600 or 10,000 which is it ?

[Guest challenge]

Anglers Unite - At the Annual General Meeting of the National Federation of Sea Anglers, which was held yesterday at their offices at Buckfastleigh, the members voted overwhelmingly to join the new umbrella organisation "Anglers Unite" which will represent the 4,000,000 to 5,000,000 anglers of all persuasions, salt, game and coarse, in the UK.

 

This means that by January 2009 the NFSA will cease to exist as we know it. It will be superseded by "Anglers Unite". Sea Angling Representatives will sit on the board of "Anglers Unite", together with representatives from the other branches of our sport, which is the largest participation sport in the UK and beyond.

 

The NFSA Divisions, such as Wyvern, Wessex, and Severn, around the UK, will continue as before, running competitions and award schemes for their respective members.

 

This is undoubtedly the most far reaching decision that our national representative body has ever made in its more than 100 year history. It is what the vast majority of us wanted to happen. a collective vote of 4,000,000 plus anglers is not one that successive Governments or Authorities can afford to ignore. Thank you to everyone who supported this progressive move for the long-term betterment of our chosen pursuit.

 

600 or 10,000 small change compared with the new anglers organization, who will be the governer of this one. Some one who is thick skinned no doubt.

Hi Barry,

“Anglers unite” sounds like just what the government ordered. They will welcome this sort of representation with open arms. They would love to see all recreational anglers on an even playing field. of course RSA and there representatives can sit at the table with other angling reps, and you will then find that next time you go to buy your rod licence it will also cover you for sea angling.

Unite angling representation by all means Barry, but from what I have been told, don’t expect it without a price.

Sitting round tables comes at a price, ask any commercial fisherman.

I believe that (in my part of the world) all the hard work that was done at local consultations that took part between DEFRA and grass root local recreational fishing bodies would be swept aside overnight.

Regards.

[Guest challenge]

Anglers Unite - At the Annual General Meeting of the National Federation of Sea Anglers, which was held yesterday at their offices at Buckfastleigh, the members voted overwhelmingly to join the new umbrella organisation "Anglers Unite" which will represent the 4,000,000 to 5,000,000 anglers of all persuasions, salt, game and coarse, in the UK.

 

This means that by January 2009 the NFSA will cease to exist as we know it. It will be superseded by "Anglers Unite". Sea Angling Representatives will sit on the board of "Anglers Unite", together with representatives from the other branches of our sport, which is the largest participation sport in the UK and beyond.

 

The NFSA Divisions, such as Wyvern, Wessex, and Severn, around the UK, will continue as before, running competitions and award schemes for their respective members.

 

This is undoubtedly the most far reaching decision that our national representative body has ever made in its more than 100 year history. It is what the vast majority of us wanted to happen. a collective vote of 4,000,000 plus anglers is not one that successive Governments or Authorities can afford to ignore. Thank you to everyone who supported this progressive move for the long-term betterment of our chosen pursuit.

 

600 or 10,000 small change compared with the new anglers organization, who will be the governer of this one. Some one who is thick skinned no doubt.

Hi Barry,

“Anglers unite” sounds like just what the government ordered. They will welcome this sort of representation with open arms. They would love to see all recreational anglers on an even playing field. of course RSA and there representatives can sit at the table with other angling reps, and you will then find that next time you go to buy your rod licence it will also cover you for sea angling.

Unite angling representation by all means Barry, but from what I have been told, don’t expect it without a price.

Sitting round tables comes at a price, ask any commercial fisherman.

I believe that (in my part of the world) all the hard work that was done at local consultations that took part between DEFRA and grass root local recreational fishing bodies would be swept aside overnight.

Regards.

[barry luxton]

Hi Barry,

“Anglers unite” sounds like just what the government ordered. They will welcome this sort of representation with open arms. They would love to see all recreational anglers on an even playing field. of course RSA and there representatives can sit at the table with other angling reps, and you will then find that next time you go to buy your rod licence it will also cover you for sea angling.

Unite angling representation by all means Barry, but from what I have been told, don’t expect it without a price.

