Cutting Edge Web Technology Gives Sea Users A Voice

[barry luxton]

Nothing as smart as deckwash on my boat, Barry I'm afraid.

 

The greenies and men in suits won't go away if you ignore them, Barry. They need to be told to p*ss off and mind their own business. The trouble is, none of the angling reps we've had possess the balls required to do so. Some even go out of their way to cooperate with them.

 

So, in answer to your other question, yes, continually highlighting how inept they are seems to be the best tactic right now. I hope that by doing so, more people might realise how useless they are and start asking a few more questions. The goal is, to get them removed from any position where they have influence over the future of sea angling. Like all pests, they need to be eradicated.

 

As for the info Ron posted the other day, I've heard similar suggestions. The provision to do it has been written into the Marine Bill. For your homework, research how it got there.

 

Evenin Steve, so it's a bucket of water on a string then, nothing wrong with that.

 

Now if you was to tell us what reps are the ones that are of concern? No need to let them hide is there?

 

No steve, i gave up homework a long time ago, go on make it easy for me and tell me how, please. Regarding this provision, has it? Not being funny, can you provide a link or a quote to confirm this?

[Steve Coppolo]

Evenin Steve, so it's a bucket of water on a string then, nothing wrong with that.

 

Now if you was to tell us what reps are the ones that are of concern? No need to let them hide is there?

 

No steve, i gave up homework a long time ago, go on make it easy for me and tell me how, please. Regarding this provision, has it? Not being funny, can you provide a link or a quote to confirm this?

 

Yes, that's right, and it doubles up as the toilet.

 

You're determined to work me into an early grave, aren't you! All will be revealed soon enough.

[Worms]

I often remark, after a day at sea, how it amazes me that we can spend all day afloat and see nobody in that time.

 

I wonder how many 'sea users' will appear now that there's a nice easy way to interfere?

But wouldn't it be a kick in the teeth if "sea users" other than anglers filled in the forms and angling suffered as a result while RSA's sat on their RSA's and didn't provide deperately needed information by sitting indoors, or, even after setting foot upon a smelly, rolling deck?

 

That would make RSA's look like total

W@nkers

wouldn't it?

 

Setting the seeds for a Pyrrhic victory again

[Brian Carragher]

QUOTE (Elton @ Aug 18 2009, 04:45 PM)

I often remark, after a day at sea, how it amazes me that we can spend all day afloat and see nobody in that time.

 

I wonder how many 'sea users' will appear now that there's a nice easy way to interfere?

But wouldn't it be a kick in the teeth if "sea users" other than anglers filled in the forms and angling suffered as a result while RSA's sat on their RSA's and didn't provide deperately needed information by sitting indoors, or, even after setting foot upon a smelly, rolling deck?

 

That would make RSA's look like total

QUOTE

W@nkers

wouldn't it?

 

Setting the seeds for a Pyrrhic victory again

 

Without realising it I think you've hit the nail on the head and highlighted anglers concerns over this and any consultation process. By there very nature anglers tend to be private, preoccupied with only their own results and tend not to get too involved in discussions over future policy direction

 

This leaves the field open to whoever decides to either lead the field or get involved and set the agenda for others and any method of consultation that canvass's the views of those that don't angle but who masquerade as anglers will inevatably lead to policy restrictions or restrictions on areas that they can fish or access or even dig bait in, simply because those individuals or groups who are opposed to angling or would like to see it banned can have some influence over discussion and can help to determine policy to the detriment of anglers

 

Not everyone involved has some ulterior motive but there are enough groups and some with government funding and some with some of our "pop stars" backing who would like to see what we do banned and anything that any group does to make consultation from non participants easier , makes it that much harder for genuine input from the real "man on the street" angler , that in a nutshell is what I think is the reason behind many of the criticisms of some of the proposals at present

[Steve Coppolo]

But wouldn't it be a kick in the teeth if "sea users" other than anglers filled in the forms and angling suffered as a result while RSA's sat on their RSA's and didn't provide deperately needed information by sitting indoors, or, even after setting foot upon a smelly, rolling deck?

 

That would make RSA's look like total wouldn't it?

 

Setting the seeds for a Pyrrhic victory again

 

The trouble is, Worms, that the outcome of these things are often decided well in advance of any consultation. All the authorities need to rubber stamp them are a few chosen responses from cooperative organisations, or even individuals, that they can use in the sumnmary of responses to justify their actions.

 

What makes RSA's look like a bunch of w@nkers, is repeated willingness to cooperate with these things - often providing information that is hardly representative. The Angling Trust told Cefas that they weren't prepared to provide information for their 3 year study into RSA because they couldn't be sure how it might be used. This was a sensible move and one of the reasons why I joined the Angling Trust. However, it didn't take long for the freelancers to come out of the woodwork, only too willing to undermine the efforts of the governing body for angling.

[Worms]

By there very nature anglers tend to be private, preoccupied with only their own results and tend not to get too involved in discussions over future policy direction

 

Which could easily be interpreted as RSA's are selfish and don't give a damn. That view is being reinforced by some of the posters on this thread!

