As the fighting continue between clubs and associa

[jb2]

[color=#006600]strandwolf[/color] wrote:

[color=#006600]jb[/color] wrote:

[color=#006600]strandwolf[/color] wrote:
Who made the proposal? Was it MCM? If so who at MCM made it?NEPAD discussions.

Hi Strandwolf.

We are getting closer. Who tabled the suggestion at the "NEPAD discussions"?

I still am not sure who made the suggestion. The origin of the suggestion is crucial. If it is a prospective solution to a problem then who identified the problem.

I am sorry to ask difficult questions and I realise that I deserve a one way ticket to the GULAG for this.

Can I assume that it is a proposal that has emerged from artisanal fishers and not MCM.

This is why it was so important to get rid of those who ask difficult questions.

The key issue is are you asking recreationals to go and "sny n lat vir hulle eie gat"?

jb

 

[neilg]

[color=#006600]jb2[/color] wrote:

The key issue is are you asking recreationals to go and "sny n lat vir hulle eie gat"?

VERY important point JB2, and I agree with you

I didn't want to be part of this discussion, but have to say, asking/recommending something (with good intentions) is one thing, the outcome will most likely be something totally different.

The fact that you believe 10kg of fish is enough for you or me might not be what the next person agrees with.

I'm not talking from a personal point of view, lately I hardly get time to go fishing, and don't like freezing fish either, and eating 10kg of fish in 1 day is highly unlikely for me, I'm the only one in the family that eats fish. But because this is the case with me DOESN'T mean it's the case with the guy fishing next to me.

Lots of people catch fish for fun, but have every intention of keeping fish for themselves, for whatever reason they choose, take a boat for example, having to run 40nm roundtrip with 3 guys on, each catching a single 20kg Tuna, they are now not allowed to keep more ... guess what they think of this "proposal".

Many many people catch their daily limit (when they have time to go, maybe once a month maybe more) and then share that limit with friends and family. Legally they are entitled to do so, but again, this law will now "restrict" that.

How many "small scale commercial fisherman" (that father and son on a wooden plank putting their lives at risk every day) have lost their "rights" ? It's probably them that are selling fish at lower prices, guess what, they must eat, they also have living expenses and families to take care of. They were people making a LEGAL living off fishing, and by taking away their rights they were turned into poachers.

I don't like talking about things I don't know about, therefore I strongly suggest stop talking about wearing the shoe until you've done so. The day you've had your only way of generating an income taken away, and really don't know how to do anything else that could replace the income you've just lost asap, then you can say you've worn the shoe and talk from experience.

NOT EVERYONE IS THAT LUCKY. That's why the gap between the poor and rich is growing by the day. The rich take away from the poor, that way there is more for them.

Most recreational fisherman will think (not say ofcourse) ...

Why not just ask MCM to write into law that no fish caught by a recreational fisherman may be kept. That would be much easier ...

Laws are being written and changed left right and centre to makes it "easier" to govern, most of the times turning out to be a disaster.

I see this going the same way ...

 

[jb2]

Neilg, the issues that you raise are the same ones that make me think that it is not an MCM proposal.

I agree with Strandwolf that there is a problem with recreationals selling there catch.

The best way to stop that is with better compliance and not to target the innocent.

One of the difficulties is fish like snoek and yellowtail. They are some of the few species that can handle a big recreational bag limit.  This high bag limit makes it possible for "recreationals" to sell their catch.

I don't agree that we should be punished for the inability of MCM to effectively police the sale of fish.

since snoek can't be released effectively without cutting the line (leaving R30, 00 worth of Ashley Read "Seriola 160" in its mouth) it will not be very fun to go fishing for snoek.

Let's wait to hear from Strandwolf to explain the exact origin of the "proposal".

I make light of the involvement of COSATU but the plight of the small scale fisher is a serious one and I can understand the need to restrict the sale of recreationally caught fish.

