Provided they have good scientific evidence that taking fish from MPA's is causing a real problem, it just seems strange that you can fish for something yet not take it when you have caught it?
If they think that it's the "collateral damage" like anchoring, jigging etc that is causing the problem then why not have a total exclusion zone to protect it?
The only reason I can think of for having a NTZ is to protect local stocks of say black bream in certain areas, & triggerfish in certain areas, at certain times of the year, where overfishing is seen by some of us as a problem. That would be better addressed by imposing a close season or similar from A to B, because allowing people to fish for a species but not take it is a recipe for disaster!
No doubt there will be much more confusion printed before we actually get round to anything being ACTUALLY introduced>

 

Interesting. Personally I believe that "no fish" zones are necessary if we are to re - establish the fish stocks and maintain them both for commercial stocks and anglers and I for one welcome them.

One thing I do not agree with though are anglers being grouped in there with the commercials. It is a known fact that anglers catch less than 1% of the fish that are taken in our waters. Even with the now frowned upon huge catches taken on rod and line back in the 60's, 70's and 80's, anglers have not been responsible for the decline in fish stocks, commercial fisherman have.

Personally so far this year I have caught 55 fish in 10 trips, and I have taken home...0, absolutely none. I know many other anglers have a similar record. What I wonder would be a commercial fisherman's comparison this year?

To me, putting commercial fishermen and anglers in the same group is like classifying hunters and farmers in the same group, which does not happen.

Anglers bring more money to the economy than the commercials do and catch 100 times less fish!

Come on, lets face facts, why should we be blamed for something that is not our fault? By all means and rightfully so there should be minimum size limits for anglers on taking fish (and these should be higher than they are at present, allowing for the fish to spawn at least once.)

But let us pursue our hobby without being persecuted for something that we have not done.

Crugee

 

INCOMING!reachon:

 

Well said Crugee couldn't agree more.

 

So what?

Something has to change, as long as them greedy commy bar-studs are kept out to?

 

Interesting. Personally I believe that "no fish" zones are necessary if we are to re - establish the fish stocks and maintain them both for commercial stocks and anglers and I for one welcome them.

One thing I do not agree with though are anglers being grouped in there with the commercials. It is a known fact that anglers catch less than 1% of the fish that are taken in our waters. Even with the now frowned upon huge catches taken on rod and line back in the 60's, 70's and 80's, anglers have not been responsible for the decline in fish stocks, commercial fisherman have.

Personally so far this year I have caught 55 fish in 10 trips, and I have taken home...0, absolutely none. I know many other anglers have a similar record. What I wonder would be a commercial fisherman's comparison this year?

To me, putting commercial fishermen and anglers in the same group is like classifying hunters and farmers in the same group, which does not happen.

Anglers bring more money to the economy than the commercials do and catch 100 times less fish!

Come on, lets face facts, why should we be blamed for something that is not our fault? By all means and rightfully so there should be minimum size limits for anglers on taking fish (and these should be higher than they are at present, allowing for the fish to spawn at least once.)

But let us pursue our hobby without being persecuted for something that we have not done.

Crugee

totally agree m8, we should not be categorized just because we catch fish as over half of us neva take 'em home

 

Interesting. Personally I believe that "no fish" zones are necessary if we are to re - establish the fish stocks and maintain them both for commercial stocks and anglers and I for one welcome them.

One thing I do not agree with though are anglers being grouped in there with the commercials. It is a known fact that anglers catch less than 1% of the fish that are taken in our waters. Even with the now frowned upon huge catches taken on rod and line back in the 60's, 70's and 80's, anglers have not been responsible for the decline in fish stocks, commercial fisherman have.

Personally so far this year I have caught 55 fish in 10 trips, and I have taken home...0, absolutely none. I know many other anglers have a similar record. What I wonder would be a commercial fisherman's comparison this year?

To me, putting commercial fishermen and anglers in the same group is like classifying hunters and farmers in the same group, which does not happen.

Anglers bring more money to the economy than the commercials do and catch 100 times less fish!

Come on, lets face facts, why should we be blamed for something that is not our fault? By all means and rightfully so there should be minimum size limits for anglers on taking fish (and these should be higher than they are at present, allowing for the fish to spawn at least once.)

But let us pursue our hobby without being persecuted for something that we have not done.

