Its copied from the WSF Scottish sea forum -



Ian Burrett's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Wigtownshire
Favourite Rod: Onyermarks Pollack rod
Best Catch: My wife.
Favourite Fishing: 2
Posts: 928

article 47 update - This concerns everybody
EU Article 47 could destroy sea angling.

If you are haven't heard about it or are unsure of what the issues are, look at the bottom of the page.


Next week MEPs are meeting to discuss the proposals which would require recreational anglers throughout the EU to :

Have to pay for a license
Be Subject to quota/bag limits - once you have caught that, pack up and go home
Have to fill in catch returns in log books

Along with these, catch and release will be banned and you will lose the right to roam.


This will apply equally to all forms of angling - shore, boat, charter or competition.

We need to let them know anglers are strongly opposed to the proposals ASAP, please don’t leave this to others. If you want to carry on fishing you need to respond. A one liner is just as important as a ten page email.

Struan Stephenson - Scottish MEP has spoken out against the proposals, see http://www.ssacn.org/2009/01/15/cons...rom-article-47
but he needs the support of the other MSPs if he is to be successful.

How can you help - please email the MEP’s, all you need to say is, you are opposed to article 47 of the EU common fisheries policy control regulationss which links recreational fisheries to commercial catches.

All you need to do is copy and paste the following into your email address line - david@martinmep.com; ian.hudghton@europarl.europa.eu; elspeth.attwooll@europarl.europa.eu; john.purvis@europarl.europa.eu; alyn.smith@europarl.europa.eu; struan.stevenson@europarl.europa.eu; cstihlermep@btconnect.com

If you want to add more then look at the ssacn response, http://tinyurl.com/78llql, a copy of the draft regulation can be found at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Fi...ewofcontrolreg - the following is a quick summary ::

Monitoring of Recreational Fisheries Article 47

Recreational fisheries on a vessel in Community waters on a stock subject to a multiannual plan shall be subject to an authorisation for that vessel issued by the flag Member State.

Catches in recreational fisheries on stocks subject to a multiannual plan shall be registered by the flag Member State.

Catches of species subject to a multiannual plan by recreational fisheries shall be counted against the relevant quotas of the flag Member State. The Member States concerned shall establish a share from such quotas to be used exclusively for the purpose of recreational fisheries.

The marketing of catches from a recreational fishery shall be prohibited except for philanthropic purposes.

The Committee meeting takes place shortly, please send your emails this week, every ones fishing is at risk.
__________________
cheers
Ian Burrett

www.onyermarks.co.uk

Member of SOS
www.save-our-sharks.org


I have sent my e-mail off

COARSE FISHING OFFERS
CARP FISHING OFFERS
FLY FISHING OFFERS
SEA FISHING OFFERS

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

Ian its absolutly disgusting i might be doing something with countryfile very shortly concering article 47 it needs stopping now.

paul.

Big Cod on Country file with Big John Craven.

Top Viewing

Whoops Sorry, I know this is serious really.

What does In mean "We will loose our right to roam ??"

This is courtesty Mike Concannon (Dartmouth) ....



Further thoughts from Keith Arthur of "Tight Lines" from the Sky Sports Blog.

http://www.skysports.com/blogs/blog_story/...4798711,00.html

Information at

http://www.sacn.org.uk/Conservation-and-Po...Article_47.html

On the BBC Politics Show today (about half-way through if you want to fast forward)

see:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/p...m=1&bbram=1

Bugger. I even watched some of the politics show today and missed it, as the kids walked in and quite rightly pointed out that my choice of TV was boring.

They didn't even give a schoolboy chuckle when the bloke on Countryfile said he was looking for a female beaver.

You wouldn't have seen it anyway Elton (well assuming that you haven't relocated down to the South-West).

It was only broadcast in the South-West region, in the part of the show that looks at regional issues.

(The link above is to the SW broadcast edition).

Is there any other kind?

That's why I didn't see it on Southern then. I thought I'd gone blind.

Too much beaver Norm! LOL

(Didn't the lads do well )

North East discussion on Article 47, here:

http://www.nesa.co.uk/forums/shore-fishing...ticle-47-a.html

There was a bit about it on the local ITV East news tonight, with interviews from people in Lowestoft.

See:

http://www.saveangling.com/

Theres quite a bit here too :

http://www.whitbyseaanglers.co.uk/forum/no...tack-again/180/

With one quite astounding request from a local MEP Giles Cichester



Of Course Giles, please just give us a few seconds to lay down so you can walk all over us.