 

 

 

 

[carcharias]

Why not take an approach that actually tries to appease all fishermen?
As already stated, no deepsea fisherman wants to spend a couple of grand to catch only one fish. Remember that these same sport fishermen are high end earners and therefore pay the majority of the tax collected in SA. Would it not make mutch more sence to allow these guys to sell a certain quantity ( within existing bag limits) of the fish they catch? This system would not really make any difference to the commercials, but would also not criminalise the poor guy who can only make a living by breaking the law. I have personally never kept my bag limit of any species, other than shad. 2 for the pan and 2 for bait. I also never release fish that I know will die , they are part of my bag. Everybody should have the right to share in the natural resource, while still protecting this resource.
The recreational fishing industry is worth billions to the economy. These proposals will virtually kill this industry. I think that the proposals are very self serving and short sighted. Obviously a free market system would actually be best, but could cause too mutch damage in the time it would take to settle.

 

[strandwolf]

[color=#006600]jb2[/color] wrote:

[color=#006600]strandwolf[/color] wrote:

[color=#006600]jb[/color] wrote:

[color=#006600]strandwolf[/color] wrote:
Who made the proposal? Was it MCM? If so who at MCM made it?NEPAD discussions.

Hi Strandwolf.

We are getting closer. Who tabled the suggestion at the "NEPAD discussions"?Big Bussiness

I still am not sure who made the suggestion. The origin of the suggestion is crucial. If it is a prospective solution to a problem then who identified the problem. They reasoned that recreational is more damage than they as they dont target linefish species

I am sorry to ask difficult questions and I realise that I deserve a one way ticket to the GULAG for this. Personally i think you ot GULAG on your brain

Can I assume that it is a proposal that has emerged from artisanal fishers and not MCM. you are free to assume what you want, but by blaming artisanal you are wrong.

This is why it was so important to get rid of those who ask difficult questions. Why ask questions and do not listen to answers.

The key issue is are you asking recreationals to go and "sny n lat vir hulle eie gat"?Nope i think it place them in a better position mu 2c worth. (so far from reaction)

jb As i said give facts and supported reasons why it wont work etc. not stories and bla bla

 

[strandwolf]

[color=#006600]neilg[/color] wrote:

[color=#006600]jb2[/color] wrote:

The key issue is are you asking recreationals to go and "sny n lat vir hulle eie gat"?

VERY important point JB2, and I agree with youmaybe maybe not

I didn't want to be part of this discussion, but have to say, asking/recommending something (with good intentions) is one thing, the outcome will most likely be something totally different.correct this was asking for constructive comments based on facts on a proposal.

The fact that you believe 10kg of fish is enough for you or me might not be what the next person agrees with.Again agreed, but why for you and not another?

I'm not talking from a personal point of view, lately I hardly get time to go fishing, and don't like freezing fish either, and eating 10kg of fish in 1 day is highly unlikely for me, I'm the only one in the family that eats fish. But because this is the case with me DOESN'T mean it's the case with the guy fishing next to me.See thanks it suits you with reason as a fact, but also you want to say about others.

Lots of people catch fish for fun, but have every intention of keeping fish for themselves, for whatever reason they choose, take a boat for example, having to run 40nm roundtrip with 3 guys on, each catching a single 20kg Tuna, they are now not allowed to keep moreSportsfishing? ... guess what they think of this "proposal".Get another sport.

Many many people catch their daily limit (when they have time to go, maybe once a month maybe more) and then share that limit with friends and family. Legally they are entitled to do so, but again, this law will now "restrict" that.Wrong as a letter or note will be good. same as all commercials have to give slips to every buyer of fish.

How many "small scale commercial fisherman" (that father and son on a wooden plank putting their lives at risk every day) have lost their "rights" ?agreed It's probably them that are selling fish at lower pricesto get rid of the catch fast and not to be caught, guess what, they must eat, they also have living expenses and families to take care of. They were people making a LEGAL living off fishing, and by taking away their rights they were turned into poachers.Correct 100%

I don't like talking about things I don't know about, therefore I strongly suggest stop talking about wearing the shoe until you've done so.Agreed The day you've had your only way of generating an income taken away, and really don't know how to do anything else that could replace the income you've just lost asap, then you can say you've worn the shoe and talk from experience.I wear that shoe and are proud to say so.

