World Sea Fishing Forums banner

What is your priority?

  • Conserving the environment

    Votes: 21 23.3%
  • Conserving Sea Anglers' rights & privileges

    Votes: 25 27.8%
  • Conserving Fish stocks

    Votes: 44 48.9%
1 - 20 of 38 Posts
G

·
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
What is the conservation priority for you? The Environment? Your rights & privileges to go fishing? Fish stocks? Which would you say should come first?
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Without fish stocks, there would be no fishing.
True, but others might argue along the lines of: What's the point in having a bicycle and not being allowed to ride it?

If angling is legislated out of existance, and given the current trend, that is on the cards for the future, who will benefit - apart from the fish?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
194 Posts
I vote b because i think the majority of anglers care about the enviroment and fish stocks. There will allways be a minority of idiots leaving litter, ignoring size limits and creating a bad name for angling but most anglers are decent people. Protect there righta and most of them will do there bit for the enviroment and the fish stocks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,997 Posts
If angling is legislated out of existance, and given the current trend, that is on the cards for the future, who will benefit - apart from the fish?
So,

We can go angling but have nothing to fish for

or

We can't go angling but there are fish.

In either case there is no angling.



But even if I'm not allowed to fish I'd still like to live in a world with fish.

After all (although I'm not a 'bird-watcher' I do enjoy watching birds even though I'm not allowed to catch them, or take their eggs).

But it isn't that simple, nor is that the choice.


So long as there are plenty of fish to catch, there will be plenty of people wanting to catch them, and it won't be so easy to take away the rights of a vast number of active anglers.

(And when there isn't a problem with fish, the environmentalists will be mostly turning their attention to areas where there are real problems).



But if a large number of anglers simply give up, because there is so little worth catching and what little remains is increasingly difficult to catch, the remaining few stalwarts will have little defence against the increasingly growing environmental lobby campaigning to protect diminshing fish stocks, regardless of who has caused the problem in the first place.

Protection of our rights to fish is inescapably linked to conserving and (in many cases) restoring our recreational fisheries, and in that way maintaining the numbers of anglers necessary to defend our interests against the growing threats to our sport.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Protection of our rights to fish is inescapably linked to conserving and (in many cases) restoring our recreational fisheries, and in that way maintaining the numbers of anglers necessary to defend our interests against the growing threats to our sport.
Exactly, Leon!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
44,186 Posts
I would have voted C except for one thing, the current way of conserving stock is doing the opposite of what it was supposed to do by creating so much wastage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,515 Posts
Voted C, as taken all in the round, if there are healthy fish stocks, all else should fall into place.
Cheers,
Davey.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,907 Posts
Without fish stocks, there would be no fishing.
Hi Leon,

Without a functioning environment, there would be no fish stocks to conserve!

Mind you, without a functioning environment, there wouldn't be a lot of things - including human beings.

Cheers - John
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
734 Posts
Fish stocks.

I'm seriously worried about it man. When I used to fish with my Great Uncle back in the mid 1980s there were loads of fish about and loads of fishermen (on Portland - Dorset) with their little huts. Now there are hardly any fish (in contrast) and the fishermen are less and less and less and less. In the specific tiny area that my Great Uncle's hut and boat lift were there are is now NO evidence of life other than the rusting boat lift/crane.

Sad.

Fish stocks for me definitely.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
194 Posts
Why give a choice of one when all three choices are needed for the future fishing of the RSA's and commercial fishermen ? - the sooner this is realised - the sooner things will go forward !
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
436 Posts
I voted B. For the simple reason that the thing most under threat, at this moment in time, is anglers' rights to fish unhindered by unnecessary restrictions, layers of management and over regulation.

There won't ever be a time when we have 'no fish', but there may well be a time when we aren't allowed to fish for what is there. The time when we are not allowed to eat what we catch is not that far away - IF we stand back and let it happen.

Credit the environmongers at your peril.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,557 Posts
How about an option D, a restriction on commercial exploitation of the food species for the comercially explioted fish stocks, ie crab and sandeel, they are the bottom of the food chain, they eat algae gathering their nutrients from light, without them other life in the sea would cease to exist. They are vital to the ecosystem yet there is no quota for their exploitation.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
How about an option D, a restriction on commercial exploitation of the food species for the comercially explioted fish stocks, ie crab and sandeel, they are the bottom of the food chain, they eat algae gathering their nutrients from light, without them other life in the sea would cease to exist. They are vital to the ecosystem yet there is no quota for their exploitation.
The overall abundance of diatoms and other plankton is dropping throughout UK waters. No one fishes for them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,974 Posts
At the end of the day, Rights and privilidges comes down to whether we have to pay a license or not and money will always exist. If we Save the environment then this will have a knock on effect and the fish will thrive naturally. Saving the environment could be using less destructive methods of fishing which in turn will save stocks. Recycling and producing less waste will add to the thriving of fish stocks due to less waste being pumped into and around the sea.
Environment!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,988 Posts
At the end of the day, Rights and privilidges comes down to whether we have to pay a license or not and money will always exist. If we Save the environment then this will have a knock on effect and the fish will thrive naturally. Saving the environment could be using less destructive methods of fishing which in turn will save stocks. Recycling and producing less waste will add to the thriving of fish stocks due to less waste being pumped into and around the sea.
Environment!!
Ditto! Needs an holistic approach - you can't have one without the rest. Look after the whole environment and the marine environment is part of that, look after the marine environment and fish stocks will be part of that. Quality fish stocks mean any environmental reasons for restricting anglers rights will diminish since angling actvity is relatively low impact.
 
1 - 20 of 38 Posts
Top