Thanks Thanks:  7
Likes Likes:  23
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 37 of 37
  1. #31

    Default Gloves

    When you sort it I'm after some sealskin gloves. - medium size - no bullet marks please . Dave TTFN



    Quote Originally Posted by Rrrr View Post
    The dam on amble braid could do with knocked out as its prime hunting for the seals while the fish wait for the tide. There always seems to be a big bull seal and his mates there when theres fish about.

    Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

  2. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilkinson View Post
    When you sort it I'm after some sealskin gloves. - medium size - no bullet marks please . Dave TTFN
    Nice high seat in the layby and someone whos a good shot and we all could have a pair lol

    Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

  3. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilkinson View Post
    Let me try again please:-

    This is not about harm done by NE nets but what is needed in this country to prevent a return to High Seas Fishing on the huge scale of 1970. This is what the Greenlanders want, make no mistake !! This is roughly what the remaining commercial Atlantic salmon ( SS ) fisheries are doing right now:

    GREENLAND ( West and East ): Subsistence quota only for sale in local shops & some local processing ( 45 tonnes/ Annum ).

    LABRADOR: Subsistence quota only for sale in local shops. ( This country is opposite South Greenland on western side of Davis Strait ( Iceberg Alley ). No SS north of these 2 areas. except for 3 small rivers in Greenland and Hudson Bay, North Labrador.

    FAROES: No SS quota ( NASCO agreement for now).

    ICELAND: Not known to me, but likely small in river ( such as glacial Hvita ) and no SS ranching nnow.

    NORWAY; Largest fishery left is that of Troms and Finmark ( Northern Norway ) of c 350 tonnes catch. Based upon Sami/ Lapp traditional rights. Middle Norway, skerries: poached to death illegally.

    RUSSIA: They say to NASCO c 30 tonnes from White Sea Drift Net Fishery. Anything a Russian states then I take with a pinch of salt having worked up there.

    Populations of these Northern Countries near the Arctic Circle cannot grow crops. They must fish in river and at sea to survive.

    We in the UK do NOT need commercial salmon fisheries. If we continue then it WILL result in these huge fisheries up north restarting - is that what you want ?

    Cheers Dave

    p.s. so it is not about the NE fishery catches it is whether we can afford to fish at all in the sea. We could justify netting in-river to pacify NASCO - do you want that choice ?
    Dave

    Firstly, the notion that the high seas nets are going to start up again if we keep on netting is a red herring. They stopped because it was cost effective , or made cost effective by NASF.

    Secondly this was NOT the driver of the EA plan to reduce exploitation.

    Ultimately, if it stays cost effective to stop netting Salmon, then the nets will stay off. If it doesnít, then they wonít stay off. Salmon has become a commodity like Beef, or grain or meat non-specific. High seas netters would be outcompeted by farmed fish when they could be making proper money from other species. This isnít the Pacific.

    Given that these remaining UK nets are a fraction of what existed around our coast only 10 or 20 yers ago why would these nations get so wound up about them now? Theyíve had agreements in place not to net their areas for much longer and these agreements were NOT contingent on what other nations choose to do. Again, itís a red herring thrown out there to increase the compensation pot and/ or to push government one way.

    Letís look at each one of these high seas boogie men:

    Greenland - They havenít stuck to that quota ever, if you look at the numbers they are over pretty much every year, so you have to question the effecyinveness of the agreement anyway. Whatever the case, does it really matter? Not to us according to the ASF. 91% of these fish are of North American origin. Another prize reply to the consultation Ď With the increasing netting off Greenland our numbers are suffering even moreí. Hmmmmm, was that guy fishing Yorkshire or on The York River (gaspe).

    Faroes - would it be cost effective?

    Norway - Why would the Tana net fishery get better or worse based on what we do in the UK?

    Russia - Who knows, but itís supposed to be the most abundant region for Atlantic Salmon so whatever they are doing it canít be too bad. Besides, if theyíre going to poison somebody on a UK street I hardly think they care about what we do with our Salmon nets.
    Last edited by Grassy_Knollington; 13-03-2018 at 04:24 PM.