NOT EVERYONE IS THAT LUCKY. That's why the gap between the poor and rich is growing by the day. The rich pakket vissermannetake away from the poortrue fishers, that way there is more for them.

Most recreational fisherman will think agree again as can see by those who read and those who comment, first think then speak(not say ofcourse) ...

Why not just ask MCM to write into law that no fish caught by a recreational fisherman may be keptnope as this is every citizens right. That would be much easier ...never shall i bow to big bussiness wanting all

Laws are being written and changed left right and centre to makes it "easier" to govern, most of the times turning out to be a disaster. agree but we must spekup

I see this going the same way ...will not allow this

 

[Dingleberry]

"High end" earners being given more rights 'cause they pay more taxes and the disadvantaged having more rights than others are two equally distasteful concepts. Stinks of "all of the animals on the farm are equal, some are just more equal than others." I rectum all commercial fishing should be banned and only one fish per angler per day and it should be between 3 - 10 kg. No bigger and no smaller. Jokes?! Most of y'all keep punting new laws. SA has enough damn laws. It's time for common sense, pride and working together for a common cause.

 

[carcharias]

Read the posting propely Dingleberry. There is no mention of high end earners getting more rights. There is only the fact that if you piss the high end earner off, he stops spending his money in the industry and the industry collapses.

 

[Dingleberry]

Carcharius: your post, by implication, proposes preferential treatment to the wealthy sportfisherman based solely on the fact that he spends more money pursueing his passtime. The decision on our part to spend large amount of money on our passion does not entitle us to any rights above those of lower income groups. Strondwolf is correct in saying that if ya don't like it, go and play golf!

"Nothing more clearly shows how little GOD esteems his gift to men of wealth, money, position and other worldly goods, than the way he distributes these , and the sort of men who are most amply provided with them."

 

[carcharias]

Boet red it again. You are still missing my point, or im not getting it down thw way it should have come across.
I said that everybody should have a share in the resource.
All im saying is that those proposals will kill the huge sportfishing industry. Recreational fishing is worth more than double what commercial fishing is, to the ecomomy. And it does a whole lot less damage. Strandwolf himself said that the boat he was on took 170000 tonnes of fish in a single year. All the recreationals together would not account for that mutch fish. The proposal IS self serving and WILL turn the sustinace fisherman into a criminal. That means the lower income groups suffer the most.

 

[Dingleberry]

I get yer point and agree with most of what you say. I only disagree with recreationals being able to sell fish. If they could, they would effectively be commercials and they would have an advantage over the shore based recreational inasmuch as that they could recoup costs. I am a boatowner and spend an excessive amount of money indulging in my passion. If I could not afford it, I wouldn't do so. I still have some issue with the amount of pollution I generate with my 2 stroke outboards, pursuing fish I release. How much worse if I was taking fish too?!

 

[GL]

Does anybody know what would happen to our fish stocks if all recreational fish had to be released, dead or alive, for say 24 months + banning trawlers, long liners, etc for same 24 months?

I am just curious as to what the scientists will have to say statistically about positive/negative impact on fish . . . i am not advocating such a move.

 

 

[Dingleberry]

It could surely only do good. A viable idea might be to have a two year ban on a few species and alternate?!

 

[strandwolf]

Dingleberry Imust say thanks as you seemed to read and thinked about this then answered. Yes all the tuna recreational and sportfishers will be up in arms. The question then is obvious. The day they purchased those boats and equipment they knew that their hobby/sport is an expensive one. Why do they then now insist they must be better than a angler from shore? Its that kind of thinking why we cant stand together. like if my neighbour have a BMW and i a CITY GOLF so he is better than me? bullst. Same to bigbussiness for 50+ years they raped the seas and still they want everything, or they will fire the workers. Our arguement is 30 small factories with 200 workers each is better that 1 factory with 700 workers.

