Moderator: donal domeney
The only two marine species that come under any type of laws for leisure angling are Bass and Silver eel.myworldfishing wrote: So marine fish have no size limit?
tomgrey wrote:I think people like us who have a respect for the eco system of our ocean can sometimes shoot ourselves in the foot due to our concerns. Lets not forget where this damage started and where it continues to come from, and lets not put the blame onto people with rods and reels fishing from the shore. They never have and never will cause harm to fish stocks in the sea. If you think that that is not true well i'm sorry you are mistaken. If commercial fishing is reducing a species to such an extent that it is in danger well then I will take it upon myself to do something about it and I would support efforts to replenish the stock but lets not even start talking about the ant in the room until we sort out the dam elephant. Why do we think, we need policing, we need policing, if I catch a small fish I put it back, simple. If you feel you need to be doing more to protect a species go lobby government to protect our waters from commercial fishing. Of course there are big bucks there so good luck with that. I myself would like to see very high taxes on fish sold in shops and if someone wants to fish for themselves and family let them, for free, no licences, no taxes, no wardens or hi viz people. You would see a turn around then. Angling does wonders for tourism, for the spirit, gives a sense of freedom, one of the last we have left. So lets not feck it up for god sake! Theres my rant over....
No one would buy it, and with no one buying it there would be no income to police it. The coastline is too vast for any amount of effective cover and then what would we get for the money? Sea anglers here make up a small amount of the population. The majority of people you speak to who say they go sea fishing mean they go mackereling a few times in the summer. Any revenue that was raised would go on administration and not towards conservation. It would just be another form of taxation on a country that is on its knees.myworldfishing wrote:tomgrey wrote:I think people like us who have a respect for the eco system of our ocean can sometimes shoot ourselves in the foot due to our concerns. Lets not forget where this damage started and where it continues to come from, and lets not put the blame onto people with rods and reels fishing from the shore. They never have and never will cause harm to fish stocks in the sea. If you think that that is not true well i'm sorry you are mistaken. If commercial fishing is reducing a species to such an extent that it is in danger well then I will take it upon myself to do something about it and I would support efforts to replenish the stock but lets not even start talking about the ant in the room until we sort out the dam elephant. Why do we think, we need policing, we need policing, if I catch a small fish I put it back, simple. If you feel you need to be doing more to protect a species go lobby government to protect our waters from commercial fishing. Of course there are big bucks there so good luck with that. I myself would like to see very high taxes on fish sold in shops and if someone wants to fish for themselves and family let them, for free, no licences, no taxes, no wardens or hi viz people. You would see a turn around then. Angling does wonders for tourism, for the spirit, gives a sense of freedom, one of the last we have left. So lets not feck it up for god sake! Theres my rant over....
What you say above is true to an extent! I tried to work it out on an angler v trawler basis, and it works out that 5 hundred thousand 500,000,00 3lbs cod would have to be caught by rod to match 1 trawler so yes rod anglers dont do damage to fish stocks.....
Just look at the doggie and whiting on the east coast.... They are the only 2 fish you rarely hear of anyone taking home and they are rampant...
BUT when rod anglers are taking every single fish they catch no matter what the size it does do damage... As RockHunter points out on his post, wrasse are being cleared out of marks because of people filling buckets of them ( FN or Irish, thats not the point)....
Bass as another example, the only reason we have any is because of the conservation efforts. Without that the Bass would have been a thing of the passed......
Then theres the matter of who polices all these conservation laws? The IFI can only do so much due to funding... So why not introduce a see license that is used to fund the IFI, that way the then have funds to actually do what needs doing...
As far as I know that just applies to commercial fishing.baitdigger wrote:oes the European minimum landing size not apply to RSAs ??
Hi Tony,tomgrey wrote: Lets not forget where this damage started and where it continues to come from, and lets not put the blame onto people with rods and reels fishing from the shore. They never have and never will cause harm to fish stocks in the sea. If you think that that is not true well i'm sorry you are mistaken. "
RockHunter wrote:As far as I know that just applies to commercial fishing.baitdigger wrote:oes the European minimum landing size not apply to RSAs ??