Looks like he needs voting out at the next election, Glenn.

Looking at some of the replies people have had back from various MEP's, it seems that they have ignored the fact that sea anglers fish from boats, too. The impression I get, is that they think it's all going to be alright because the wording of the articel suggests the restrictions won't apply to beach anglers.

We are all in this together, beach and boat anglers alike. Remember, there are hundreds of charter skippers whose businesses depend on this EU rubbish being chucked out.

****s to the EU! Just say, NON.

Ive forwarded the response to the local UKIP MEP. UKIP are loving this one. They even put an advert in the local paper about it.

This is from ukip's policy statement and is the section of their understanding what is wrong and the fix. Is there an election in the offing by any chance. The bit about landing all and conviscating all the undersized, made me smile, i can just imagine in the dead of night, somewhere out on the high seas the seagulls waking up for a feed. Sounds good but somehow i don't think those in power in brussels will want to relinquish power that easily.

1. The Problem – UK Fishing Today
1.1 Since joining the then Common Market 30 years ago, the British fishing fleet
has been reduced to less than half its former size and is still in decline. British fishing
grounds have been overfished in some areas and for some species almost to the
point of collapse.2
1.2 Membership of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is an unmitigated disaster
ecologically, socially and industrially (Owen Patterson, Conservative MP) The
CFP is unsustainable, untenable, stifling, destructive and indefensible.
1.3 Fishing at sea is a total EU ‘competence’. Under the terms of the Accession
Treaty, the UK handed over control of fisheries in our waters to the then EEC to be
shared by other (and future) member states ‘equally and without discrimination’.1
1.4 Brussels now has control of how and when we fish and how much fish we can
catch. The UK provides the EU with 70% of its fishing but we are allowed only
13% by value of the quota species catch.3 This 13% equates to about 20% of the
total catch in British waters and is still worth £500 million a year, which means that
we are giving away to EU interests about £2 billion a year in fish, plus the value
added costs of boat-building and repair, fish processing, employment and ancillary
services, in total about £2.5 billion.4
1.5 Our fishermen, over the years, have had to cope with a quota system arbitrarily
imposed by Brussels in the name of conservation. By EU Diktat, all fish caught
above quota or undersized have to be dumped back into the sea, dead. The EU’s
own estimate is that 40% of all fish caught is dumped as ‘discards’, which could be
as much as two million tons of perfectly edible fish being thrown over the side
every year.
1.6 This discard policy contravenes the UN Convention on Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS) with regard to dumping.5
1.7 Every year, after rounds of political ‘horse-trading’ between the 27 member
states of the EU, most quotas are reduced and we have now reached the stage when
some fishermen, particularly those who operate ‘under 10-metre’boats, just cannot
make a living
1.8 On top of all this, the EU has allowed mainly Danish interests to take a million
tons of sand eels and pout from the North Sea using ‘industrial’ fishing methods.
This particular fishery has been overfished to the point where the Danes have been
unable to fill their quota for many years and last year took only about 300,000 tons.
Sand eels are the basic food source for cod and certain seabirds, which explains the
dramatic decline in the North Sea cod fishery and the virtual abandonment of many
Scottish seabird colonies.


Fishing Policy 3
2. UKIP’s Vision – Executive Summary
The UK Independence Party advocates a policy of :
 Restoring British waters and fishing to national control by leaving the
European Union Common Fisheries Policy
 Abandoning all quotas and strictly forbidding ‘discards’
 In co-operation with scientists and working fishermen, introducing technical
measures and net design to be more selective, allowing immature fish and nontargeted
species to escape
 Requiring all commercial species fish caught, regardless of size or species, to
be landed and recorded in order to compile meaningful figures to establish a
Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) and to plan accordingly
 Establishing Minimum Landing Sizes (MLS) for all commercial species and
ensuring that only fish above the MLS are offered for sale. All undersized fish
to be confiscated and processed into either fish meal or fertiliser, proceeds from
the sale of which will go towards administrative costs
 Establishing a system of moveable ‘No Take Zones’ seasonally to allow fish
to spawn, or in areas considered to be overfished to allow recovery
 Banning all forms of ‘industrial’ fishing and pair trawling for bass. Restricting
beam trawling to areas considered suitable by working fishermen and scientists
 Licensing foreign fishing boats with a proven record of fishing in the UK’s
Exclusive Economic Zone to continue for a transition period of, say, five years,
provided they observe British rules. Licences would not be offered to foreign
boats in receipt of EU subsidy and foreign boats would not be licensed to fish
in UK territorial waters (12-mile limit). After the transition period, licences
would only be issued to foreign boats if fish stocks exceeded of British boats’
catch capability in accordance with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
 Building artificial reefs
 Encouraging profitable mariculture (fish farms), particularly encouraging
shellfish farm ventures in suitable inshore waters
 Establishing a Fisheries College and a Crew Training school and conducting
properly structured training programmes
 Taking advice from Norway and Iceland to establish a Fishing Ministry to
overseeing a Fishing Management Agency and co-ordinating the activities of
the existing Sea Fisheries Committees (SFCs), who would become the ‘front
line’ of sustainable management of our fish stocks
 Strengthening the fishery protection service and providing adequate Naval
ships to effect distant water patrols (minesweepers in a dual role).
Fishing Policy

