As the fighting continue between clubs and associa

[jb2]

Hi Strandwolf without replying in enormous detail.

Please don't try to separate sport and recreation. For me catching for the pot is important. I love to get home with my 10 snoek. That is when the fun really starts.

I pickle two in a big cake tin sized tupperware. I dry a few to eat as biltong. I smoke at least one and take some smoked snoek pate to people at work. I give one to my neighbour. I have people for a braai and tell them stories about  how I just managed to save our supper from the jaws of a seal that was closing in fast.

As you can see your understanding of sport fishing is too narrow. It is the whole process that I enjoy not just the catching.

which longline associations were represented at the meeting by the way?

 

[Marthin]

This last part i fully agree with, and ive been quiet most of the discussion.

If i choose to drive a 6.7 litre V8 shelby cobra, i shouldnt complain if the petrol price goes up. The guy next to me chose to drive a daihatsu charade.

If you choose to buy a 2 million rand boat and fit it with all the bells and whistles, all the best reels and rods with all the tackle you can think of, 2 300hp engines and your sportfish/recreational fishing HOBBY, becomes more expensive than the guy that decided he can only afford an okuma rod & reel combo from game to persue his HOBBY, this shouldnt entitle you to be able to catch more fish to pay for your HOBBY....

 

[Marthin]

AND if it doesnt become worth it for you anymore to persue your hobby if you are only allowed 5 snoek or 2 kob or 3 yellowtail or 3 tuna for example, TOUGH BLIKSEMSE TEKKIE, find another sport u can afford, i know a rugbyclub that needs some players...

Bring me the ABSA finance contract where it states that when you buy this boat it automatically means you should be able to catch more fish from the same species than the guy standing on the beach to help you pay for your boat...

 

[strandwolf]

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

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, the MRLA act only regonize three types of fishers, recreational,subsistence and commercial.therefore this new law goes one step further toward criminalising this lower income fishermanagree. They already sell thier catch anywayagree. why not allow them to make a livingagree. Why can the commercial fisherman be so proteted?They use the money they made in the apartheid years to keep the government in court, thret to fire workers etc. 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 cartelsspot on? WCRLA and kie.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 aroundnope your first fish or the last may pass the limit, if your first fish pass 10kg you stop. Most will just throw fish back regardless of weather the fish is dead or alivecurrently the situation as you can see the redromans drifting in Falsebay. 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. Tell me why, reason you say and based on a fact.

You asy that if the recreational fisherman does not like your proposals he should go play golfnope said that to those who give sports as an excuse. 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.Thats why we oppose the rule these big companies have over our resources

 

[strandwolf]

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

Hi Strandwolf without replying in enormous detail.

Please don't try to separate sport and recreation. For me catching for the pot is important. I love to get home with my 10 snoekNow only 4 snoek of 3kg each, last one went past limit so you were allowed that. That is when the fun really starts.

I pickle twoone as tomorrow you can pickle another in a big cake tin sized tupperware. I dry a 1 snoekfew to eat as biltong. I smoke at least one and do not take some smoked snoek pate to people at workare you a welfare charity?. I give none to my neighbourhe could catch his own, invite him on your boat, what kinda neighbour are you. I have people for a braai they bring their own snoek, bought by a roadside hawker and tell them stories about  how I just managed to save our supper from the jaws of a seal that was closing in fast.

As you can see your understanding of sport fishing is too narrow. It is the whole process that I enjoy not just the catching. LMAO

which longline associations were represented at the meeting by the way?

 

[Marthin]

Sorry the more i think about this the more rediculous it becomes....

Strandwolf and JB, i fully agree with wolf's last reply. Let them buy their own snoek from the guy next to the road.

If the capital you have laid out should be considered as it has been allowing the boat anglers a bigger size limit surely the same should go for the guy on the beach... If he then paid R3500 for his custom built Waft, and another R3000 for his Saltiga (i think it's even more), should he be allowed more fish than the guy fishing with his R250 okuma combo from game?? ABSURD if u ask me.

 

[carcharias]

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

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

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, the MRLA act only regonize three types of fishers, recreational,subsistence and commercial.therefore this new law goes one step further toward criminalising this lower income fishermanagree. They already sell thier catch anywayagree. why not allow them to make a livingagree. Why can the commercial fisherman be so proteted?They use the money they made in the apartheid years to keep the government in court, thret to fire workers etc. 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 cartelsspot on? WCRLA and kie.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 aroundnope your first fish or the last may pass the limit, if your first fish pass 10kg you stop  We both know that even if this is law, it will be ignored. The only solution is better policing. Most will just throw fish back regardless of weather the fish is dead or alivecurrently the situation as you can see the redromans drifting in Falsebay. 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. Tell me why, reason you say and based on a fact. The fact you seek is in your answer about the red romans. This will only get far worse if these proposals are imposed.