RockHunter wrote:From http://www.anglingtrust.net/page.asp?se ... s+%28RRSLs
"Our interpretation of the current minimum landing sizes set by the EU is that they only apply to motorised vessels holding a commercial fishing license and not to recreational catches"
Yes it is their interpretation and as you say it seems a grey area - I had a quick look through the regulations, there is no mention that MLS is restricted to commercial fishing but the documentation appears to be focused on the commercials.baitdigger wrote:The angling trust is a UK body and it is only their interpretation. However I agree this is a very grey area and open to many personal interpretations.
I have sent an email to the relevant government department to see if we can come up with some clarification as to whether or not there is a MLS for recreational anglers. I am not holding my breath for a reply as I haven't had much success in the past with questions.
Enforcing any such regulations would be a nightmare for instance if there were a minimum size for mackerel I would be guilty of taking them. Whilst the tinsel tossers around me are decrying joeys to me they are perfect bait size and highly prized. If a fish wont go back and I am sure that at some stage or other we have all seen this should we just throw it and watch it float away(which could be a legal requirement) or take it home and make some use of it?
I have a feeling that most people reading this will be self regulating and return many if not all of what we catch. Without education and legislation we can never expect the casual angler to do the same.
There may well be a problem policing anything like that and I fear that within a week of starting it there would be reports of assault on fisheries officers. There is no point denying that for many who this may apply to English would not be their first language and "no speak english" would be a constant excuse. I am not by any means saying the problem is restricted to us non-nationals just as the rubbish left by the mackerel bashers is not all non-nationals but in my experience they would be more likely to offend. It isnt a race issue but an education issue.RockHunter wrote: Yes it is their interpretation and as you say it seems a grey area - I had a quick look through the regulations, there is no mention that MLS is restricted to commercial fishing but the documentation appears to be focused on the commercials.
Hopefully you will get a reply to your email which will clarify it for us all.
I am sure most "real" anglers take a sensible approach to fish sizes, it's the guys that keep everything regardless of size that are doing the harm to our piers etc. If the MLS applied to recreational angling then it would be great if the fisheries officers would take a walk down to our piers some evening and start issuing on the spot fines and/or confiscating rods. The word would get out soon enough and while it would not totally prevent the taking of small fish it might contribute to a marked reduction in the practice.
Well said mike.......beachbuddy wrote:tomgrey wrote: Lets not forget where this damage started and where it continues to come from, and lets not put the blame onto people with rods and reels fishing from the shore. They never have and never will cause harm to fish stocks in the sea. If you think that that is not true well i'm sorry you are mistaken. "
Hi Tony,
while i agree in general with your sentiments regarding commercial fishing,i beg to differ big time on people with rods and reels making no differance.What about terratorial fish like wrasse very easy to wipe out if all the fish in an area are removed by anglers,some spots become barren for years.
You may not be aware of this but a spot near where you do a lot of your Bass fishing in east cork was fished out by anglers a few years back because a few of the local rods fished it several times a week taking the allowed 2 fish and legally sizeable but as the fish were nearly all the same year class the area become fished out,why because again Bass are terratorial and take years to repopulate an area and no nets did damage in this spot.
What about the populations of immature fish around our piers ,does the removal of these fish by rod and reel have an effect on populations ,you bet it does.Not to mention the resident congers that reside here.Ive yet to see any commercial fisherman set nets up the side of a pier wall .
Morally anybody taking palm sized wrasse,flounder, turbot,pollack, coalies etc home are not anglers at all and its just wrong if doing such a thing intentionally.As a rule of thumb if a fish on its own is too small to eat then its too small to keep.Thats what i was thought by the older generation of anglers when i was a nipper and its what i tell my young nephews and there friends.