This UKIP response is spot on and very well thought out and the way things should go, but regrettably a £500000000 industry is only the size of the British Mushroom, potato industry or a car plant, so in the scale of things we are not going to leave the EU on those grounds. However Norway and Iceland had natural resources with a much greater national economic impact per head of population to worry about when they decided to stay independant.

personally I would come out of this daft EU tomorrow but it is a much bigger picture that needs to be looked at.

Cleeclive

I dont really care what their Policy is Barry. I havent got that much time for politiceans. I am just Joe Average who likes to go about his own business never giving a thought to beaurocrats in Brussels - Im sure theres many more like me out there. I dont think I ever voted in an Eu election before.

Recently the EU decided it would involve itself in my life and the lives of many thousands (Maybe millions) of people like me. The EU Article 47 threatens to take away our ancient rights. Up until this time I never took any notice of the Eu or who was standing for election in my area - I just wasnt interested. All of a sudden I feel the need to vote UKIP. It might make no difference whatsoever. But I wonder how many more people have been awoken in the same way by these meddling bureaucrats from Brussels ? I hope it costs them.

iceland will be part of the EU within 18 months.you could say they have had a "change of mind".

Some Parliamentary Questions:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2009-02-04a.253400.h


http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2009-02-04a.253428.h

I like the idea of the 'Does this answer the question above' button at the side

After reading some of this thread I thought I would fire off a few [6 in total] emails to my local East of England MEPs.
So far I've had 2 replies, 1 by return email and 1 by snail mail. I sent my emails on the 4th Feb.
Both I am happy to say are against the proposals and have assured me they will be voting against Article 47.

It will be interesting to see if any others reply to me

It will be even more interesting to hear what they all have to say if Article 47 goes ahead unchanged. Some even think this to be distinct possibility.

Article 47 may have unleashed a monster that has learned to stick up for itself. It may be a good idea to think the unthinkable and begin to work towards getting the very best out of the opportunity.

There again somebody may have already suggested that here already.

Ryford

Breath of fresh air or is an election looming.

http://www.fishupdate.com/news/fullstory.p...L_ANGLERS_.html

10 Feb 09 - From a speech today by Jo Borg Member of the European Commission - Responsible for Fisheries and Maritime Affairs





http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction...;guiLanguage=en

Leon,

I'm not shooting the messenger here, but that quote is about as confusing as you can get. It clarifies nothing. If they'd specified the term "certain forms", then it may have been a bit clearer.

Also, "There are however facts and figures in abundance that show that certain forms of so called recreational fishing have a dangerously considerable impact on certain vulnerable fish stock" - these must be the facts and figures that nobody can quite lay their hands on, when needed

Agreed Elton.

If I was a Whitby charter boat skipper, I wouldn't be sighing with relief just yet

Leon

So I guess the game may still be over for the one or two of us just trying to make an 'honest' living?

What is the picture HA ? is the man legal or illegal ?

Neither, the man's French.

Interesting article, which is a guide to EU thinking:

http://www.afloat.ie/news/no-quota-on-recreational-anglers/

EU seems to be focusing on fisheries where the RSA take stacks up signifcantly against TAC limits. Borg mentions "the Cod fishery in the Baltic where recreational fisherman take the equivalent of 50 % of the German national Cod quota."

With RSA 2008 Cod take in my ICES area a multiple of the areas TAC i 'm guessing cod RSAs arent home and dry just yet despite what Borg said 4 days later

The Control Regulation (which article 47 is but a small part) is coming in for criticism from the commercials.

