Everything we do in this life it seems is governed by rules, and fishing is no different. And while some of these rules might seem like they are written in tablets of stone, nothing is forever, so expect quite radical changes to both big and small boat fishing over the next decade or so. Some of these will be legislative, some ought to be legislative, and some will be forced up on us through environmental change if the climatic scientists have got their sums and predictions right. Fish species and their favoured foods are already showing a tendency to shift their range northwards to the point where new southerly species will appear and become far more widespread, while other northerly cold water species may well be lost. A good example of this is the bass. Once a rare fish in Scottish waters, its range now takes in the entire British Isles. So far as the legislative aspect goes, resist as we might, we will just have to get on with it. Already there is talk within the EU of introducing the rest of Europe's MOT testing of trailers. Driving licenses for boats in the form of the RYA Power Boat Level training, while not totally compulsory yet, is being widely asked for by slip operators to the point where if you can't flash the relevant paper work, you wont be able to launch. Insurance goes hand in glove with the above at a lot of dinghy angling clubs and public slips. Whether The RNLI's Sea Check or something resembling it will be the next thing slip owners will be asking for to cover their own backs remains to be seen. One thing is for sure, daring to mention all of these things here won't hasten their arrival, as all have been or currently are being discussed.

A sea angling fishing license along the lines of the current freshwater fishing license has also been talked about in the corridors of Westminster. So long as the full cost is put to proper use in fishery legislation enforcement, protecting fish stocks in other ways such as from pollution, and looking after the rights of anglers, particularly in resisting the vociferous anti lobby, then it could be money well spent. But try as they may, I don't for one minute think that the angling anti's will get the same sort of backing to stop fishing as they did with fox hunting. Angling employs a lot of people and contributes much to the economy. But you would have thought that the well heeled supporters of the hunt would have had lots of clout too, so we need to stay focused, particularly with regard to the conservation and protection angle which the fox hunters clearly didn't have. And in that regard, we should perhaps take a look at how carefully managed angling linked to fiercely enforced commercial fishing rules have already helped what had been fish populations in severe decline elsewhere in the world. Angling bag limits are strictly enforced in both Canada and the USA, and look at the quality of their inshore small boat fishing. But not simply numerical limits such as say 2 bass or 10 cod per day. They also have restrictions regarding size, and not just minimum size limits. Prime breeding fish over a certain size also have to go back. Ireland already has a 2 fish in any 24 hours bag limit on bass, plus a closed spawning period from 15th May to 15th June, and upped its minimum limit for bass to 40 cms – something the UK government has now back pedaled on doing. But 40 cms isn't nearly enough, and studies have shown that some bass of 45 cms, which is the preferred minimum size, would still not have spawned at least once in their lifetime.

Sometimes we put too much focus on fish like bass, and tend to forget that everything else also needs a helping hand too. In particular sharks and rays with their painfully slow reproductive rates. A group called SOS (Save Our Sharks) is currently fighting to have all (or as many as possible) shark and ray species officially given recreational status. That would mean a total ban on all angling and commercial landings, though anglers could still legitimately target them on a catch and release basis. In my experience, thats what most small boat anglers, plus a growing number of charter anglers do already anyway. We need to be sure our own consciences are absolutely clear before pointing the finger elsewhere, and small boat anglers already have and must continue to blaze this particular trail. The same applies to the regular edible species too. In a small boat, self restriction can be harder to apply as there are less people on board to share any abundance of fish under the hull with, so take home numbers per angler can soon grow outside of reasonable proportion. On top of this, with no Charter skipper on board either to lay down the rules or prick your conscience, it is easier to justify excesses to yourself. Be sensible about the size of fish you take too. Though neither is acceptable, an angler would have more chance of justifying to me at least the taking of a 40 cm bass that has yet to spawn than a 10 pounder that is already in peak spawning condition.

The taking of fish leads nicely in to another growing bone of contention, national records. Back in the 1970's, in the company of Bob Gledhill, I worked hard to get what was at that time was a single record list split into boat and shore categories. One regret I have is that the campaign did not continue until dinghy angling also became a category in its own right. An angler who goes out and catches a big fish from a small private boat puts in more effort than someone catching the same fish from a charter boat where the skipper deserves an equal share of the credit. People are probably already reaching for pen and paper to write in asking what about anglers who own bigger private moored boats. The answer is, I don't know. But a radical overhaul of the way we record fish is long overdue, particularly if upper size limits and recreational species come on to the statute books preventing weight record claims. Already a lot of anglers show complete disregard for record keeping in its current format. Only last year I released a Scottish record Ballan Wrasse on a day when 3 IGFA world fly caught tippet record pollack were also released from Ian Burrett's Drummore based charter dinghy 'Onyermarks'. For years Ian has not allowed clients to kill any inshore pollack, and has returned a good number of potential British and Scottish records over a range of species from john dory through to tope. And still he gets the bookings, which tells its own story. So it shouldn't come as any surprise to hear that Ian is one of the big players in the SOS movement looking to gain recreational species status for tope and skate.