  4. #34

    Default don't agree

    Sorry I don't agree so best leave it there I'm working very hard on a Tyne matter and what happened on the High Seas I can't alter due to losing my friend, Orri. Cheers



    Quote Originally Posted by Grassy_Knollington View Post
    Dave

    Firstly, the notion that the high seas nets are going to start up again if we keep on netting is a red herring. They stopped because it was cost effective , or made cost effective by NASF.

    Secondly this was NOT the driver of the EA plan to reduce exploitation.

    Ultimately, if it stays cost effective to stop netting Salmon, then the nets will stay off. If it doesnít, then they wonít stay off. Salmon has become a commodity like Beef, or grain or meat non-specific. High seas netters would be outcompeted by farmed fish when they could be making proper money from other species. This isnít the Pacific.

    Given that these remaining UK nets are a fraction of what existed around our coast only 10 or 20 yers ago why would these nations get so wound up about them now? Theyíve had agreements in place not to net their areas for much longer and these agreements were NOT contingent on what other nations choose to do. Again, itís a red herring thrown out there to increase the compensation pot and/ or to push government one way.

    Letís look at each one of these high seas boogie men:

    Greenland - They havenít stuck to that quota ever, if you look at the numbers they are over pretty much every year, so you have to question the effecyinveness of the agreement anyway. Whatever the case, does it really matter? Not to us according to the ASF. 91% of these fish are of North American origin. Another prize reply to the consultation Ď With the increasing netting off Greenland our numbers are suffering even moreí. Hmmmmm, was that guy fishing Yorkshire or on The York River (gaspe).

    Faroes - would it be cost effective?

    Norway - Why would the Tana net fishery get better or worse based on what we do in the UK?

    Russia - Who knows, but itís supposed to be the most abundant region for Atlantic Salmon so whatever they are doing it canít be too bad. Besides, if theyíre going to poison somebody on a UK street I hardly think they care about what we do with our Salmon nets.
    Last edited by Dave Wilkinson; 13-03-2018 at 04:38 PM.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Yorkshire (were there a god it'd be god's own country)
    Posts
    3,446

    Default

    Who was it who said:

    "Facts are stubborn things, but our minds are even more stubborn"


    I find it unsurprising that you cannot agree Dave Wilkinson given the amount of energy you have expended in your short time on SFF railing against the nets and netters in just about all your posts. All those countless millions of salmon "saved" from the nets and where are we, rolling in salmon?

    No.

    Why? Well, either because "marine mortality" has gone out of control (unlikely) or because, well, they didn't have the alleged impact in the first place (likely and supported by other strands of evidence).

    Nowt wrong with principles and conviction IMHO. However, when it comes to facts there's the rub. No identifiable impact of offshore nets nor really any "net" benefit when nets are taken off. Netted rivers performing better than C&R rivers. All these facts, and those that GK outlines, on this thread and others, are all pretty clear.

    The response to them tends to be emotive and unconvincing without any real scientific support, IMHO. EA, AT, SCS even many anglers.

    Shame, I really wish all that pent-up the energy was directed at the EA to stop them on their SCS-fuelled campaign for CCR, rather than worrying about trivialities.

    Still, that's just me speaking as a salmon angler, one who wants aquaculture banned and will not eat "SCS-approved" farmed salmon, rather than a "Salmon Conservation Sector" supporter.
    Last edited by seeking; 13-03-2018 at 05:06 PM.
    "...hooking mortality is higher than you'd expect: further evidence that as a numbers game, catch-and-release fishing isn't always as straightforward as it seems"
    John Gierach


    Fed up of debating C&R - see Hidden Content

    Unless otherwise stated, data used in any graph/figure/table are Crown copyright, used with the permission of MSS and/or EA and/or ICES. MSS / EA / ICES are not responsible for interpretation of these data by third parties

  6. #36

    Default

    You can be assured that any meaningful information you send will be taken account of. It was not I who criticised your statistics when you argued acceptable sea-trout catches on Tweed when they showed a late decrease.