 

[strandwolf]

To GL
Just look at Venezuela, the new president immediatly banned all trawling. 700 trawlers local and international banned in their waters. 13 factories closed down in opposition against this. within 7 months the longline,handline and inshore fisheries showed huge increases of catches and size/fish. more than 400 fish processors opened up. all the local fishers is working and all those who worked in the closed down factories also work plus another 13000. the trawlers now going to be scrap metal.

 

[strandwolf]

Chile is next to follow in Venezuela footsteps

 

[strandwolf]

The problem with trowback of fish is that who knows if that fish survive? then if you are allowed size limit you keep the biggest and throw back the dead small one you caught 2 hours ago.

 

[jb2]

[color=#006600]strandwolf[/color] wrote:

As the fighting continue between clubs and associations both rock and surf and boat angling regarding who may catch and what. As recreational means you catch fish for personal consumption. point end.

If a recreational state this is his sport, then no problem is seen as this then falls under catch and release. If the regulation trouble the sport fisher the obtion to practice another sport is always there.

As the inspectors and MCM officials get confused with species, genera, sizes, gender and measurements, the new regulation will be fair and just.  Ready for it?

Every recreational angler (post office permit) will be allowed a bag limit of 10kg fish per day regardless specie etc. Total of 50kg in possesion(deepfreeze at home).

If the 1 fish you catch is more than the 10kg limit that is the end of your daily fishing and you can come the next day unless your 50kg at home is full.

if you catch tuna more than 50kg letter of skipper to that 1 fish will be allowed and only when that 1 fish has been consumed , you may go get another.

Now everbody is happy.

Hi Strandwolf.

Now that we have the context lets look at what is being proposed.

At a nepad meeting attended by "Big Business" and groups representing artisanal fishers, a suggestion was made regarding the regulation of recreationals.

I will now "sny the lat for my gat" as has been requested. The proposal is too broad and oversimplified.

It seeks to compensate for  the deficiencies in MCM's compliance ability by making inroads into the recreational fishers enjoyment of his / her sport.

It does not give any thought to the different management regimes that are appropriate to different fish species.

The first question must be why do away with a daily bag limit?

The suggestion regarding bigger fish like tunas is unhelpful. What about snoek and dorado or yellowtail. In False bay the tail are fairly small but toward the east the fish get big. After catching an 8kg fish  you would have to only release fish. Since the stock can cope with a higher bag limit why not keep it.

Some fish are not capable of easy release. These include snoek and those species that suffer from barotrauma.

If you allow for different bag limits then the recreational can continue fishing by changing his tackle and targetting different species.

I can see the obvious appeal that this system would have to the artisanal fishers who want to control the amount of snoek and yellowtail that is caught by recreationals.

What would the reduction in the amenity value of the recreational fishery?

Strandwolf: please tell me who from "Big Business" suggested the proposal? I would like to boycott their products.

Please tell me whether your organisation supports the proposal.

Thanks

 

[carcharias]

Strandwolf. I think you should also read my posting again.... and think.

I said that it would make sence to let RECREATIONAL fishermen sell some of thier catch. I never said sportfishermen only. To all purposes, the sustinance fisherman is a recreational fisherman, therefore this new law goes one step further toward criminalising this lower income fisherman. They already sell thier catch anyway. why not allow them to make a living. Why can the commercial fisherman be so proteted? In any other industry you have to work yo stay ahead of the crowd. Anybody can decide to start a business in any industry. Why is it not so for the fishing industry. Is it because the fishing industry is run by cartels? Where is the democracy that everybody is so keen to claim we have. Perhaps its like Dingleberry mentioned, everybody is equal , but some of more equal. I too have read animal farm and taken heed of the evils of communism. The origional principals may be great but there is no accounting for human nature.