 

This leaves the field open to whoever decides to either lead the field or get involved and set the agenda for others and any method of consultation that canvass's the views of those that don't angle but who masquerade as anglers will inevatably lead to policy restrictions or restrictions on areas that they can fish or access or even dig bait in, simply because those individuals or groups who are opposed to angling or would like to see it banned can have some influence over discussion and can help to determine policy to the detriment of anglers

 

Exactly, it leaves the field open to whoever decides to get involved! If RSA's are so stupid that they would rather see other individuals restrict their sport then that is probably what will happen. Personally I don't believe that most RSA's are that stupid. RSA's are being asked to get involved so that their views can be included. Stamping feet, swearing and sulking won't help. If the effort expended on ridiculing the plans was spent on getting involved in the project RSA's will have a voice. There is a representative on the site who, I assume meets the standard of some posters.

"Peter Macconnell represents the views of sea anglers. He is a keen recreational sea angler, fishing from the shore, from his own small boat and, occasionally, from charter vessels. For the last 10 years he has been involved in sea angling administration and politics; campaigning for bass conservation through the Bass Anglers Sportfishing Society (B.A.S.S.) of which, currently, he is the Chairman. He is also a member of the National Federation of Sea Anglers (N.F.S.A.) Conservation Group."

 

Not everyone involved has some ulterior motive but there are enough groups and some with government funding and some with some of our "pop stars" backing who would like to see what we do banned and anything that any group does to make consultation from non participants easier , makes it that much harder for genuine input from the real "man on the street" angler , that in a nutshell is what I think is the reason behind many of the criticisms of some of the proposals at present

Paranoia creeping in I think. There is a group of 15 representatives from many disciplines that are working together. I suppose if RSA's stick their heads in the sand and don't contribute the rep will be blamed as he only had his own views to go on and no backing from the people that want to fish but are too idle/stupid/up their own RSA's to see the potential benefits. As for genuine input, I think the people on the steering group are probably more intelligent than some people are giving them credit for and can see the difference between genuine concerns and those of 'tree-huggers'.

 

Use it or lose it might be the appropriate phrase if RSA's are so concerned about being legislated out of existence.

[Worms]

The trouble is, Worms, that the outcome of these things are often decided well in advance of any consultation. All the authorities need to rubber stamp them are a few chosen responses from cooperative organisations, or even individuals, that they can use in the sumnmary of responses to justify their actions.

 

Well if that's what you believe then perhaps we should all put our tackle on Ebay now.

 

What makes RSA's look like a bunch of w@nkers, is repeated willingness to cooperate with these things - often providing information that is hardly representative. The Angling Trust told Cefas that they weren't prepared to provide information for their 3 year study into RSA because they couldn't be sure how it might be used. This was a sensible move and one of the reasons why I joined the Angling Trust. However, it didn't take long for the freelancers to come out of the woodwork, only too willing to undermine the efforts of the governing body for angling.

 

Ok, I see your reasoning but, if pertinent information is withheld from the MCA and MPZ planning process it can't be used for the benefit of angling.............it's like telling the other members of the team that "it's my ball and you can't play with it because I want to be centre forward and goalie"........nobody benefits and team spirit suffers.....it's only a matter of time before someone else gets a ball and you won't be invited to the next game!

 

A bit of background about my sea angling experiences.

 

My father encouraged me to fish any and every bit of water we could find, home made tackle and enthusiasm was the way we did it. Seaside holidays were the introduction to sea fishing. Occasionally we caught fish. That was from the age of about 5. Later I joined a local pub sea fishing club, we travelled to the west Wales coast once a month if the weather was ok and caught (from charter boats) rays, doggies, mackerel etc. Later I lived on the Welsh coast for four years. Sea fishing from the beach, harbour/rocks was pretty much an everyday occurrence. For the past 15 years I've been sea fishing about once a year. just recently I went out on a boat again.........it was great. What I hadn't realised though was HOW it has changed. Nothing gaffed, the vast majority of fish returned, fish given a chance to recover and not just being hurled over the side, guidance by the skipper on how to handle fish to ensure the best chance of recovery and survival etc.

 

None of this happened twenty odd years ago. This is how angling has changed. Detractors of angling probably aren't aware either, so, these changes were an eye opener for me and, if well packaged by more experienced RSA's, information like this (and much more) can go to benefit the sport/pastime!

[Steve Coppolo]

None of this happened twenty odd years ago. This is how angling has changed. Detractors of angling probably aren't aware either, so, these changes were an eye opener for me and, if well packaged by more experienced RSA's, information like this (and much more) can go to benefit the sport/pastime!

 

What? You mean that sea angling evolved without any interference, new rules and regulations, consultations, or layers management from Defra, whatsoever?

 

Just think about that for a while.

[Worms]

What? You mean that sea angling evolved without any interference, new rules and regulations, consultations, or layers management from Defra, whatsoever?

 

Just think about that for a while.

Well if it happened because of consultation with anglers then it was a positive outcome.

 

If it happened without consultation with anglers then it was still a positive outcome.

 

What's your point?

[Steve Coppolo]

Well if it happened because of consultation with anglers then it was a positive outcome.

 

It didn't. That's my point.