Heysham Bass Nursery Areas Latest

[Paul]

Ok, I have had some clarification on the actual area that may become protected as an extended bye-law of the current one.

This is the area we are talking about, which thankfully does not include the North wall of the harbour.

bassnursery.png (122.51 KiB) Viewed 8688 times

This is the possible wording of the new Bye-law

No person shall fish for or remove any sea fish by any means from that part of the District surrounding Heysham Power Station, which is covered by the Bass (Specified Areas) (Prohibition of Fishing) Order 1990, SI 1990 No. 1156 during any part of the year, unless for scientific purposes with the written permission of the Authority.

Which basically means, a COMPLETE BAN on all fishing in the area shown above - Which would include joe blogs the shore angler, boat angling/netting (although that was already banned under the current bylaw) and also shore netting, in any form.

Personally?! I think its a good thing. The Bass nursery should mean just that - For years there have been nets down there, as well as commercial rod and liners. More recently i am sure you have all heard the reports of one "Person" (i won't use the term ANGLER for reasons that will become clear) who has almost been running a racket down at the outflows, buying Bass from kids for a Quid each..... Whether this is completely true I do not know, but the amount of people i have heard it from would suggest it was.

SO what do you think?? I have added a Poll out of interest



EDIT: added files from IFCA - Some are docx files which require the latest version of word to open. Contact me if you need different ones and i will convert them

[Dave Howard]

I to would be made up for the conservation of the schoolies that was so wrongly taken last season heard the stories off other anglers and would welcome this decision especially the increase in netting around the outfalls

[birdsnest]

looking at the proposed area it means you will no longer be able to fish for conger under the old wooden jetty,am I right in my understanding of this from the map.

[Paul]

Unfortunately this has been going on for years Dave. There have been nets down there for as long as i can remember....

One guy used to live on Ocean edge through the summer, and spent his days netting and spinning at the outflows....

The mullet took a hammering by the nets too, unfortunately these tended to be thrown back dead as there was very little commercial value in taking them off the beach.


Just a note on the Poll - all votes are complete anonymous.... so please vote honestly


Birdsnest - Yes that would appear to be the case..... The area as i see it will cover all the shore between number 7 bouy (first bouy you would come to walking out on middleton sands) northwards to the middle of the harbour. It would also include fishing on the south harbour wall, and south roundhead, and the wooden extension.

[Baz C]

If they're going to have a nursery area with a total ban within that area, then they also need to enforce it.
Obviously the powers that be couldn't be there 24/7, but if regular visits were made and the odd prosecution was made then there could be a better chance of the nursery area having better success. Can't understan why nets are allowed within a nursery area, it just doesn't make sense.

[Blanko]

I think sadly it needs it. Responsible anglers should have been able to enjoy the sport + return anything undersized in the spirit of the privilege of being allowed to fish in a nursery area but I think most responsible anglers took one look at many of the idiots round the outflows + decided they'd rather not catch than be involved in that circus.
Last summer one mob-for want of a better description(and NOT local I hasten to add)-was down there almost daily,'bagging up' on 20-30cm Bass,I've seen 3 of them struggling away with hundreds in a tarpaulin on more than 1 occasion,so it had to come. I think most will welcome it,though we should always be very wary of regulation + restriction as when it comes too easily it sets precedent,so should be only approved following appropriate debate.
I've spoken to people who leapt to the defence of the shore netters and I'm sure they are 99% responsible too but I've seen dead fish in unchecked nets before now-plus dead ones being returned-it kinda made the whole title Nursery Area a bit of a joke really.
So I'm for it-I just hope it doesnt eventually mean we can't fish a bait on the North Wall because there are 200 commercial rod + liners spinning under our feet ! It was quite unpleasant fishing among some of the -I can't call them anglers- on the outflows last year,several from Preston felt they OWNED fishing spaces on there and more than a few people reported being threatened by this little gang if they happened to be fishing where these lads felt they wanted to be.

[Bill Bodger]

I completely agree with Blanko and his sentiments. I too am wary of giving up our rights to fish. However, in the interests of conserving our sport I think it is probably necessary to have a ban in the nursery area for all; with the proviso that it is monitored and may be re-assessed in a few years to see if it is helping bass numbers in the bay. I also think there is a need to have another look when the outflows are finally turned off. I would imagine the schoolies will move to other areas when they are. This would negate the need to ban all fishing in the area at that time.

The current proposed bye-law doesn't give this option. I would urge you to be wary of giving acceptance on the grounds of the lack of flexibility within.

I believe we need someone who shore fishes locally as a representative in touch with the fisheries and local council to negotiate for the shore angler. Did Rushy take on this mantle or was that something else?

A very thought provoking subject this. There could be so much fall out if it isn't handled correctly.

BB

[Blanko]

I completely agree with Blanko and his sentiments. I too am wary of giving up our rights to fish. However, in the interests of conserving our sport I think it is probably necessary to have a ban in the nursery area for all; with the proviso that it is monitored and may be re-assessed in a few years to see if it is helping bass numbers in the bay. I also think there is a need to have another look when the outflows are finally turned off. I would imagine the schoolies will move to other areas when they are. This would negate the need to ban all fishing in the area at that time.

The current proposed bye-law doesn't give this option. I would urge you to be wary of giving acceptance on the grounds of the lack of flexibility within.

I believe we need someone who shore fishes locally as a representative in touch with the fisheries and local council to negotiate for the shore angler. Did Rushy take on this mantle or was that something else?

A very thought provoking subject this. There could be so much fall out if it isn't handled correctly.

BB

Absolutely

The issue of when the outflows are turned off + the PS decomissioned must be noted and specified as subject to review in the 1st instance. All too often an iron door is closed on the angler/shooter in the name of conservation and proves to be a one way door when situations later change.
I agree the turn off of the outflows will definitely alter the Bass and other fish population of the area + future flexibility MUST be ensured.

[Rushy]

I completely agree with Blanko and his sentiments. I too am wary of giving up our rights to fish. However, in the interests of conserving our sport I think it is probably necessary to have a ban in the nursery area for all; with the proviso that it is monitored and may be re-assessed in a few years to see if it is helping bass numbers in the bay. I also think there is a need to have another look when the outflows are finally turned off. I would imagine the schoolies will move to other areas when they are. This would negate the need to ban all fishing in the area at that time.

The current proposed bye-law doesn't give this option. I would urge you to be wary of giving acceptance on the grounds of the lack of flexibility within.

I believe we need someone who shore fishes locally as a representative in touch with the fisheries and local council to negotiate for the shore angler. Did Rushy take on this mantle or was that something else?

A very thought provoking subject this. There could be so much fall out if it isn't handled correctly.

BB

Good post Frank, that's a point that hadn't really been considered. We should be wary of signing away our rights, even with the best intentions
For the record, I am in favour of the principle of banning the taking of bass from a bass nursery area, but it needs to be carefully looked at and considered.
I am definitely in favour of the banning of netting down there, though to be honest I've never really seen that much in the nets! The problem lies with the taking of undersize bass in their hundreds by unscrupulous 'anglers'. How we get around this is tricky, it obviously isn't being policed (why?) so the easiest option for the authorities is to ban fishing completely. Whether this is the correct option is open to debate...tricky indeed!

[Bill Bodger]

As I said Rushy, I too am in favour of the ban. However, ONLY with a review in the future to assess progress and whether it is still necessary.

BB