See: http://www.fishnewseu.com/latest-news/uk/9...a-travesty.html

(Some of this could also apply to 'recreational fishing vessels', ie satellite monitoring and maintaining 6 knots when passing through a Marine Protected Area)

From Today's BBC Breakfast Show

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7949893.stm

see

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7950506.stm

Eh? I wonder if we could press for an English translation of that sentence? Or maybe they stick wheels on their boats abroad and use them as some kind of beach-bivvy

That's what I thought when I read it Elton.

As usual the ones making the decisions really haven't an f'ing clue what they are talking about. They have been clever by dividing the shore anglers and the boat anglers. I just hope enough of us realise that its the boat angler today, the kayak anglers next week, the shore anglers in a months time and the Warberton boys around next Christmas.

Any news on a statement from the angling trust ?

There was a guy from the AT out on a charter boat from Falmouth on the BBC South West news at 6:30 this evening. It looked like the AT arranged the trip to get the subject on the telly.

I didn't see all of the report (mowing the b****y lawn) and by the time I got back in the house the AT guy was telling the reporter that the plan was nonesense and would damage the sport fishing industry. The reporter quoted £3 million is spent in the West Country over one bank holiday by visiting anglers.

They then went via a video link to a EU fisheries spokeswoman who said that article 47 was necessary to quantify how much bluefin tuna, eels and cod was being taken by recreational fishermen in order to protect the resource from overfishing. Once they knew how much was being taken from the stock, the scientists could advise the managers how much could safely be taken from the fisheries.

She left out the bit where the managers would routinely ignore what the scientists advised.

At last someone who has said what needed to be said regarding this stupid inclusion. Just hoping that the new trust can follow in this guys footsteps and come out with something simular. At present they are still trying to get licences and restrictions on the boat anglers, within 47. What about it AT can we rely on you?

http://www.fishupdate.com/news/fullstory.p...YS_SNP_MEP.html

see:

http://www.arbroathherald.co.uk/news/TOWN-...SALS.5091101.jp

Right, I can no longer bite my lip.

More cut'n'pastes, no 'professional' opinion to balance some of the wayward content!



Leon, perhaps you can explain why it is that you spend your time feeding us the likes of Arbroath's take on the Article 47 proposals, yet you do not inform the anglers of Kent and Essex about the response your very own SFC (upon which you sit as an RSA rep) issued to DEFRA?

I have seen the response with my own eyes, it is a disgrace. Sick.


In it, a recommendation for bag limits instead of angler quotas has been made, and yet to the best of knowledge you have not issued a warning to the anglers in the KESFC's jurisdiction, many of whom frequent the same forums as you. Why?

An appeal for letters, emails and telephone calls should be made, bombarding Joss Wiggins for a full retraction of the nonsense fed back to DEFRA.


Some argue that it is not only wholly undemocratic and biased, but borders on the corrupt.

i'm not sure I've followed this 'Fred', but I have fished out of Poole and Littlehampton for bream.

The Skip makes it clear before you leave that there is a four bream keep rule.
You take it or leave it.

Are the blokes from Whitby (for example), so poor that they must take 100lbs of fillets home to sustain their families ... why do I think they measure greed v necessity on the wrong side of 5/10?

I'm inclined toward bag limits for non-sellers.

I'm not, as that comes in it needs policing, as yet, there ain't no need, in particular, if you take bream for example, commercially you can fill an artic up and send it abroad to get paid, thats were the majority of it goes, yet if a rsa take what you consider lots home, how can that have an effect on the stock in comparison. Best of all who is going to pay to run this bag limit restriction. You can, i ain't. This weekend we were overflown by a fisheries plane, i thought he was trying to land on the deck, what blo@@Y good was that, we are already paying for them to get thier jollies. What sort of extra policing will they get up to when the to@@ers (ex men in suits) get thier way and start 'controlling' the rsa. Tell us what boats they are HA. i'll make it a point to leave it then, do the skippers tell you about the restriction as you book the boat. I managed to get a couple of trips breaming last year, proberbly took home a dozen and gave eight of them away to me mates as you can't buy that in the shops, it's exported remember, any thing wrong with that.

This post has been edited by barry luxton: Mar 24 2009, 07:20 AM

Another letter from Jo Borg

http://www.worldseafishing.com/news/joebor...le47letter.html

This post has been edited by Leon Roskilly: Mar 24 2009, 02:37 PM

What about the letter from the K&E SFC and bag limits for anglers?

So that’s as clear as mud then Leon?

The establishment of the precise catch threshold from which controls will have to apply, whether it be 5, 10 or 15 kilos or some other yard stick will depend on the kind of fish caught. I announced’ in my speech at the European Parliament last week that this threshold will be determined on a case by case basis after we have received advice from the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee on Fishers (STECF), which should provide us with advice on a proportionate figure that makes common sense.