The November 2004 issue of BFM carried the story of Alan Deeming who caught, photographed, tagged then released a thresher shark conservatively estimated at around 320 pounds. The record stands at 323 pounds taken from a dinghy by Steve Mills. A marginal situation perhaps which could have gone either way had the fish been killed, but an increasingly common dilemma. Gone are the days when boats brought ashore blue sharks for weighing and discarded tope were left piled high on the quay after competitions. Most anglers and boat skippers now see no justification for the killing of any of these fish. Other species too are reaping the benefits of careful catch and release tactics. So why is the British Record Fish Committee (BRFC) not reflecting these changes in angler attitudes?. Why stick with a system that almost inevitably hands out a death sentence to the fish in question. BRFC rules do not state that fish have to be killed to claim a record, though for species where accurate identification might be an issue they may still ask to see the body. But what they do say is that no fish can be considered for record status if it is not weighed accurately on firm ground due the inability to get an accurate reading on a moving platform such as a boat, which is not an un-reasonable stance to take. This however raises one important question. How does the BRFC propose that someone bring a common skate, shark or tope caught many miles from base to the scales in a manner in which it can weighed accurately then later be released. And what then if it just misses the record weight and has died for nothing. Are we so short sighted that we can see no alternative to the need to weigh fish?.

I think I can state with a high degree certainty that the current British record for common skate of 227 pounds from the Isle of Mull is never going to be toppled. It may well be beaten. Indeed it has been beaten by a monster of 239 pounds aboard 'Onyermarks' in Loch Sunart which was returned un-harmed. Work done by Scottish angler Davy Holt and Bill Little through Glasgow Museum has lead to the production of a skate weight estimation chart based on overall length and wingspan said to be accurate to within 5%. So accurate in fact that it has been accepted by the Scottish Federation of Sea Anglers for use with their specimen fish awards. All skate anglers in Scotland now use the chart (available on www.catchalot.co.uk /tagging/tskate.htm). So it's the same for everyone. As things stand, the record will never tumble using it. But the impression I get is 'Who even gives a damn'. I'm not suggesting that any record should be awarded on the basis of estimated weight or as importantly that people simply turn their backs on record keeping. It's nice to have standard by which to judge what you catch. What I would like to see is an alternative approach to record keeping for those who are unwilling to kill large and/or inedible fish for a few moments of glory. This could be run alongside the current record weight system allowing those who already have weight records to keep them, and of course those who still see favour with the existing system to continue claiming, while at the same time accommodating the ever growing numbers of disillusioned conservationists. Perhaps the BRFC should run a complimentary list limited to 'sporting species' only as a starter. Fish such as sharks, tope, skate, smoothhounds and bass which anglers are inclined to return as a matter of routine.

Clearly there has to be an acceptable alternative way of describing a big fish other than simply by either body weight or estimation. To some extent I can see the argument behind wanting to keep weight as the deciding measure. In the days when nobody batted an eye lid if you killed a fish, particularly to claim a record, weight was a good barometer and we have all become accustomed to using it. I can also see the argument for wanting to keep it for say line class records where the ratio of fish body weight to line breaking strain is seen as the sporting challenge. But why necessarily for other categories of record such as in the BRFC list where the tackle used other than in its compliance with the basic rules of angling, plays no other part in making the claim. Body weight could be substituted by a score based on maximum girth multiplied by body length in the case of round fish, and length multiplied by width in the case of flatfish and rays. A cod of 47.3 pounds I measured had a length of 137 cms and a girth of 78 cms giving length x girth score of 10725. A second fish with the same girth but 1 cm less in length weighed 0.3 pounds less at exactly 47 pounds, and had a score of 10608 (117 points less). So you can see that the system works. The heavier a fish was, the greater its girth or length would be giving it a higher score which would relate to its actual body weight anyway. All the usual safeguards of having witnesses and identification photographs would still apply. Photographs of the fish with the tape measure in place could also be made mandatory. Even if on board weighings were permitted, dinghy anglers would still be disadvantaged as you can't hope to weight fish in the big league in the confines of a small boat.