Bass - A catch and Return species only

Just a general question - I was reading about the BTT (Bonefish Tarpon Trust) from Florida where they have made bonefish and tarpon a C+R species only - I was interested in your thoughts on a similar position for bass and/or sea trout

Also any thoughts on a slot size for bass?

Thanks - Jim

I defiantly don't agree with Bass being a catch and release only fish, cod are a lot less plentiful and no ones calling for c&r on cod, bass stocks seem relatively healthy compared to many species including the humble dogfish.

Personally speaking, I think I would completely loose interest in fishing if I wasn't permitted to keep a fish now and again. I do think the slot size is a great idea. I would like to see the minimum take size of 40cm increased to >= 45cm for bass, and the introduction of a minimum size for seatrout too, again something like 45cm. Maximum size? probably anything specimen or over.

Hi

Given the localized nature of bass populations, making it C&R on a national basis is problematic...

Dogfish are as common as mud around me (cant stop catching the buggers) whereas bass are as rare as hen's teeth. In other areas, clearly the reverse is the case. And for the record I have excellent reports of cod from boat marks around mayo in the last month, whereas in the previous few years, they have been very thin on the ground...

I think the same applies to sea trout - although a minimum size might not be a bad idea. This said I know very few anglers who would take a small sea trout, perhaps due to the licence arrangements?

Now if you really wanted to stir up a debate, consider adding bass to the salmon and sea trout licence and tagging arrangements! Not that I am suggesting that...

No I wouldn't like to see Bass designated a C&R only species. It's nice to have the option of rewarding yourself with a fish for the pot now and again be it bass, cod, pollock, flounder etc. I think the slot size idea is a good one though. Similar to one of the posts above I would support an increase in legal take-home size limit too.

Personally speaking, I think I would completely loose interest in fishing if I wasn't permitted to keep a fish now and again. I do think the slot size is a great idea. I would like to see the minimum take size of 40cm increased to >= 45cm for Bass, and the introduction of a minimum size for seatrout too, again something like 45cm. Maximum size? probably anything specimen or over.

The min size for sea trout is 12 inches in rivers. is it not the same in the sea?

Total catch and release wouldn't bother me personally as I put everything back. But it is probably a step too far to make it mandatory for everyone. The often used example of the striped bass fishery in the Eastern US lets anglers keep some fish if they wish but bans commercial fishing and that system seems to work reasonably well. I'm all for the slot size in principle but to be honest if the IFI had the will and resources to enforce the current bass laws aggressively that would be more benefical. If we improved the enforcement of the existing laws first then we could look at adding slot sizes or other measures.

Sent from my GT-S5369 using Tapatalk 2

How about a catch and release system for the first 8 months of the year, until we are sure they have spawned, to give them a break or whatever slant you want on it, then from Sept a bag limit of 1 fish a day with the min size raised also to 45Cm or similar like suggested above..?

The problem is enforcing this and more presence required by fisheries officiers or similar. Would this require some sort of revenue in the form of a license...? I know i'd be happy to pay it but I can imagine the majority of people wouldnt. In truth, most bass anglers care for the species, and will keep the odd 1 or 2 every now and then. Its the "anglers" filing a black bag that unlikely to care about any measures brough in.

Would defiantly agree with this idea Jim. ...Where is the evidance that cod and dogfish are less plentiful than bass , I find this difficult to understand. The current law doesn't really give bass the protection they need to maintain a healthy stock. Outside of a total catch and release system an annual limit wouldn't be the worst thing that could happen. This might make life for those sneaking in the back door of restraunts a little more tricky.

Hi Jim,


I agree completely with you in principle, however i think enforcement is a big issue too , at the moment i hear daily that groups of anglers are fishing , taking more than the two allowed and fished through the ban............
they arent complying twith the current laws im quite sure they would not comply with new ones unless there is a considerable deterent to do so......

I am in contact with other anglers on this forum and in person who are as sick as me hearing about this practice.................



I also understand the ideas expressed as to the rarity of the bass in particular areas as posted by other anglers..................... ideally I would like the idea of a nursery area /exclusion zone
(similar to S.A.C areas designated throughout the eu) in areas where the bass are proven to spawn ................



Tight Lines

Jim,

In my opinion if there was a total ban on retaining Bass it would be a great thing for Irish Bass stocks, It would also make a huge dent in the commercial 'argument' to start landing bass again as from there point of view they at the moment can mouth off about anglers being able to retain bass which we know in most cases is not the truth as the vast majority of anglers abide by the laws.

The above however is an ideal situation in many ways but realistically I think the best we could hope for at the moment is to have a slot size in place for Bass and reduce the take home limit to one bass per angler per day. This in my opinion is a happy medium and can only strengthen our argument as anglers and would give a fair impression of our intentions. Baby steps. . .

Sea trout is another matter and is quite tricky indeed.

In one sense I can understand people referencing cod in replies as stocks have plummeted.

However bass, unlike (most) other species, bring a large boost to the economy in terms of fishing tourism and therefore they cannot be treated the same as most other species whether you like it or not.