Hi HA

Did the South coast charters always have a boat limit for Black Bream in force.

No they didn't. It wasn't until relatively recently that this kind of approach has been taken.

Why is it then that the stuffed shirts insist on meddling with a constantly evolving discipline. ££££.....that is why.

There's no profit in allowing anglers to continue evolving as we wish, and at our own pace.


PS. Make no mistake it is the Cod that they have their eyes set upon (UK RSA's), which in itself is rather strange. North Sea commercial quotas were raised by 30% this year........ and without an exact figure for the projected RSA take.








Hi Steve

Don't hold your breath. Another cut'n'paste that serves to throw boat anglers to the wolves, tells me just about all that I need to know.







Hi Challenge

Millions will be squandered, proportionate is not a term they understand...93% of quota being held by the over 10's, common sense does not exist in their world.

You fellahs are so 'touchy', I'm not sure if that is a criticism aimed at me?

I don't set any bag limits, but I never keep more than I need (and I don't sell).

Personally, I was put off southern England wrecking, when I had to take 140lbs of pollack fillets out of Lymington .... when I'd much rather have fished with that skipper for a mixture of 2 or 3 of each species we could lock horns with.
(I gave the whole lot to an old folks home in Eastleigh. 2 dustbin bags full)

I've never been wrecking since.

I don't intend to influence others' opinions, but I'm upset by pictures of so-called 'Charter Boats' who specialise in mass catches over a long trip ... Whitby springs to mind; as does Weymouth (Channel trips etc).

I like to eat fish; but do you really need to put 50 kilos each in a freezer .... many of which are still there??

Bag limits are coming ... GOOD!

Otherwise localised 'impact' and commercial brothers' concerns WILL bring in quotas/regulation and closed fisheries.

You didn't have to take those fillets, you could have stopped fishing if you was so inclined or ask the skipper to go back in to catch some mackerel. Once or twice a year if you are lucky that all things like tide, wind and the correct date is set, so don't tell me that this is offensive, it aint to me. And i give a lot of it away to my mates, like i have said, you can't buy it in the shops, so whats wrong with that. Mine is fresher than a scabby mongers slab.

So you are quite happy to put your hand in your pocket to pay for all these new regs are you. in particular where the complaining commercial get additional cod quota last year, you are happy to see the rsa set bag limits.
I have done alderney trips, bloody marvellous they are, good for business over there and the charter boats business as well and you want to see that being affected, by introducing limits. Last two trips, the first one i caught four turbot, two released, the last one, none at all. Like i said, wind, tide and the correct date. Can't wait for the next one and the next, without interference. Sod off eu and get your own house in order before trying to f@ck up our hobby, it ain't broke.

This post has been edited by barry luxton: Mar 24 2009, 09:49 PM

You had to take the fish HA ?? Who made you and what means did they use to ensure you never returned the fish ? Did your conscience not tell you that the best thing to do with Pollock is to return them other than a few for your own use ?

I agree with both of the comments above mine. In my view the anglers who go on these extended trips are specimen hunters trying to beat the own personal best fish and not freezer fillers. These trips offer adventure and camaraderie to anglers who often build lasting frienships and I would love to go on one myself.

Alan

You cheeky sod.

Have you tried putting pollack back in 200' of water.

My actions that day, never to be voluntarily repeated, were purely the whim of the Skipper who said that the anglers, on the day, wanted drift after drift over pollack wrecks.

I vote with my feet.

As most of you know, I worked for a few years with the late John Brennan on the chieftain, we did long range trips, people paying a lot of money to spend days at sea enjoying the experience of spending time at sea meeting new people sharing there experiences and (yes) hopefully catching plenty of fresh prime fish.
I totally agree with Allan about it being an experience for customers.
There certainly was the anglers who wanted to fill up there freezers while they where there, but the majority of them where there for the fishing rather than just the fish.
I filleted tons and tons of fish in the time I was there for our customers but I can say most certainly that there wouldn’t have been a customer who would have made a profit from his fishing experiences with us.
You got the good trips that produced bumper catches the same as all angling boats do but when you average things out it still would have been a very expensive way of purchasing fish.
John always use to say to me “that if you got good weather for the trip you had already broken the back on the way to making it an enjoyable trip” catch a bit of fish to go towards that experience and you where on to a winner, have a bumper trip and they (the anglers) would be re-booking before they left the boat.
We also had plenty of anglers who where quit happy to return the majority of there fish, but they had the choice and I never did see an angler complain about a paying customer taking to much fish.
One of the attractions of RSA must be that (at present) we have that choice; unfortunately I think that choice is going to be taken away from us.
If you think that that’s a good thing H.A then I suppose that is your choice.
Regards.