If you impose a 10kg limit on deepsea fishermen, you going to find hundreds of dead fish floating around. Most will just throw fish back regardless of weather the fish is dead or alive. All that will be achieved is total waste of the resourse. You have to take human nature into account when you make laws. Unfortunately those proposals , which sound great in a perfect world, will never work in practice.

You asy that if the recreational fisherman does not like your proposals he should go play golf. By the same token you should find another job if you cannot compete without the protection. That is why so many businesses fail......... they simply cannot compete with the opposition.

 

[strandwolf]

[color=#006600]jb2[/color] wrote:

[color=#006600]strandwolf[/color] wrote:

As the fighting continue between clubs and associations both rock and surf and boat angling regarding who may catch and what. As recreational means you catch fish for personal consumption. point end.

If a recreational state this is his sport, then no problem is seen as this then falls under catch and release. If the regulation trouble the sport fisher the obtion to practice another sport is always there.

As the inspectors and MCM officials get confused with species, genera, sizes, gender and measurements, the new regulation will be fair and just.  Ready for it?

Every recreational angler (post office permit) will be allowed a bag limit of 10kg fish per day regardless specie etc. Total of 50kg in possesion(deepfreeze at home).

If the 1 fish you catch is more than the 10kg limit that is the end of your daily fishing and you can come the next day unless your 50kg at home is full.

if you catch tuna more than 50kg letter of skipper to that 1 fish will be allowed and only when that 1 fish has been consumed , you may go get another.

Now everbody is happy.

Hi Strandwolf.

Now that we have the context lets look at what is being proposed. not proposed, a proposal for discussion

At a nepad meeting attended by "Big Business" and groups representing artisanal fishers,recreationals, commercial linefish, longline, abalone,etc. a suggestion was made regarding the regulation of recreationals.

I will now "sny the lat for my gat" as has been requested. The proposal is too broad and oversimplified. Yep thats why input is asked

It seeks to compensate for  the deficiencies in MCM's compliance ability by making inroads into the recreational fishers enjoyment of his / her sport.sport fishing is not recreational fishing, it is SPORTS. 

It does not give any thought to the different management regimes that are appropriate to different fish species. Agree as even our coastline has different oceans etc

The first question must be why do away with a daily bag limit? The limit is still there only in kg, but you could couple that to fish which ever is reached first.

The suggestion regarding bigger fish like tunas is unhelpful. What about snoek and dorado or yellowtail. In False bay the tail are fairly small but toward the east an 8kg fish would mean that you would have to only release fish. Prove that you can consume that fish. Boat angling is same as shore angling, but the boater has by choice decided to have more expensis, so the fish must not be an escape goat to pay his expensis.

Some fish are not capable of easy release. These include snoek and those species that suffer from barotrauma. No problem as you have a limit, then stop when you reach this, you will write your catch as caught so if your last fish exceed youre fine.

If you allow for different bag limits then the recreational can continue fishing by changing his tackle and targetting different species. Again this is more a boat story, but you can target whatever you want keep to the limit.

I can see the obvious appeal that this system would have to the artisanal fishers who want to control the amount of snoek and yellowtail that is caught by recreationals. stop blaming artisanal as the commercial handline is objecting to the recreational catches of the recreational sector which we as artisanal oppose.

What would the reduction in the amenity value of the recreational fishery?None actually a increase

Strandwolf: please tell me who from "Big Business" suggested the proposal? I would like to boycott their products. Pakketvissers organizations

Please tell me whether your organisation supports the proposal. Give me a reason to or not to support and i will put this to our members, and let you know. Personally i agree with some statements and disagree with a lot of others, but i think a solution can be found. The biggest problem here is that although you speak of 1 sector in the fishing industry the players believe they are seperate and want different rules as the other. eg offshore- inshore, boat - beach. The fact is that the angler himself decide his investment in his tackle,boat etc. thus not giving him a status above another. YOU WITH A  25FT CAPE CRAFT AND LANDCRUISER MUST HAVE THE SAM LAW AS THE ANGLER WITH A BAMBOO ROD AND BEACHBUGGY.

Thanks