    Secondly, I worked on the netting buyout with Orri Vigfusson and those negotiations would have shown you that I am not anti-netting. I arranged his first meeting with our NE netsmen at Amble, as the guys there will tell, you in order to get their buyout figure to a decent amount.

    Maybe you're another one who thinks 2800 tonnes of salmon out of Greenland and 1,000 tonnes out of the Faroes is good for our rivers ( both per year ).










    Quote Originally Posted by seeking View Post
    Who was it who said:

    "Facts are stubborn things, but our minds are even more stubborn"


    I find it unsurprising that you cannot agree Dave Wilkinson given the amount of energy you have expended in your short time on SFF railing against the nets and netters in just about all your posts. All those countless millions of salmon "saved" from the nets and where are we, rolling in salmon?

    No.

    Why? Well, either because "marine mortality" has gone out of control (unlikely) or because, well, they didn't have the alleged impact in the first place (likely and supported by other strands of evidence).

    Nowt wrong with principles and conviction IMHO. However, when it comes to facts there's the rub. No identifiable impact of offshore nets nor really any "net" benefit when nets are taken off. Netted rivers performing better than C&R rivers. All these facts, and those that GK outlines, on this thread and others, are all pretty clear.

    The response to them tends to be emotive and unconvincing without any real scientific support, IMHO. EA, AT, SCS even many anglers.

    Shame, I really wish all that pent-up the energy was directed at the EA to stop them on their SCS-fuelled campaign for CCR, rather than worrying about trivialities.

    Still, that's just me speaking as a salmon angler, one who wants aquaculture banned and will not eat "SCS-approved" farmed salmon, rather than a "Salmon Conservation Sector" supporter.
    Last edited by Editor; 14-03-2018 at 10:44 AM. Reason: Again, let's keep the personal remarks out of this debate and respect other members wishes for anonymity please.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Stockton on Tees
    Posts
    1,894

    Default worked

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilkinson View Post
    You can be assured that any meaningful information you send will be taken account of. It was not I who criticised your statistics when you argued acceptable sea-trout catches on Tweed when they showed a late decrease.

    Secondly, I worked on the netting buyout with Orri Vigfusson and those negotiations would have shown you that I am not anti-netting. I arranged his first meeting with our NE netsmen at Amble, as the guys there will tell, you in order to get their buyout figure to a decent amount.

    Maybe you're another one who thinks 2800 tonnes of salmon out of Greenland and 1,000 tonnes out of the Faroes is good for our rivers ( both per year ).

    worked on the netting thing with some one else did ya? lol so you are the hideen hand in all this is that what ya saying,well yer had a post deleted by the editor so looks as though yer said summit outa line---hey im famous for it ! but in general.As for humans hunting fish well it is summit we all done for millenia,buying out nets will cause a adverse effect unless we totally ban the sale of wild fish.......some of these forums members aint what you call normal fishers,infact some of em have a lot to do with hatching salmon and bring back dead rivers back to life so next time yer go off on one think ! before yer make a comment,never seen what ya said but if the Editor edited it well it must have been below the belt,ive learnt as yer cant really win the forum admins etc next time yer might get 3 points on yer sff entry licnese or worse banned if that bothers ya.
    As for all them poor little salmons in the faroes so what ! so what about greenland! yer working to destroy a man living so what are the true intentions of your mates from norway? most likly not for the good of a normal angler or indeed fisher.
    My locals are booming with fish we never had so many as we got now ok st have declined but as for salmon the wear is now a salmon river not a st river that gets salmon,now vice versa.
    The tyne well say no more,the tess underestimated as the e/a seem to be pretty useless when it comes to the Tees,yorks esk well say no more diff set of e/a officers as thats the area change-two types of baillifs them who know what they are doing and them on the yorks esk who couldnt look after white mice,the humber rivers are now accounting for some where in the region of 100-150k fish for both major rivers and all their tribs ie trent and yorks ouse boith rivers have loads of major rivers entering them and i think drain a 3rd of england---yet were all told by yer mates from norway that our salmon are on their backside-who side are you on ours or theirs?

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •