lobster pots -an ex fishermans view

[blueglass]

what would you have given me in return--perhaps to avoid fouling pots an 8 knot speed limit for pleasure boats inside the 12 mile limit reducing to 5 knots in known heavily fished areas with a crewman keeping watch on the bows --regards lenten

you want something in return?? interesting concept. I wonder what the construction industry gets in return for keeping building sites safe? Millions of £s a year are spent on this and compliance with H&S is rigorously policed. No choice, nothing in return, just lives saved.
Its not an unreasonable request is it? Your own post demonstates at length that you regard the sea as a dangerous place, yet you reject a serious safety issue as unacceptable because it takes you just a little bit longer, and therefore the extra sea time puts you in danger. What about the extra sea time in the boat disabled by your actions?

 

[blueglass]

Just a thought. perhaps pot layers who don't want the expense of proper marking are allowed to settle for their ID to be clearly marked on their plastic milk carton and required to pay for all damage to fouled boats, the full cost of all RNLI call-outs etc and then it would become abundantly clear that the cheapest path is to obey marking regs.

 

[blueglass]

Perhaps some self policing amongst fishermen would also help,

a good thought - and yes of course it would. But it will clearly never happen, otherwise it would already have done so. This issue is as old as the hills and rigorous, merciless policing and massive fines are sadly the only way forward.

 

[epervier]

Lenten,

This is what our bylaws say for my area,


ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS SOUTHAMPTON

NOTICE TO MARINERS
No 21 of 2011
(Re-Issue of Notice to Mariners No 21 of 2010)
Marking of Fishing Gear, Port of Southampton

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that where marking of fishing gear laid within the limits of the Port of Southampton (as defined in Bye Law No 3 of Southampton Harbour Bye Laws 2003) does not meet the standards laid down in the attached diagram the fishing gear will be removed, without notice, to prevent it becoming a hazard to safe navigation.

For clarity, and as agreed with local fishermen, all laid fishing gear must have a surface mark which is clearly visible, consisting of a danbuoy on which is fitted a flag, an all round yellow light and a radar reflector. The identity of the laying vessel is to be clearly displayed at all times.
Due to improperly marked fishing gear, the entrance to the River Hamble, Calshot Reach and the secondary fairways of the Thorn Channel, in particular, have been reported as becoming hazardous for navigation, particularly for small craft.

As required by Bye Law No 48 of Southampton Harbour Bye Laws 2003, fishing gear is not to be laid in these areas, as they are in constant use. Where found, improperly marked fishing gear will be removed.

Owners, Agents, Charterers, Marinas, Yacht Clubs and Recreational Sailing
Organisations should ensure that the contents of this Notice are made known to the masters or persons in charge of their vessels or craft.

Vessel Traffic Services Centre
Berth 37
Eastern Docks
Southampton SO14 3GG
Captain P Holliday
Harbour Master
13 January 2011



Do the fishermen adhere to these bylaws? do they feck! and with 80,000 ship movements annually the HM hasn't the time or resources to do anything about it, so the end result is an empty threat by the HM and a 5 litre plastic bottle marks the fishermans gear.

But while I'm here whining about fishermen, what defence have you for clammers tramming through moorings, with the inevitable results of ripped up moorings at best, and cable damage to boats?

The bit that makes me smile is that I have a friend who is a fisherman with a substantial vessel and he says most of the potters and cage draggers don't give a sh!te about the rules,they only care about the catch!

Why does that not surprise me?

 

[fireball]

in the spirit of compromise if had adopted mbms criteria and worked extra hours with extra expense what would you have given me in return--perhaps to avoid fouling pots an 8 knot speed limit for pleasure boats inside the 12 mile limit reducing to 5 knots in known heavily fished areas with a crewman keeping watch on the bows --regards lenten

I love that compromise!! It'd be a giggle to see it imposed ....

Not really fair on our mobo friends though is it ...


Anyway - back to a serious note - thanks for highlighting the problems fishermen will have with flags on buoys. Our problem is that they are not very visible - especially in larger seas - and our low viewpoint.
We have no desire to snag your lines as it can be quite dangerous to do so - if not expensive to boot.
There must be an easier way to 'flag' the buoys

 

[DAKA]

There must be an easier way to 'flag' the buoys

Helium balloon would do nicely

£3 each http://www.balloonmaniacs.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=141&products_id=1150

 

[rbcoomer]

I think we are in danger of getting carried away venting frustrations on lenten - who has clearly made the effort to mark his pots and did at least have the bottle (no 5L plastic pun intended) to offer up a balancing argument/alternative perspective as an ex-fisherman...

I personally have no objection to fluorescent buoys as markers - after all we should all be looking where we're going (although the BrambleMet thread suggests otherwise... ) That said, in rougher seas and/or poor visibility (when I'm not out there ), I'm not sure of their effectivness. I do however object to the plastic bottles etc that really aren't seen easily and I think this has to be the starting point. Andrew Fanner's comments are spot on - that if the fishermen policed things themselves a bit more there would be much less of an issue and need for legislation. Perhaps flags and illumination should be required in busy channels and to mark either end/at intervals where there are many pots rather than every pot? It seems to me that pots are rarely just one or two, and marking the ends of rows etc would usually be sufficient to alert visitors to their presence as a compromise? Most locals seem to know the areas where pots are likely and are more cautious anyway.

I'm not a fan of legislation and regulation, but it does have a place where there are serious risks to life and some industries (like building mentioned earlier and farming/fishing) have had relatively poor safety records with many avoidable tragedies.

 

[flaming]

For clarity, and as agreed with local fishermen, all laid fishing gear must have a surface mark which is clearly visible, consisting of a danbuoy on which is fitted a flag, an all round yellow light and a radar reflector. The identity of the laying vessel is to be clearly displayed at all times.
Due to improperly marked fishing gear, the entrance to the River Hamble, Calshot Reach and the secondary fairways of the Thorn Channel, in particular, have been reported as becoming hazardous for navigation, particularly for small craft.

Most of my sailing is done in that area. I have never seen a pot marked in that way.

 

[blueglass]

I personally have no objection to fluorescent buoys as markers - after all we should all be looking where we're going (although the BrambleMet thread suggests otherwise... ) That said, in rougher seas and/or poor visibility (when I'm not out there ), I'm not sure of their effectivness. .

Sorry to be pedantic but it seems as if you regard fluorescent buoys as OK in perfect conditions but in rough sea and poor visibilty they are not OK. its not possible to differentiate. Those bad conditions are exactly when you are likely to get into trouble. They must be visible at all times, day and night, good and bad weather and all states of tide, otherwise the risk remains.

 

[rbcoomer]

Sorry to be pedantic but it seems as if you regard fluorescent buoys as OK in perfect conditions but in rough sea and poor visibilty they are not OK. its not possible to differentiate. Those bad conditions are exactly when you are likely to get into trouble. They must be visible at all times, day and night, good and bad weather and all states of tide, otherwise the risk remains.

I think much depends on location. There are loads of pots in the river Dart and from my limited experience they seem clearly visible/not a problem. Only having a small boat o) I don't really do much on the coast in heavy seas, but can appreciate that there are certainly going to be places where better marking is necessary. Deeper/more used channels where heavy swell could easily conceal small buoys alone says to me that more marking is necessary. Even a flag etc isn't going to be seen in some sea states, which again suggests to me that locations close to such channels/harbour entrances etc should perhaps be prohibited anyway? Most (sane) boaters won't be hugging the shore/shallow waters in a heavy swell either so they're perhaps less important too (?), but it's these waters where I've personally seen the most plastic bottles oil cans etc usually in-between other marked pots.

I can kind of appreciate both sides of the argument, but do feel that if the fisherman took more of a "this is a high risk spot so I'll use a more visible marker with flag..." type view than "this is costing me time..." then they'd be much less of a problem!

 

[blueglass]

I agree in principle, but in practice, if safety regulations are left for individual interpretation by people with a vested interest in ignoring them, nothing will change.
I admire your capacity to see both sides of the argument, but I for one see this issue in simple black and white. The regulations say mark 'em - so mark 'em. Not sometimes, not some places,not in some condtions. No half way compromise can ever work.
If that puts the price of lobster up in the restauraunts, then so be it.

 

[electrosys]

[...] all laid fishing gear must have a surface mark which is clearly visible, consisting of a danbuoy on which is fitted a flag, an all round yellow light and a radar reflector.

Radar reflector ? In order to be useful, a reflector would need to be at minimum 400mm in all dimensions, and be located at least 1 metre above water level. That size of reflector would have significant windage with a tendency to heel, which in turn would make it less visible.

The only way to prevent heeling would be to make the dhan buoy of
substantial proportions, which might be acceptable for end markers of permanently-laid strings of pots, but would be a non-starter for anyone wishing to lay down single pots, especially from a small boat.

 

[epervier]

Radar reflector ? In order to be useful, a reflector would need to be at minimum 400mm in all dimensions, and be located at least 1 metre above water level. That size of reflector would have significant windage with a tendency to heel, which in turn would make it less visible.

The only way to prevent heeling would be to make the dhan buoy of
substantial proportions, which might be acceptable for end markers of permanently-laid strings of pots, but would be a non-starter for anyone wishing to lay down single pots, especially from a small boat.

Hey, it's no good digging at me, I didn't make the rules, or for that matter agree to them, I just c&p'd them off of the HM website. a diagram of the agreed method of marking is on the webpage;-

http://www.southamptonvts.co.uk/nmariners.htm

no 21 of 2011, click on the number and a pdf file pops and the rules and diagram are within

 

[electrosys]

Hey, it's no good digging at me, I didn't make the rules, or for that matter agree to them, I just c&p'd them off of the HM website. a diagram of the agreed method of marking is on the webpage;-

http://www.southamptonvts.co.uk/nmariners.htm

no 21 of 2011, click on the number and a pdf file pops and the rules and diagram are within

Nothing personal ....

Maybe the fishermen that the agreement was reached with were able to fly large Dhan-Buoys ? But - from what others have said, regardless of the 'rules', no-one appears to be complying with 'em.

I guess what I'm really saying is: in order for a campaign to improve marker buoy visability (which I'm all in favour of) to be successful, it needs to be realistic. I note that within the list of 5 recommendations of the 'Spot the Pot Campaign' - which don't appear at all unreasonable - there isn't any reference to radar reflectors.