see:

http://www.rodbenders.net/index_files/PoliticsofFishing.htm

Choose from over 6,000 digital instant download products at www.MyClickBank.co.uk.

Guests - this sponsored link will vanish when you log-in. Click here to register for free.

Quite a good presentation by Bob to the committee, was there any comments back from the committee following?

I see Mr Carrier is getting upset by the hobby, rsa guys comments, however i can't blame them. The argument put forward by Carrier to the committee not to do anything appears to have been thought out by a four year old, not someone who has quite some responsibility. His origional reasons that are unfounded, unproven, pubtalk if anything look to be very weak to say the least. The question i also ask is how come the committee voted with him in any event, something ain't right. Anyone asked the committee for a link to the minutes taken yet.

SFC minutes are not usually made publicly available until they are accepted as a fair and accurate representation of the proceedings by the members present at the next meeting, usually about 3 months after the minutes were taken.

There is a page for publication of minutes on the ssfc website (see http://www.southernsfc.org.uk/committee/in...les/minutes.htm )

But they seem to have forgotten about updating (or how to!) since 2006.

I have already commented on how old the news is on the website, perhaps they need a new clerk or something.

The Chief Fisheries Officer/Clerk to the Committee is a salaried appointment, not an elected SFC official.

In my time on the Committee, I saw Mr Carrier as an effective and conservation-minded CFO; always prepared to listen to views other than the predominantly commercial (fin fish/shellfish/merchants) influences. He was always fair and far from anti-RSA.

I stepped down from the Committee some 2 months before the controversial ruling over a previously uninforced Bye-law dating back to 1990 or thereabouts. (I now wish I had not stepped down)
The Bye-law was rescinded in the mid-90s and then re-instated later.
At no time was it ever interpreted or discussed as a Bye-law which affected charter angling boats. It was primarily a protection measure to prevent 12+ metre beamers 'cleaning out' the 6 miles from baselines to the detriment of smaller commercial netsmen and static gear fishermen.

I spoke with the Deputy CFO shortly after the issue blew up last autumn. I was not persuaded by his arguments that the rule had always been applicable to ALL VESSELS.

Exactly what brought about the technicality to outlaw charter angling boats from 6 miles is a very sudden mystery.

I asked the Deputy CFO several times why he had waited variously from 1990 until September 2008 to check the length of all fishing vessels and advise them that they were not entitled to fish inside 6 miles from baselines as their length exceeded 12 metres. I did not receive an explanation, merely that the Byelaw had always been there! (Albeit not applied to angling vessels in the previous near 20 years of its existence)

My knowledge of the Committee at the time was such that I believed a speedy resolution could have been found and applied without the threat to anyones livelihoods.

I was in communication with Weymouth and Langstone skippers/businesses at this time and was extremely surprised that the issue could not be resolved.

One Langstone angling-only vessel had operated since 1969, under the same skipper, without the Byelaw ever being brought to his attention. He is now (legally) prevented from taking angling parties to fish inside 6 miles of SSFDC jurisdiction. His boat (being old - max 9kts) is unable to make much beyond 6 miles in a typical day charter.
The Deputy CFOs answer to this was 'Tell him to move to Devon or Sussex waters'!!!!!

I'm afraid my patience with this pettiness over an interpretation and possible clarifying amendment is exhausted. Good luck to those left in a seeming impasse'.

I'm not sure that's true, but would love to be shown evidence of it.

Sorry H A what i ment to say was to vote on his recommendations, arguments for doing nothing. As they are a load of unproven twaddle.

I slap me hand.

I would like to see what the committee does about Bob Shotters address in comparison to the cfo's.

This post has been edited by barry luxton: Apr 26 2008, 06:57 AM

Hi Barry

I been trying for conservation measures to save the failing local oyster fishery

It seems to me that if something sensilbe is put to the SSFC they do the opposite

The problem is it is just a job for the boys.

These sfc's need proper managers with fisheries related experiance of some sort

I believe that the sfc is being Carriered along by people that do not know what they are doing HA HA HA HA



Steve

Thanks for that Steve, don't know if the lyme bay dredging has been sorted yet, don't know if that is part of the argument. This Mr Carrier, i did read two of his previous quarterly reports and some of what he had stated was a load of again, unproven piffle that anyone with medioca knowledge can run rings around and sorry H A i don't agree with your comment that he is fair minded. Something has happend and it appears to be quite the opposite, so i agree with Steve on this one.

This post has been edited by barry luxton: Apr 26 2008, 04:00 PM

You're entitled to your view.

I worked with the guy for two and a half years and can only relate my own impressions.
I guess the new revisions proposed in the Marine Bill will sort it all out!!!!



I'm interested in what caught your eye in these reports?

He'd have been a very good persuader to get past a very well respected marine scientist, English Nature, fish merchants and fishermen (and me) if he put unproven piffle in those reports.

I've already stated that I was surprised that he (and others) were unable to provide a simple solution to a misunderstanding of a byelaw which had been dragged up by a mystery 3rd party for what I interpret as mischievous reasons to say the least.

As far as RSA considerations are concerned, there are far darker forces at work than the CFO on that committee.