Chill down a bit mate. I only really fish for them from my Yak and the odd uptiding and shadding trip. I give away most of the cod I catch.. Will that be the next thing to be regulated ?

Everyone to their own mate but to be honest I believe most boat anglers go not for the 'mass catches' but hopefully to catch a fish of a better stamp than one caught from the shore and if you are on a boat, with an experienced skipper like those in Whitby then you won't draw a 'blank' as often happens when fishing from the shore.

Also fishing from a boat out of the likes of Whitby then you always stand the chance of catching a 'record' or close to one.
Every area has it's own good class of fish, Whitby has Cod, so that's why guys will go for an extended trip, not to catch a boat load. If you were to ask many boat anglers I think most would give up their entire catch for just one fish that was either a record or near it. A few ports round the coast have that ability, that's why some are more popular than others.

I used to boat fish a lot but due to my health and also, (the main reason), is that I was ALWAYS sea-sick, not that it bothered me but seemed to bother everyone else....One starts, they all start etc!!! lol
I never went to 'bag up' but to enjoy a day out with the lads, have a laugh and hopefully a few fish.
If you just want fish then a trip to the 'fishmongers' would probably work out a lot cheaper and less time consuming.
:-)

Everything will be regulated.

That's what Governments and Civvy Servants are for.

Without it, the UK would have 15 millions unemployed.

One of my mate's favourite expression is -
"That's life .... can't change it."

I actually think you can influence/moderate regulationism.

That's what gets me about the apathetic anglers in this country -

"We don't want no regulation ... just another brick in the wall."

Today is a big day for article 47.

They are voting on proposed amendments (maybe even removal of article 47!) this afternoon in Brussels.

Talking about Article 47, what about the suggestion for sea angler bag limits, to Defra, from the very Sea Fisheries Committee THAT YOU SIT ON? This is YOUR patch and YOUR Sea Fisheries Comittee and it will affect the anglers that YOU claim to represent.

Any comments on that?

email recieved from UKIP:

That can hardly be described as a victory.

All it does, by including the word 'may' instead of 'shall', is give those that rely on managing, monitoring, studying, researching, regulating and enforcing, permission to do just that. If Article 47 goes through in that form, it is an opportunity that won't be turned down.

Now, what about those suggested bag limits for the Kent and Essex anglers you are supposed to be representing, Leon?

All that may word has done is give them an inroad into controlling the rsa. as i have said, it isn't broke, it has not caused any detriment to any fish stock, yet they don't give a stuff about the rsa, as long as they can have part of it.

Haven't heard anything from the A T yet as to what thier ideas are regarding 47, have they missed the boat?

see:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/.../default_en.htm

Nothing about bag limits for Kent and Essex sea anglers, then?

For Christ's sake, Steve ....

the thread's called ARTICLE 47; not "Steve's ruck with Leon".

Grow up!

Yes, Ada, and if you knew just a fraction of what you pretend to know, you would know that the suggested bag limits for Kent and essex sea anglers is in direct response to Article 47.

What I want to know is, as Leon sits on the Kent and Essex SFC, why he hasn't highlighted it in the same way as he highlights everything else? Where are the links and cut n pastes to the letter that was sent to Defra? Where are the calls for local anglers to write to and phone the Chief Fisheries Officer to protest against the bag limits?

All it takes is a simple post to answer these questions, but it seems that local sea anglers aren't important enough for 'Lord Mullet' to waste his precious time on. Perhaps if we were politicians we might fare better?

This post has been edited by Steve Coppolo: Apr 1 2009, 02:53 PM

.. How come you are so utterly obsessed with the idea of bag limits? It's a system that has works very well in some places I've seen.

I'm not 'so utterly obsessed' with bag limits, I'm just opposed to them. They are totally unnecessary and wouldn't make a bit of difference to the UK's fish stocks. I defy you, or anyone else, to prove otherwise.

Maybe the places you've visited, where bag limits appear to work well, have other, more effective, measures in place that give the impression that it's the bag limits making all the difference? Here in the UK, our fisheries managers have demonstrated quite clearly that they aren't serious about improving the health of fish stocks, so why we should let them imose bag limits as a token gesture, is beyond my comprehension.