Sitting round tables comes at a price, ask any commercial fisherman.

I believe that (in my part of the world) all the hard work that was done at local consultations that took part between DEFRA and grass root local recreational fishing bodies would be swept aside overnight.

Regards.

 

I don't dissagree with you Challenge, for a few years all of the discussions etc with defra has done absolutly nothing for the rsa apart from preventing defra issuing new legislation stoping the rsa from doing what it has done for years, going fishing. I think they have been brilliant to date in shuffling paper and emails around, first class. However i can't think of anything else apart from that, what they have done for the sport.

 

A new mass orginisation just might be a thorn in the side to defra, who knows they might even get an invite to brussels with the nffo and bertie when the anuall fish sharing excercise comes around.

[thedogs]

Wasted too many years P***ing around in the Thames estuary (sometimes with Sam's dad).

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not going to waste my time any more.

 

Just enjoy your fishing while you can .......

 

 

 

 

I tried, but still your rudeness continues, and now your insulting my Dad but saying you wasted time fishing with him. Did I insult your family. I give up tr=ying to be nice to you.

[H.A.]

I give up tr=ying to be nice to you.

 

Thank God for that!

 

[Guest challenge]

I don't dissagree with you Challenge, for a few years all of the discussions etc with defra has done absolutly nothing for the rsa apart from preventing defra issuing new legislation stoping the rsa from doing what it has done for years, going fishing. I think they have been brilliant to date in shuffling paper and emails around, first class. However i can't think of anything else apart from that, what they have done for the sport.

 

A new mass orginisation just might be a thorn in the side to defra, who knows they might even get an invite to brussels with the nffo and bertie when the anuall fish sharing excercise comes around.

Hi Barry.

Firstly would you then agree or be prepared to pay for a rod licence the same as all none RSA do to be able to sit at a table in Brussels? don’t forget that commercial fishermen have sat at that same highly prized table for years, achieving to have there industry decimated by at least 60% of what it was in the not to distance past, an achievement that many would have said would of never of come about had they not have ever had to sit at that same table.

Any commercial fishermen will tell you that sitting at the said table doesn’t mean that you’ll get anything like what you order, but it does mean that you do get served up unhealthy portions of bureaucracy on a regular basis.

Of course the devourers of bureaucracy would love RSA (or at least there reps) to pull up a chair and become accountable to the bureaucrats. “The more the merrier” they would say.

A new mass organisation would be anything but a thorn in the side of DEFRA Barry, just the opposite in fact, it would create more bureaucracy that bureaucrats thrive on and the angler who only wants to go angling would pay for.

[bobdurauntti]

don’t forget that commercial fishermen have sat at that same highly prized table for years, achieving to have there industry decimated by at least 60% of what it was in the not to distance past, an achievement that many would have said would of never of come about had they not have ever had to sit at that same table.

Any commercial fishermen will tell you that sitting at the said table doesn’t mean that you’ll get anything like what you order, but it does mean that you do get served up unhealthy portions of bureaucracy on a regular basis.

 

A thought occurred to me challenge and I wonder what your outlook on it is?

 

You point out that by going to Brussels and sitting down 'at the table' fishermen and the fishing industry has been 'decimated by at least 60%', and if they hadn't sat down with these abhorrent people (scientists and politicians) then the fleet would be as it was 10 - 15 years ago.

 

Would we have seen by now the decimation of most commercial fish species, or would we have had a miraculous recovery, against all odds with the same level of fishing fleet we had then?

 

Do you think that the ongoing recovery of some cod stocks in the north sea since 2005 would have happened if the fleet size had not been cut?

 

Do you think that the fleet 'pre-decimation' couldd be sustained now even if the recovery exhibited in 2005 had not occurred?

 

And do you think the fleet would have survived unscathed if the recovery of 2005 had not occurred?

 

Given the acknowledgment of the SFO SWFPO and the NFFO that these cuts had to be made under the climate at that time, I wonder why you still think it was such a calamitous action to take?

 

And finally if the cut in the fleet you describe as; the industry being decimated and unhealthy bureaucracy was so bad for the industry and fish stocks, what would your solution have been?