A total ban on bass for the table? I would keep two fish a year - both in Kerry when on holidays and when extended family are around as they consider it a real treat. Would I want to forego killing those two fish? Not really, but if it actually acheived something then I'd willingly do without. I wonder as to what it would actually acheive though...in most parts of the country its not necessarily anglers wiping out bass stocks....I can't see how it would be enforced either when we can't even enforce our current rules. Very open to the idea though. Also open to the idea of a licence if the money generated was used properly, but what are the chances of that!

Some great stuff here men and many thanks for your thoughts - I myself do kill fish I'd say four in the year at most and they go to my father when he asks me (ya might get us an aul fish there Jem some day) or maybe I take one or two home. I have no compunction doing this. As regards the guiding business some anglers are completely C+R oriented others will take a fish or two during a weeks stay and cook them - its a nice thing to do I feel. I do express a discouragement for any more than two a week though -so roughly < 20 fish a year not counting angling impact.

Just a note I wouldn't have any problem not killing any if I felt it might get us somewhere - I'll get the .pdf of the Tarpon & Bonefish trust committee up on my website for you to have a read of their thoughts later this week.

The majority of anglers that I know don't harvest fish, but as you have mentioned some do. I also think that many anglers now feel quite strongly about C+R too and its becoming more and more part of fishing. So is the awareness of special areas for spawning etc.

There's lots of really good compromises and suggestions in here - we all realise that whatever legislation is in place, enforcement is always going to be an issue. There are far greater threats to angling than anglers though.

I wonder sometimes about how to best get across a message of how important these fish are to many thousands of people in many ways.

Again thanks - ps if you dont mind I might quote some of your posts in a letter, I will contact you before I do

Hi Jim

I am all for the preservation of all fish stocks but in particular bass. I love fishing for them and I spend many many hours in pursuit of them. I would be 99% catch and release perhaps keeping a couple a year (like you I get the requests from family-my mammy!- for a fish which I very occasionally grant).

I'd love to see a C&R for bass perhaps for a certain amount of time in the year but I would not like to take the opportunity of fellow anglers keeping fish away from them. Anglers keeping a few fish is not the real dangers to stocks but collectively it must cause some dent into stock numbers.
I feel that policing it would be an issue however. I'd be inclined to believe that Fisheries Officers are already experiencing difficulty in upholding current regulations. With the annual bass ban just finished I was bemused by the amount of anglers continuing to fish for bass on beaches local to me...with no sign of officers. Telephone calls to supposed "hotlines" seem to never address such issues.

What I would favour and what I believe may improve the current situation would be the introduction of a sea angling license coupled with stern penalties for offenders. Income from license fees and penalties could then be used to increase the numbers of officers on the ground which in turn would lead to better policing. Such license fees would be for all anglers over the age of 16 thereby not restricting younger anglers in the sport. Such moves could only assist in preserving stocks would it not?

Perhaps when "our leaders" see the potential income to be made their eyes may open to realize the true potential that could be cultivated from our sport and in turn make further restrictions in tackling the real dangers to fish stocks.

What I would favour and what I believe may improve the current situation would be the introduction of a sea angling license coupled with stern penalties for offenders. Income from license fees and penalties could then be used to increase the numbers of officers on the ground which in turn would lead to better policing. Such license fees would be for all anglers over the age of 16 thereby not restricting younger anglers in the sport. Such moves could only assist in preserving stocks would it not?

I'll fight to the death to prevent this.

What I would favour and what I believe may improve the current situation would be the introduction of a sea angling license coupled with stern penalties for offenders. Income from license fees and penalties could then be used to increase the numbers of officers on the ground which in turn would lead to better policing. Such license fees would be for all anglers over the age of 16 thereby not restricting younger anglers in the sport. Such moves could only assist in preserving stocks would it not?

I'll fight to the death to prevent this.

That didn't take long

Might I ask why?

Whats wrong with the way things are as they stand?....

Maybe if people looked at ways of helping prevent poaching of bass it might be time better spent?

What I would favour and what I believe may improve the current situation would be the introduction of a sea angling license coupled with stern penalties for offenders. Income from license fees and penalties could then be used to increase the numbers of officers on the ground which in turn would lead to better policing. Such license fees would be for all anglers over the age of 16 thereby not restricting younger anglers in the sport. Such moves could only assist in preserving stocks would it not?

I'll fight to the death to prevent this.

That didn't take long

Might I ask why?

Because it is an unwarranted attack on my liberties, add bureaucracy, prove ineffective, increase expense, hand control of my actions to civil servants, not increase by a single fish the number of fish in the sea.

Take a look at this link and then maybe the site as a whole, its interesting if very 'American' http://www.bonefishtarpontrust.org/tarp ... ative.html

I share tanglerats worries about a licence for those exact reasons despite being open to the idea of one!!! I can't help but feel that the funds generated would end up paying for Christmas cards for TD's constituents....

I do question whether I am being slightly two faced (for want of a better term) - after all don't I willingly pay for a licence for fishing for sea trout, in the sea? And practice 100% c&r for these?