And anyway, the fishing in our part of the UK, (I notice you are from Kent), is pretty good right now, so why should we be restricted in any way? If it's not broken, why try to fix it?

Well, I can't say I know enough about fish stocks in these parts to say whether bag limits are good or bad - I'm relatively new to these parts. Just thought you may be obsessed due t asking the same question of Leon thrice.

Back in south Africa, we have a fish called a galjoen - its actually the national fish, believe it or not, and it came under extreme pressure and stocks fell dramatically. Nowadays it is illegal to sell a galjoen, and it is illegal to serve galjoen in a restaurant - or anywhere else in exchange for money. As an angler the limit is one, and the thus the only way you can eat galjoen over there now is if you have caught it yourself, or are invited to a barbecue where someone has caught and brought one.

It seems that this has had a great positive benefit for the fish, and taking one instead of 6 is not that much of a drag for the angler who otherwise would have taken what he caught.

Of course the very wise stamping out of trade in these fish where it really matters - till takings - has thwarted commercial fisherman completely, and this has had the biggest effect.

This is just one example, but a good example of where a easy to swallow limit has been very successful.

I thought that might be the case. That species was obviously very much under pressure, to the extent that they banned all sales of that fish. I suspect that this had a far greater effect on the recovery of the stock than the bag limit for anglers. That scenario will never happen over here. Fisheries managers play with commercial quotas, but they usually get things very wrong. The stock considered most under threat is the Cod and even though stocks are considered to be dangerously low, as mentioned earlier, there are plenty in our part of the world right now. And that's without the use of any bag limits for anglers!

I suspect that when South African anglers have caught their one Galjoen, they can target different species? With our Cod, in most areas, that's all there is to fish for in the winter. The same would apply to most of the fish targetted by UK anglers. They are seasonal fish, so we fish for them when they are available. Charter boat skippers would go bust if the anglers they take out were restricted to one or two fish each per day. So, bag limits applied here would not be easy to swallow and would be ineffective anyway.

Natural mortality and predation accounts for far more fish than anglers. Many thousands of percent, I would say. Restricting anglers' take in order to improve fish stocks would be like sticking your leg out to trip up a locomotive.

Silly man ...
both of you.

you know the respect I had for you, Steve.

Now I have none.

What you are doing on BFM as a 'political observer and commentator' astonishes me.

A bitter little man who used to be so brave and informed and constructive, is now reduced to a feeble-minded 'ranter' on all these forums, which promise good dialogue and sharing of ideas and reports.

I'm afraid I speak for SOME anglers who frequent these media AND follow what we can ...

and see you infatuated with the dissolution of one man who has worked his arse off (for better or worse) while you stand there with your cork pop-gun, cocked and ready at every turn.

Leon has limited powers ...

he speaks what he speaks.

You speak booger all; except about him at a personal level.

I'm afraid you have caught yourself in your own leetle rat-trap.

Issues?

Nah.

I thought you'd gone?

Oh, and people meddling with my fishing, of which they know nothing about, gets on my nerves.

Why is it that people who just go with the flow are 'brave, informed and constructive'? Yet anyone who asks perfectly legitimate qustions, albeit ones that show the 'reps' up for what they really are, are considered to be 'febble minded ranters'?

This post has been edited by Steve Coppolo: Apr 1 2009, 10:20 PM

Were you yourself not a rep once upon a time, on a similar side to Leon?



Yes, the limit applies only to fish you take home, not to what you catch and anglers fish with a view to maximizing their chances of catching rather than species targeting. This is when fishing by day, when there are a large number of assorted species about. Species targeting at night is usual though, because different water conditions favor certain larger predatory fish and fishing for anything else would be absurd.

The galjoen is a day feeder, and it is found in rough water rock gullies, along with a myriad of other species which means specifically targeting them is virtually impossible anyway. Come to think of it, they are definitely not a common boat caught species either, so it is shore based anglers that were its only real threat.

So when you speak of bag limit, over here would that normally mean the number you can take home, or the number you can catch before you have to pack up or fish for something else whether you keep them or not? I'd imagine its the former.

Here is an example for you regarding bag limits. Yesterday we were 35 miles off, targetting one specis as we knew this would be our only option, time of year etc, a lot of time, effort and money had gone into the trip from both the skipper and the crew. Particular the skipper, more than 100 in fuel, plus maintenance. This guy just had one of his engines replaced, 18 grand, 4 grand for props and rudders. The intention is not to go and fill the boat up but to have a bl@@dy good day out fishing, no amount of fish can pay for the time effort and cost that is put in. Take travelling into account and the state of the tides, time to reset the drift, there is a limited amount of time that we are actually fishing, don't matter how good an angler your are there is only a certain amount you can pull up in that time scale.