Would be brillant if the fishery authorities produced a set of guidelines of sizes for retaining fish.Maybe something to go with the signs around piers and tourist offices that outline the species of fish that allegedley reside at the mark.Obviously no laws will ever become enforceable due to lack of resources etc,but if a recommened size limit for a species was on view it may just make people think twice[morally] before taking home a handful of fingerling pollack
Tight lines
Well said mike.......beachbuddy wrote:tomgrey wrote: Lets not forget where this damage started and where it continues to come from, and lets not put the blame onto people with rods and reels fishing from the shore. They never have and never will cause harm to fish stocks in the sea. If you think that that is not true well i'm sorry you are mistaken. "
Hi Tony,
while i agree in general with your sentiments regarding commercial fishing,i beg to differ big time on people with rods and reels making no differance.What about terratorial fish like wrasse very easy to wipe out if all the fish in an area are removed by anglers,some spots become barren for years.
You may not be aware of this but a spot near where you do a lot of your Bass fishing in east cork was fished out by anglers a few years back because a few of the local rods fished it several times a week taking the allowed 2 fish and legally sizeable but as the fish were nearly all the same year class the area become fished out,why because again Bass are terratorial and take years to repopulate an area and no nets did damage in this spot.
What about the populations of immature fish around our piers ,does the removal of these fish by rod and reel have an effect on populations ,you bet it does.Not to mention the resident congers that reside here.Ive yet to see any commercial fisherman set nets up the side of a pier wall .
Morally anybody taking palm sized wrasse,flounder, turbot,pollack, coalies etc home are not anglers at all and its just wrong if doing such a thing intentionally.As a rule of thumb if a fish on its own is too small to eat then its too small to keep.Thats what i was thought by the older generation of anglers when i was a nipper and its what i tell my young nephews and there friends.
Would be brillant if the fishery authorities produced a set of guidelines of sizes for retaining fish.Maybe something to go with the signs around piers and tourist offices that outline the species of fish that allegedley reside at the mark.Obviously no laws will ever become enforceable due to lack of resources etc,but if a recommened size limit for a species was on view it may just make people think twice[morally] before taking home a handful of fingerling pollack
Tight lines
Well said mike.......beachbuddy wrote:tomgrey wrote: Lets not forget where this damage started and where it continues to come from, and lets not put the blame onto people with rods and reels fishing from the shore. They never have and never will cause harm to fish stocks in the sea. If you think that that is not true well i'm sorry you are mistaken. "
Hi Tony,
while i agree in general with your sentiments regarding commercial fishing,i beg to differ big time on people with rods and reels making no differance.What about terratorial fish like wrasse very easy to wipe out if all the fish in an area are removed by anglers,some spots become barren for years.
You may not be aware of this but a spot near where you do a lot of your Bass fishing in east cork was fished out by anglers a few years back because a few of the local rods fished it several times a week taking the allowed 2 fish and legally sizeable but as the fish were nearly all the same year class the area become fished out,why because again Bass are terratorial and take years to repopulate an area and no nets did damage in this spot.
What about the populations of immature fish around our piers ,does the removal of these fish by rod and reel have an effect on populations ,you bet it does.Not to mention the resident congers that reside here.Ive yet to see any commercial fisherman set nets up the side of a pier wall .
Morally anybody taking palm sized wrasse,flounder, turbot,pollack, coalies etc home are not anglers at all and its just wrong if doing such a thing intentionally.As a rule of thumb if a fish on its own is too small to eat then its too small to keep.Thats what i was thought by the older generation of anglers when i was a nipper and its what i tell my young nephews and there friends.
Would be brillant if the fishery authorities produced a set of guidelines of sizes for retaining fish.Maybe something to go with the signs around piers and tourist offices that outline the species of fish that allegedley reside at the mark.Obviously no laws will ever become enforceable due to lack of resources etc,but if a recommened size limit for a species was on view it may just make people think twice[morally] before taking home a handful of fingerling pollack
Tight lines