[Guest challenge]

A thought occurred to me challenge and I wonder what your outlook on it is?

 

You point out that by going to Brussels and sitting down 'at the table' fishermen and the fishing industry has been 'decimated by at least 60%', and if they hadn't sat down with these abhorrent people (scientists and politicians) then the fleet would be as it was 10 - 15 years ago.

 

Would we have seen by now the decimation of most commercial fish species, or would we have had a miraculous recovery, against all odds with the same level of fishing fleet we had then?

 

Do you think that the ongoing recovery of some cod stocks in the north sea since 2005 would have happened if the fleet size had not been cut?

 

Do you think that the fleet 'pre-decimation' couldd be sustained now even if the recovery exhibited in 2005 had not occurred?

 

And do you think the fleet would have survived unscathed if the recovery of 2005 had not occurred?

 

Given the acknowledgment of the SFO SWFPO and the NFFO that these cuts had to be made under the climate at that time, I wonder why you still think it was such a calamitous action to take?

 

And finally if the cut in the fleet you describe as; the industry being decimated and unhealthy bureaucracy was so bad for the industry and fish stocks, what would your solution have been?

Let’s go back twenty years and look at the situation then? Healthy fishing for all, plenty of fish to be caught and plenty of fish being caught.

Quota’s put in place (by people around the table at the advice of scientists and politicians) but never enforced. Why where they never enforced? Why did the fleet need to be so dramatically cut, when days at sea quota (twenty years ago) would have worked so much better?

Surely it would have been enforceable?

The scientists and bureaucrats had seen the decline of many fish spices of the industry and had rightly aired there concerns, but they didn’t put in place a remedy that would achieve anything for a period of at least ten years.

Its easy now for bureaucrats and scientists to say that if we hadn’t of made these cut when we did, there would be no cod recovery like there is today.

Does that mean that it’s been good management on sound scientific advice? Or was it a last fling attempt to save a fishery after decades of bad management.

Surely it would have been less painful for all concerned to have reduced effort on the whole fleet at time when that fleet had the strength to of absorbed it?

Regards.

[barry luxton]

A thought occurred to me challenge and I wonder what your outlook on it is?

 

You point out that by going to Brussels and sitting down 'at the table' fishermen and the fishing industry has been 'decimated by at least 60%', and if they hadn't sat down with these abhorrent people (scientists and politicians) then the fleet would be as it was 10 - 15 years ago.

 

Would we have seen by now the decimation of most commercial fish species, or would we have had a miraculous recovery, against all odds with the same level of fishing fleet we had then?

 

Do you think that the ongoing recovery of some cod stocks in the north sea since 2005 would have happened if the fleet size had not been cut?

 

Do you think that the fleet 'pre-decimation' couldd be sustained now even if the recovery exhibited in 2005 had not occurred?

 

And do you think the fleet would have survived unscathed if the recovery of 2005 had not occurred?

 

Given the acknowledgment of the SFO SWFPO and the NFFO that these cuts had to be made under the climate at that time, I wonder why you still think it was such a calamitous action to take?

 

And finally if the cut in the fleet you describe as; the industry being decimated and unhealthy bureaucracy was so bad for the industry and fish stocks, what would your solution have been?

 

Ties in nicely with the other topic about the house of lords committee commenting on the other eu fleets, over fishing, too many boats, ignoring the cfp rules that leaves concern about the eu fish stocks.

 

Hi Challenge we are going around in circles, i would not pay the government for a licence, why would i need to and to what end, carparks and bogs, no thanks. Like i agreed with you, it would only end up within the government paper chace and blue chip pensions, i'm not that daft, am i? No one would go to brussels if they was to get nothing out of it. fwiw, commercially, i think the main part of the uk fleet should be represented, not the minority nffo and the arm chair commercials, much like how this topic started out, 600 or............... The undertens i'm talking about. Then defra should also do something about the crap fish left for the uk to purchace while the majority is exported to the eu.

Edited July 22, 2008 by barry luxton