service, or do they just charge us, and the money go into the big fat hole that the rest of the monies seem to go too.i would be quiet happy to pay for a licence if i could see where the monies was spent, and see the benifits on our coastlines,like marine reserve areas and no net zones.

this seems like a good idea...BUT..and heres the but,whos going to supervize this,what happens the money we pay,do we get a special coastal baliff service, or do they just charge us, and the money go into the big fat hole that the rest of the monies seem to go too.i would be quiet happy to pay for a licence if i could see where the monies was spent, and see the benifits on our coastlines,like marine reserve areas and no net zones.

Noel there seems to be an active service of fisheries officers for Sea Trout. I know lads have had bad experience in the past reporting gill nets from here but I just feel it would offer some security. I'm sure it would cost the same as two rapalas so in context would not be a killer on anglers.

I like Hugo's idea of an exclusive sea angling licence. For the life of me I really don't get the Salmon & Sea Trout together and the fact that Sea Trout is really just a Brownie that like the salty food. But I'd be happy for a Sea Trout & Bass license. "IF" we were to see the benefits of protection.

A license to cover Bass, Seatrout sounds like a good idea, I'd be happy to pay for that provided the money went back into protection.

The idea was Dfella25s, blame him!

I'm near the Moy so the area is regularly patrolled, heavily in high season, but there are bass areas with no salmon fishery nearby that wouldnt get the same attention. At least as licence-paying stakeholders, we'd have more moral right to agitate for better and wider enforcement. The licence money could be used to fund an expanded voluntary Water Keeper service which we would all have the chance to join.

The idea was Dfella25s, blame him!

I'm near the Moy so the area is regularly patrolled, heavily in high season, but there are Bass areas with no salmon fishery nearby that wouldnt get the same attention. At least as licence-paying stakeholders, we'd have more moral right to agitate for better and wider enforcement. The licence money could be used to fund an expanded voluntary Water Keeper service which we would all have the chance to join.

i like the idea hugo its just that i can remember the salmon licence fiasco and the money at the time dissappered down the "big hole", it did improve over the years and the money did go back into baliffs and improving habatit,eventually.the idea of a sea licence for bass and seatrout is a good one,and the tag system is the way to go,but i dont think that many would be impressed if the tag system was the same as the salmon one now,with only ten fish a year per licence.and dfella there might be a sea baliff service up there but its non excistant down here.

i dont think that many would be impressed if the tag system was the same as the salmon one now,with only ten fish a year per licence. and dfella there might be a sea baliff service up there but its non excistant down here.

Jaysis Noel if you and I could catch (never mind keep) 10 bass a year between us even, how much would we be willing to pay!

It wouldnt have to be 10 keepers a year for bass anyway -could be more, less, or even none - and because enforcement is patchy now doesnt mean it always has to be that way. Voluntary shore watchers might be an answer.

I'm just waiting for the "Off Topic!" hammer to fall....