Jump to content

SEA FISHING LICENCE


ray carper

Recommended Posts

Guest challenge
You could use that as a deterant against the commercial guys who have committed offence after offence, i.e. the brixham guy who reached ten last year, using the fines that they pay at present as mearly an inconveinance, tax loss rather that a punishment. Pro rata that would have far reaching effect on seeing justice done in protection of our fish stocks, compared with an individual who has nicked say ten fish over his bag limit..

Totally agree Barry, but you can only do what you are allowed to do and at the end of the day SFC, s don’t sit in judgement in the courts.

Trying to work with your hands tied doesn’t always help. one of the objects of the marine bill will be to un-bind those hands and give greater responsibility to local enforcement bodies and with that responsibility will come more flexibility with there powers.

Regards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 49
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Glenk.

12 months ago I would have suggested the same as you are suggesting in your post. That was prior to seeing what powers and changes will be coming to SFC, s with the introduction of the marine bill.

Without breaking any confidentiality rules, let me put this scenario to you. would you risk, if rules where in place for say a licence to fish (sea and freshwater) or bag limits on your catch breaking these rules if the person (or organisation) who was going to be enforcing these rules had the powers to suspend you from fishing (legally) for the faceable future, if not indefinitely?

would your friend not think twice about taking his bag limit and more if there was the chance that he could be band (from legally fishing) for life.

I believe that your dedication to your sport, as the same with millions of other anglers would deter them much more than the hundreds of extra fishery officers that will come with the marine bill.

Regards

 

Hello Challenge,

 

If, as some suspect, that the modernised SFC structure will have a much better, or more clearly defined agenda to deliver and administer, that there will be more accounatbility? How do you think that might take shape where minority member representation could continue to be sidelined in favour of a more powerful user group as has historically been the case. Do you think that any new structure can be truly effective at delivering co-management if the structure in place remains sub-optimal?

 

Do you think that the conduit link to Government, Defra in this case, is fit to act as arbiter in its present form?

 

Regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Challenge,

 

If, as some suspect, that the modernised SFC structure will have a much better, or more clearly defined agenda to deliver and administer, that there will be more accounatbility? How do you think that might take shape where minority member representation could continue to be sidelined in favour of a more powerful user group as has historically been the case. Do you think that any new structure can be truly effective at delivering co-management if the structure in place remains sub-optimal?

 

Do you think that the conduit link to Government, Defra in this case, is fit to act as arbiter in its present form?

 

Regards

 

 

Very good point Ryford. As it stands i can't see anything changing for the better. They are good at talking about it, that is all. Further more this link again, same as last year determins that defra cannot even get it's own house in order. Overspent, overbudjeted, lack of control, etc etc, no doubt the pensions and expences are very healthy for all who work within it. If it is a private company it would be closed. They are good at spending our monies, but the returns are comical. Needs clearing out, top to bottom.

 

http://www.thisiswesternmorningnews.co.uk/...il/article.html

Free to choose apart from the ones where the trust poked their nose in. Common eel. tope. Bass and sea bream. All restricted.


New for 2016 TAT are the main instigators for the demise of the u k bass charter boat industry, where they went screaming off to parliament and for the first time assisting so called angling gurus set up bass take bans with the e u using rubbish exaggerated info collected by ices from anglers, they must be very proud.

Upgrade, the door has been closed with regards to anglers being linked to the e u superstate and the failed c f p. So TAT will no longer need to pay monies to the EAA anymore as that org is no longer relevant to the u k . Goodbye to the europeon anglers alliance and pathetic restrictions from the e u.

Angling is better than politics, ban politics from angling.

Consumer of bass. where is the evidence that the u k bass stock need angling trust protection. Why won't you work with your peers instead of castigating them. They have the answer.

Recipie's for mullet stew more than welcomed.

Angling sanitation trust and kent and sussex sea anglers org delete's and blocks rsa's alternative opinion on their face book site. Although they claim to rep all.

new for 2014. where is the evidence that the south coast bream stock need the angling trust? Your campaign has no evidence. Why won't you work with your peers, the inshore under tens? As opposed to alienating them? Angling trust failed big time re bait digging, even fish legal attempted to intervene and failed, all for what, nothing.

Looks like the sea angling reps have been coerced by the ifca's to compose sea angling strategy's that the ifca's at some stage will look at drafting into legislation to manage the rsa, because they like wasting tax payers money. That's without asking the rsa btw. You know who you are..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest challenge
Hello Challenge,

 

If, as some suspect, that the modernised SFC structure will have a much better, or more clearly defined agenda to deliver and administer, that there will be more accounatbility? How do you think that might take shape where minority member representation could continue to be sidelined in favour of a more powerful user group as has historically been the case. Do you think that any new structure can be truly effective at delivering co-management if the structure in place remains sub-optimal?