Crugee

Well said there. I follow any news sourrounding this topic and have watched many documentaries showing how commercial fishing has helped our seas in to present day stock levels. I think if you want to eat a fish, you should have to go and catch one. The planet's resources are being hammered which is only going to worsen quality of living.

One thing I would say about us fishermen is we are putting pressure on fish food supplies like crabs and worms. I have spoken to people looking to find their own bait and they have often commented on the dwindling numbers of crab and worm you can find in comparison to say ten years ago. Less food on the shores will probably result in less fish going there to look for food or the same amount of fish going there but ultimately not finding enough food.

We are already seeing the bait "farming" of our worms, crabs will be next or are they already being farmed? I think ALL bait used by fishermen should be farmed which would allow the natural food source for the fish to recover which would hopefully promote healthier bigger fish in bigger numbers on the shore. Commercial fishing should be outright banned and a take home limit of three fish per day per person.

Anyone caught littering the beach should be executed on the spot.

 

Not a shock at all really.

Welsh Assembly Government have chosen to go with a different strategy to England. If they consider that an area needs protection, they will designate it as HPMCZ, and a no-take zone.

Whereas in England, there will still be confusion over Core Zones and Buffer Zones, where nobody will know whether they are allowed to fish or not.

The fact that WAG have taken the simple option, only HPMCZs, does not automatically mean there will be lots of them. We could actually end up with less restrictions than England.

Pel.

 

Not a shock at all really.

Welsh Assembly Government have chosen to go with a different strategy to England. If they consider that an area needs protection, they will designate it as HPMNR, and a no-take zone.

Whereas in England, there will still be confusion over Core Zones and Buffer Zones, where nobody will know whether they are allowed to fish or not.

The fact that WAG have taken the simple option, only HPMNRs, does not automatically mean there will be lots of them. We could actually end up with less restrictions than England.

Pel.

whats hpmnr,s

 

Interesting. Personally I believe that "no fish" zones are necessary if we are to re - establish the fish stocks and maintain them both for commercial stocks and anglers and I for one welcome them.

One thing I do not agree with though are anglers being grouped in there with the commercials. It is a known fact that anglers catch less than 1% of the fish that are taken in our waters. Even with the now frowned upon huge catches taken on rod and line back in the 60's, 70's and 80's, anglers have not been responsible for the decline in fish stocks, commercial fisherman have.

Personally so far this year I have caught 55 fish in 10 trips, and I have taken home...0, absolutely none. I know many other anglers have a similar record. What I wonder would be a commercial fisherman's comparison this year?

To me, putting commercial fishermen and anglers in the same group is like classifying hunters and farmers in the same group, which does not happen.

Anglers bring more money to the economy than the commercials do and catch 100 times less fish!

Come on, lets face facts, why should we be blamed for something that is not our fault? By all means and rightfully so there should be minimum size limits for anglers on taking fish (and these should be higher than they are at present, allowing for the fish to spawn at least once.)

But let us pursue our hobby without being persecuted for something that we have not done.

Crugee

i love my fishing, but wouldnt paint, angling whiter than white m8, there are prob 1 million anglers in britain, if they all killed 1 fish on a weekend thats a lot of fish, you say you put back 55 fish in 10 trips can you honestly say all of them survived, ive been fishing on boats and seen mega amounts of fish taken home for the pot (which is every bodies right to do so), so if there are ntz its gota be that, and not just for commercials. the other point i want to make is these ntz are open to scrutiny whats stopping anglers fishing out side these zones then fishing in them and landing fish only to say they caught them outside the zone. so as i see it they should be exclusion zones ie no fishing activity whatsoever in the said area.

 

hi guys a no take zone means you or any fishing is not allowed full stop like the east side of lundy island has a no take zone in place now and you cannot fish there at al it means you can not take fish from its habitat so it is not what you al think it stops you fishing these spots full stop please read into this

 

whats hpmnr,s

Sorry, didn't have my head in gear yet. It should have been HPMCZ, which is Highly Protected Marine Conservation Zone.

To give an example, some of the sea around Skomer Island is currently designated as a Marine Nature Reserve (MNR) but it has very few restrictions.

Skomer will become Wales' first Marine Conservation Zone (MCZ) later this year, but restrictions will stay the same for the time being.

Skomer MCZ, along with any other proposed sites, will be subject to a consultation process through to late 2011, after which, some sites will be designated as HPMCZ. It is expected that the level of protection will be very high, ie, no-take zones.

Pel.