Any one recons that that needs controlling with regards to bag limits wants their head testing, not only will it do nothing for conservation, thirty odd miles off as well, catch say two or three each and the skipper has to say, sorry lads, pack up and go home. Yer right. The above is good enough reason to tell the likes of the eu etc to sod off.

How can anyone support bag limits for a commercial non quota species with a minute MLS. A bass bag limit wouldn't bother me as such so long as it was set at a decent level as I only ever keep 3 or 4 fish on the few occasions I target them. But what do people feel would be achieved in situation where commercial fishermen take all the bass they can catch and Sea Anglers return them. I struggle to see any logic in that situation. I think at one time or another we have all been fooled by the publicised utopia of fishing in places like Ireland, the USA and OZ but in those places the government and all involved actually give a stuff about the fish, unlike here where its clear the only thing anyone thinks about is money and jobs for the boys. The whole concept is ludicrous.

I thought you were all species hunters on the south coast Barry. Happy with c&R on the odd wrasse, gurnard and occasional turbot. Next youll be telling me you take fish home to eat like the savages of the north.

This post has been edited by glennk: Apr 2 2009, 11:19 AM

Someone asked that question of Defra recently. Their answer was along the lines of restrictions being on anglers' catch, regardless of whether they release the fish or not. There are no figures available on the mortality of released fish. Anyway, to most people, the whole point of going sea fishing is to be able to take some, (enough), fish home to eat. We have trout resevoirs and coarse fisheries for people who want to release all their fish or adhere to strict bag limits. Trying to justify what sea anglers do by pretending that we release most of what we catch is not only foolish, but misleading.

The cold truth is, that sea anglers' catch is insignificant and it doesn't make one bit of difference to fish stocks whether we eat everything we catch or not. There are no restrictions on how much fish people are allowed to buy to eat, so there shouldn't be any restrictions on how much fish we catch to eat.

And the only person I ever claimed to 'represent', was myself.

Well that would be totally bloody silly, and downright unenforceable!
I can understand bag limits (kill limits) for specific species if under threat, or enforced release at certain times of the year when they come in to breed, but a catch (not kill) quota would be ludicrous.

Now I think you worked out what were up against. Sense, logic and fairness play no part in EU or UK fisheries policy.

This post has been edited by glennk: Apr 2 2009, 01:03 PM

Bass fishing in our district is changing dramatically, (our district being the Humber to the Tyne). there has to be changes made to establish a good fishery for both commercial and recreational fishermen before it’s too late.
We (NESFC) have just introduced another by-law to try and steam the trawling activity along with fix netting restrictions at flambourgh head, an area that has seen a big increase of bass in recent years.
It’s not a dramatic change but it’s a start. Was talking to kayak fishermen at sea this week and there where reports of them (angling) getting up towards 30 fish on a good session.
Let’s hope that this new fishery can be managed and become beneficial to all in the coming years.
it’s a relatively new fishery that if managed should be beneficial to all, so changes look as if there are going to be proposed to make this fishery viable, these changes will effect both commercial and recreational anglers.
I have read a few of the proposals that are being kicked about at a very early stage, and they seam very reasonable to me, it’s a opportunity to try and stabilize a new fishery (in this part of the world) lets just see what the reaction is from all stakeholders.
It could be very interesting.

Hello Challenge

It will be interesting to see whether managment will make a difference, I suspect not, only time will tell.

Well, it's been quoted here that kayak anglers are getting 30+ per session. If they're not getting 40+ in a year or two, we'll know that interference doesn't work

Eeek!!!

Fishery, managed, and beneficial to all, just don't seem to go together, somehow.

Fishery, managed, and beneficial to fisheries managers, maybe?

This post has been edited by Steve Coppolo: Apr 2 2009, 07:26 PM

Wurzel.
I hope that it hasn’t been left too late.
Steve.
It will be interesting to see if recreational and commercial interests can be met. Commercial fishermen have put forward proposals for this fishery and already a buy-law is in place through there recommendations. There is recreational issues that are to be addressed but as yet have had know proposals from any angling bodies.

You think it will then?

Could you enlighten us on what that by law is.

No trawl zone.

Have learned that things take so long to get through to the implementation stage that any future legislation might be too little too late. But then again if the fishery keeps growing at the rate that it has there could be an opportunity for a very worthwhile fishery for booth commercial and recreational bodies.