You asy that if the recreational fisherman does not like your proposals he should go play golfnope said that to those who give sports as an excuse. Recreation and sport are one and the same. 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.Thats why we oppose the rule these big companies have over our resources Unfortunately that is the nature of capitalism. There is no worable alternative to this system. All social systems are full of their own unique problems. None can effectively oppose pure greed.

It seems as though we agree on many facets and disagree on some. That makes for good debate. I just wish more people would put their minds to helping find workable solutions. Unfortunately, nobody is totally unbiased.

 

[strandwolf]

The facts:
a commercial linefisher must give the purchaser who bought his catch a slip to prove that its legal. The purchaser then must give the buyer of that fish a slip as proof.
Even Checkers will give you a slip.

 

[carcharias]

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

Sorry the more i think about this the more rediculous it becomes....

Strandwolf and JB, i fully agree with wolf's last reply. Let them buy their own snoek from the guy next to the road.

If the capital you have laid out should be considered as it has been allowing the boat anglers a bigger size limit surely the same should go for the guy on the beach... If he then paid R3500 for his custom built Waft, and another R3000 for his Saltiga (i think it's even more), should he be allowed more fish than the guy fishing with his R250 okuma combo from game?? ABSURD if u ask me.

Marthin. You are absolutely correct! The problem is that things just dont work that way. The guy at the side of the road may just be a poacher himself. If you simplify the whole equasion as above, why is it that the capital that the fishing cartels have invested, makes them entitled to rape the sea for pure greed? The bycatch of one single processing ship, in a year, accounts for more fish than all the recreationals can possibly catch. That is unfortunately the nature of capitalism. The wealthy will always have the ability to manipulate the system to suit themselves.

Now there are 2 obvious arguments: Why should the guy who has worked hard for his cash not gain from his work? OR Why should the wealthy have the advantages? Niether is actually fair, depending on which side you happen to be on. If life was fair..........................................

 

[Pylstert]

Carch, excellent response, your last statement though - my opinion money does not give you the right to rape and pillage end of story. There needs to be a limit and we need to place natural capital before monetary capital

 

[carcharias]

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

Carch, excellent response, your last statement though - my opinion money does not give you the right to rape and pillage end of story. There needs to be a limit and we need to place natural capital before monetary capital

Yes Pylstert. Unfortunately, money should not give anybody the right to rape and pillage but please tell that to the super rich. They rape and pillage all the time. There absolutely should be way more conservation of natural capital and a lot less greed for monetary capital. I was mearly trying to state both sides of the obvious argument that would take place.

 

[Marthin]

yip the ships take plenty and pillage and all the rest... again look at my other post of what recreationals have been getting up to the last 50 years and then read what miles have said. It's not the commercials that have destroyed the musselcracker, shad and galjoen population. We did it as recreationals. I just agree with Strandwolf that if the limit is 1 for me from the beach it should be 1 for you from the boat. Because you paid more for the equipment you use to persue the same quarry i do from the side, you shouldnt be compensated for this by getting a better deal on the restrictions.

Look what it looks like come snoek run... every chum and his bud with a boat goes out, catches 40 snoek a man, and ends up giving them away. yes there are poachers out there selling as well, but rather let the few guys that need to sell snoek to live do so, and limit the amount the "RECREATIONAL UNTIL THE SNOEK ARE DIK" guys catch.

 

[carcharias]

Why not then bann snoek fishing totally for just one season? If the recreationals catch less snoek , the commercials will just catch more. By nailing the recreational fisherman you will not only cause huge repurcussions to the economy, but also just make the greedy even richer.
I agree that recreational fishermen in the past caused havoc. Think about how mutch the commercials caught if the recreationals caught that many?

 

[strandwolf]

Snoek gets decimated by the trawlers, FACT. Plse we jump the topic, the question still is why not and if not why. Give me ammo but this must be facts

 

[Marthin]

carch ur missing my point, even if its not a valid one. The commercials do not target the musselcracker. They as miles said for great stretches of our coast cannot even if they want target galjoen. The demise of these fish are solely the fault of the recreational angler, and also non existant policing by MCM. The same with elf/shad

Steenbras and kob, now we getting into the commercial sector having an impact, but i definately feel recreationals at least 50% blame

Hake and all the other truely commercialised species definately 75% commercial at fault, 20% poor management by MCM and at least 5% uneducated public

I just used snoek as an example, as this is one specie where everyone grabs as much as they can, and recreationals in my view grab more than they need or the people they know need, just for the sake of catching.

