Eastern Sea Fisheries Joint Committee

[Elton]

From a meeting I attended this week, it seems that the ESFJC 'want' to develop and implement RSA Strategy. You'll find details of this on this document.

[glennk]

Will you be supporting or opposing Elton and what do your local fishing reps on the SFC say ?

[Elton]

I don't want one, Glenn. I didn't want one last year and I don't want one now.

 

I'll be contacting the EJSFC Chief Fisheries Officer to explain my feelings on the matter, but have no idea if that will mean much. A Fisheries Officer was at the meeting. He seemed like a decent, switched on bloke and would have known exactly where this all stemmed from, I'm sure. At the very least, he will be able to report back that not every angler supported such a move and that the majority didn't really understand what was going on.

 

The reps on the SFC seemed to imply that it had been initiated from above and that anglers have no choice, but I must admit that I have my doubts. DEFRA were very clear in their Summary of Responses that anglers didn't want an RSA strategy, that they couldn't offer us anything in return and that we were impossible to manage without compliance. I can only assume that somebody not in DEFRA is still pushing for it.

 

I'd be interested to know what the Angling Trust's stance is on the subject of an RSA strategy. If my membership ever arrives, I'll try to make time to ask them.

[glennk]

Its a sad state of affairs Elton. Like you say most people don't really understand what is happening and are fearful of getting involved. I cant for the life of me think why any angler would see the RSA strategy as a positive. Maybe I am a bit odd or something but the whole thing sounds bonkers to me.

 

Regardless of whether it is inevitable or not, the reps on your committee are there to represent the views of the anglers in your region. Did they say if the local anglers are for or against this strategy.

Edited March 5, 2009 by glennk

[Steve Coppolo]

Its a sad state of affairs Elton. Like you say most people don't really understand what is happening and are fearful of getting involved. I cant for the life of me think why any angler would see the RSA strategy as a positive. Maybe I am a bit odd or something but the whole thing sounds bonkers to me.

 

Regardless of whether it is inevitable or not, the reps on your committee are there to represent the views of the anglers in your region. Did they say if the local anglers are for or against this strategy.

 

Glenn

I think that by arranging the meetings around the region, they think that somehow constitutes representing local anglers. I suppose arranging meetings is better than not involving local anglers at all, but what I witnessed wasn't really representation. It was two people standing in front of a largely uninformed audience, telling them what their take on things was and then asking them to vote on something that no one, (reps included if truth be told), understood. O.K, so one of the 'reps' is new to on the SFC and may not be fully up to speed on certain things, (no disrespect intended, John), but the other has been around for a while and has been a very prominenet RSA 'rep', having sat on the NFSA conservation group, the BASS restoration team and the SACN executive, (or whatever it's called), and the SFC for three and a half years. He has also been a staunch supporter of the NFSA and the RSA strategy.

 

I came away from the meeting with the distinct feeling, (if there was ever any doubt), that this strategy is being pushed and promoted at every opportunity by the same few people, only this time it's being done, I feel, on the sly. We were told that it's being pushed by the government, who, apparently, wanted the RSA strategy in the first place. They also said that they don't trust the very people they have been working with to get this nonsense to the stage it's at now. There were attempts to reassure local anglers that article 47 wasn't as bad as some are making it out to be - and letting people think that all the restrictions facing us are inevitable and resistance is futile. Much better to sit around the table and talk, (give up), than fight against the erosion of our rights. Whether it's disguised as a local initiative, or not, this is the RSA strategy we are facing here. If these people were truly representing local anglers, who have already expressed their views on the strategy, they should be telling the chief fisheries officer that we don't want, or need, a strategy.

 

Just as point of interest, after the meeting, I asked one of the 'reps' exactly what it was that he thought should be done to improve things for local sea anglers. He said he didn't know!

[Elton]

Regardless of whether it is inevitable or not, the reps on your committee are there to represent the views of the anglers in your region. Did they say if the local anglers are for or against this strategy.

 

They don't know either way, yet, I presume. At the moment, they can only go by the few who bother and/or are able to turn up at meetings, or tell them what they feel by email and phone. They're not unapproachable guys, so anyone potentially affected shouldn't feel that they can't express an opinion to them.

 

I did get the impression that they were in favour of an RSA strategy themselves, so as someone opposed to my hobby being interfered with more than is necessary, I do see that as a hurdle. It's not an insurmountable one, but things would be a lot easier if they held the same opinions as me. That would apply to a lot of things in life, though

[glennk]

I do see that as a hurdle. It's not an insurmountable one, but things would be a lot easier if they held the same opinions as me. That would apply to a lot of things in life, though

 

I suppose that is true of any similar situation but you can see how easy it would be to represent your own views rather than those of the people you supposedly represent. The easy thing to do is not ask them or ask them in such a way that they dont know you asked or simply havent a clue what your talking about.

 

Not that they would ever do that of course

 

Good luck with it. I don't suppose there is a lot I can do to help out as I'm not from your region but I'm against the RSA strategy too so if I can do anything at all just shout up.

[Steve Coppolo]

Forgot to mention that another purpose of the meeting was to see if local anglers would support the making up of another committee, or group, that would then..........well, I'm not really sure what it would do, but it woiuld be a new group or committee. I suppose it would involve more meetings and more talking and, ultimately, more proposals, management measures and demands to do 'something'. I think this is what confused most people at the meeting. I don't think anyone really new what to make of the proposed new committee, or it's purpose. It seems that there is an assumption, a wrong assumption in my opinion, that sea anglers feel the need to be managed and lead by a committee.

[glennk]

Does the poor turn out of anglers at any such meetings not illustrate the opposite Steve ? If anglers wanted to be managed and involved in meetings surely they would turn up in their thousands.....

 

Wouldn't they ?

[H.A.]

Like you say most people don't really understand what is happening and are fearful of getting involved.

 

... another purpose of the meeting was to see if local anglers would support the making up of another committee, or group, that would then..........well, I'm not really sure what it would do, but it woiuld be a new group or committee

 

... things would be a lot easier if they held the same opinions as me

 

Koof me!

 

 

I'm looking for a witty comment, but there is none, suitable.

 

You're hopelessly lossed!

 

As a group -

 

No leadership.

Lacking knowledge (there's a few dreamers, though)

No political acumen.

No clout or will ...

 

Just 'sheitestirren'.

 

I fear the dreadful Ron's right.

 

What was that line from 'The Wall'?

"We don't need no education

We dont need no thought control"

Where's East Angrier, anyway?