Cutting Edge Web Technology Gives Sea Users A Voice

[Worms]

It didn't. That's my point.

Then it goes to show that the 'authorities' aren't as unclued about things as you've been saying then. If legislation is brought in that encourages fish care and thus potentially improves angling then it can only be a good thing. Or would you rather we went back to the halcyon days of killing every fish brought on board, edible or not?

 

Now you are getting a chance to be included and the RSA rep is the chairman of BASS. It was you that suggested I join BASS as the info and discussion on there was worth it. Surely you trust this guy to represent RSA's views, or at least he would be open to hearing and representing your views. This must be a really good stepping off point for RSA's surely?

[Steve Coppolo]

Or would you rather we went back to the halcyon days of killing every fish brought on board, edible or not?

 

Now why on earth would that happen? You've just stated how far sea angling has come since you used to fish regularly in the sea.

 

Come on now, Worms, I don't mind spending time engaging with you on this forum but, for heavens sake, at least be sensible.

[Worms]

Now why on earth would that happen? You've just stated how far sea angling has come since you used to fish regularly in the sea.

 

Come on now, Worms, I don't mind spending time engaging with you on this forum but, for heavens sake, at least be sensible.

Sense is what I've been trying to make of all this negativity. Unfortunately you aren't giving me a lot to work with. You aren't really answering the main questions or commenting on my views, but answering rhetorical questions!

 

So both of us seem to agree that the effect of the legislation regarding fish care (certain species at least) was a positive result for the fish, anglers and charter skippers. If it's positive in the effect it has does it matter how, or by whom it is implemented?

 

I thought you might respond to the second paragraph regarding Peter Macconnell. Don't you think that with him on the steering group as an RSA representative that there is a positive outlook?

[Steve Coppolo]

So both of us seem to agree that the effect of the legislation regarding fish care (certain species at least) was a positive result for the fish, anglers and charter skippers. If it's positive in the effect it has does it matter how, or by whom it is implemented?

 

What legislation regarding fish care are you talking about? There hasn't been any. Any improvements you've seen have been the result of anglers deciding for themselves what is best. And that's the way it should stay, in my opinion.

[barry luxton]

What legislation regarding fish care are you talking about? There hasn't been any. Any improvements you've seen have been the result of anglers deciding for themselves what is best. And that's the way it should stay, in my opinion.

 

I think we should consider the tough'ish stance there has been regarding sharing the codling out as the reason we have been seeing them both in the north sea and the channel for at least the last three years, hoping enough of them survive for the next few years to make it even more interesting for all.

 

Any thing to reveal yet Steve?

Edited August 19, 2009 by barry luxton

[Worms]

What legislation regarding fish care are you talking about? There hasn't been any. Any improvements you've seen have been the result of anglers deciding for themselves what is best. And that's the way it should stay, in my opinion.

I was thinking about tope protection specifically.

 

So how do you propose RSA's (in general as they are not organised into 'a group') decide when an area is suffering from overfishing, or that the size limit of a fish needs to increase? What happens if there's a local incident that damages your particular fishing spot? Who do you run to and why? It can't be done unilaterally. How would you police a change to self imposed legislation?

 

The other issue that seems to be forgotten is that RSA's have no more rights to use the sea and its resources than any other group of citizens yet it seems to me that you are proposing self imposed legislation with no thought for others or the requirements of the ecology as a whole.

 

You still aren't answering my questions.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Worms

[Steve Coppolo]

I was thinking about tope protection specifically.

 

So how do you propose RSA's (in general as they are not organised into 'a group') decide when an area is suffering from overfishing, or that the size limit of a fish needs to increase? What happens if there's a local incident that damages your particular fishing spot? Who do you run to and why? It can't be done unilaterally. How would you police a change to self imposed legislation?

 

The other issue that seems to be forgotten is that RSA's have no more rights to use the sea and its resources than any other group of citizens yet it seems to me that you are proposing self imposed legislation with no thought for others or the requirements of the ecology as a whole.

 

You still aren't answering my questions.

 

The legislation to protect Tope actually does very little, if anything, to protect them.

 

I can't make any sense out of the rest of your post. Sorry.

[Elton]

I really don't see how a man with a fishing rod can overfish any area. If there are few fish there, he'll catch just a few (or none). If he's catching a lot of fish, it's because there are a lot of fish there. To pretend that rod and line angling has any significant impact on fish stocks is ludicrous.

 

The (quite legal) packets upon packets of plaice that I saw reduced to £1 in Asda on Monday may well have an effect, mind you. And most of those are probably rotting in a bin now.

[barry luxton]

The legislation to protect Tope actually does very little, if anything, to protect them.

 

Totally agree with you regarding the legislation directed to the rsa. There wasn't tope fishery in any event. The odd tope here or there taken home by the rsa, didn't have a problem with that. I would rather see a bleeding tope taken to be eaten, then thrown back over the side dead or dying.

 

It would have been more realistic if the minister at the time had allowed a small amount of catch to be taken by the rsa to take that into account.

 

He has allowed a not too unhealthy by-catch commercially, so to allow dead or damaged tope to be taken by the rsa would have been acceptable. Just my opinion btw.

[Steve Coppolo]

Totally agree with you regarding the legislation directed to the rsa. There wasn't tope fishery in any event. The odd tope here or there taken home by the rsa, didn't have a problem with that. I would rather see a bleeding tope taken to be eaten, then thrown back over the side dead or dying.

 

It would have been more realistic if the minister at the time had allowed a small amount of catch to be taken by the rsa to take that into account.

 

He has allowed a not too unhealthy by-catch commercially, so to allow dead or damaged tope to be taken by the rsa would have been acceptable. Just my opinion btw.

 

I said as much in my response to the consultation. I can't see the sense in having no bycatch rule when some Tope will still be caught. I'd rather see the fish landed and eaten, or even used for pot bait, than chucked over the side to rot. It's relevant to this thread because it's just another case of the minister and his departments pandering to a few environmentalists with little or no thought for what the legislation might actually achieve. Also, as I mentioned earlier, the outcome was probably decided long before the consultation took place.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Steve Coppolo