 

[Marthin]

Wolf in answer to your question i feel thus:

1. Number of fish restrictions is the way to go not weight
2. There should be size bracket for every vulnerable species, minimum and maximum size limit
3. All available money spent on improving current policing. Only once the policing of the current legislation is effective should time or effort be put into changing legislation or you just keep running around ur own tail.

4. and my most important one.  If a recreational beach angler can only catch one a recreational boat angler must also only be allowed 1

Money currently being spent on research can also be used, and MCM can offer any field they feel studies need to be made on to universities to offer students as fields to do masters or doctorates on. Research problem solved and MCM will get paid to get research done for them not the other way around. Also chances are very slim a student will manipulate research to better someone's pockets, if he is trying to get a doctorate or any other degree.

 

[carcharias]

I get your point but think that you are partially wrong. The inshore trolling will definately have a huge effect on the species that you speak of. These species are bycatch.
Yes some recreationals definately abuse the system. Changing the law will not change the fact, proper policing definately will.

 

[carcharias]

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

Wolf in answer to your question i feel thus:

1. Number of fish restrictions is the way to go not weight
2. There should be size bracket for every vulnerable species, minimum and maximum size limit
3. All available money spent on improving current policing. Only once the policing of the current legislation is effective should time or effort be put into changing legislation or you just keep running around ur own tail.

Money currently being spent on research can also be used, and MCM can offer any field they feel studies need to be made on to universities to offer students as fields to do masters or doctorates on. Research problem solved and MCM will get paid to get research done for them not the other way around. Also chances are very slim a student will manipulate research to better someone's pockets, if he is trying to get a doctorate or any other degree.

Fantastic! Thanks Marthin. That makes a lot of sence. A bag limit per species as well as an overall bag limit is , in my opinion, the only way to go.

 

[neilg]

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

The facts:
a commercial linefisher must give the purchaser who bought his catch a slip to prove that its legal. The purchaser then must give the buyer of that fish a slip as proof.
Even Checkers will give you a slip.

And this is what it's all about, if a recreational fisherman is allowed less fish, he will buy more, which is perfect for the commercial fishing sector, they can then sell more fish, demand a higher price and make more money.

 

[neilg]

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

carch ur missing my point, even if its not a valid one. The commercials do not target the musselcracker. They as miles said for great stretches of our coast cannot even if they want target galjoen. The demise of these fish are solely the fault of the recreational angler, and also non existant policing by MCM. The same with elf/shad

Steenbras and kob, now we getting into the commercial sector having an impact, but i definately feel recreationals at least 50% blame

Hake and all the other truely commercialised species definately 75% commercial at fault, 20% poor management by MCM and at least 5% uneducated public

I just used snoek as an example, as this is one specie where everyone grabs as much as they can, and recreationals in my view grab more than they need or the people they know need, just for the sake of catching.

There are lots of fish that the commercial sector do not target, but they don't throw it back either, it's sold as a bycatch.

That includes Musselcracker, shad, galjoen and every other fish that swims into the net, bites on the line, which ever way they are fishing at the time.

The person that thinks the commercial sector do not target Crackers and Shad really need to catch a wake up !!!! Go to St Francis bay, wait for the COMMERCIAL boats to come in and see what they offload, I'm not talking about 20 and 30m boats, I'm talking about the 6m boats with 4 commercials onboard. You then tell me this sh!t again.

Sure recreational fisherman (incl sports) take from the sea, but not nearly as much as is said, 50% blame for cob, please man, how do you get to that. On a good day a normal recreational (inshore) angler catches 10 cob with a total weight of say 100kg, he does this 2 to 3 times a month, on a BAD day a commercial line fishing boat loads 1000kg of cob, on a good day 2-3000kg. Most recreational fisherman throw back what they don't want, like undersize cob, commercials don't easily do that, its money and bycatch.

A commercial line fishing boat takes more in a day from the sea than 10 average recreational fisherman take in a year. Now keep in mind that a commercial boat goes to sea as often as it possibly can, and the recreational fisherman goes whenever he can, say about 3 times a month for the recreational fisherman, say about 10 to 15 times a month for the commercial. If you work out the average for the smaller commercial boats over a year it comes to about 10 times a month.

This will look like I'm slamming the commercial sector, I'm not. I understand that there must be a commercial sector, it's job creation, it puts food on the table for lots of families and provides fish to people that can't / won't go fishing to eat fish.

I'm just tired of the blame being shifted in the direction of recreational fisherman. We as recreational do have to accept a degree of responsibility but definately not to the extend that some people, companies and government are saying.