 

Do you think that the conduit link to Government, Defra in this case, is fit to act as arbiter in its present form?

 

Regards

Hello ryford.

So who would you say (looking at marine shareholders) are the minority shareholders? And when you tell us who they are, could you tell us why they are the minority?

Hello Barry

And who would you put in the place of DEFRA? :) And what would be your ideal aims for this new structure taking into account the hundreds of different departments that are within DEFRA?

Don’t you think that it would be a good idea to make judgements on something say 12 months after it has been introduced rather than saying something hasn’t changed in the past twelve months, when the marine bill has been years in the building?

Regards to what government is in power in twelve month the marine bill will be with us in the format that it is proposed as it has had cross party support (more or less) through its parliamentary journey. :mellow:

Regards.

Edited by challenge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello ryford.

So who would you say (looking at marine shareholders) are the minority shareholders? And when you tell us who they are, could you tell us why they are the minority?

Hello Barry

And who would you put in the place of DEFRA? :) And what would be your ideal aims for this new structure taking into account the hundreds of different departments that are within DEFRA?

Don’t you think that it would be a good idea to make judgements on something say 12 months after it has been introduced rather than saying something hasn’t changed in the past twelve months, when the marine bill has been years in the building?

Regards to what government is in power in twelve month the marine bill will be with us in the format that it is proposed as it has had cross party support (more or less) through its parliamentary journey. :mellow:

Regards.

 

Hi Challenge

 

QUOTE / And who would you put in the place of DEFRA? :)

 

Defra is a goverment department, the goverment has a very large financial interest in the aggregate dredging industry.

 

The goverment/defra stand to gain more from introducing the marine bill than anyone else.

 

For the marine bill to be laudable and completely free of bias its introduction and implementation and operation should be the responsabilty of a completly independant body not attached to any goverment department whatsoever or any other stakeholder.

 

The existing farce regarding the marine bill is in my opinion the mechinism in which the goverment will expand their financial interest in the aggregate industry and it will be done in such a way that it will kept the greens happy (on side) by way of giving in to their every need and want.

 

The winners will be the goverment and the greens the losers will be commercial fishermen and the anglers.

 

In short the winners take it ALL and the losers have to FALL

 

I believe the marine bill and its consultation has already got a predetermined outcome.

 

Allowing for the goverments financial interest in the aggregate industry, and the potential vote pulling power of the greens, do you think the goverment are best placed to introduce the marine bill fairly and without bias to all stakeholders???????

 

Also do you think that the goverment will go against their financial interests by restricting the aggregate industries activities under the marine bill?????

 

If the goverment were to spend the £100,000,000 per year revenue from the aggregate industry on improving the marine environment in conjuction with the marine bill then I would change my veiw as outlined above

 

I believe the goverments integity is questionable and open to debate regarding this matter

 

regards steve

Edited by steve good
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Challenge

 

QUOTE / And who would you put in the place of DEFRA? :)

 

Defra is a goverment department, the goverment has a very large financial interest in the aggregate dredging industry.

 

The goverment/defra stand to gain more from introducing the marine bill than anyone else.

 

For the marine bill to be laudable and completely free of bias its introduction and implementation and operation should be the responsabilty of a completly independant body not attached to any goverment department whatsoever or any other stakeholder.

 

The existing farce regarding the marine bill is in my opinion the mechinism in which the goverment will expand their financial interest in the aggregate industry and it will be done in such a way that it will kept the greens happy (on side) by way of giving in to their every need and want.

 

The winners will be the goverment and the greens the losers will be commercial fishermen and the anglers.

 

In short the winners take it ALL and the losers have to FALL

 

I believe the marine bill and its consultation has already got a predetermined outcome.

 

Allowing for the goverments financial interest in the aggregate industry, and the potential vote pulling power of the greens, do you think the goverment are best placed to introduce the marine bill fairly and without bias to all stakeholders???????

 

Also do you think that the goverment will go against their financial interests by restricting the aggregate industries activities under the marine bill?????

 

If the goverment were to spend the £100,000,000 per year revenue from the aggregate industry on improving the marine environment in conjuction with the marine bill then I would change my veiw as outlined above

 

I believe the goverments integity is questionable and open to debate regarding this matter

 

regards steve

 

 

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

 

 

 

Blimey Steve did you draft this all yourself. I happen to agree with it. Na i know you did Steve as your biggest grief with them is the dredgers, fairplay. B) Independant body, agree with that as long as they are audited and accountable. Might mean that the ratepayers money is spent more wizeley as opposed to spent on wages, pensions, fees and expences for i want a job burocratic waste of spaces. FWIW the only mp who appears to care about the marine recources is Salter.

Free to choose apart from the ones where the trust poked their nose in. Common eel. tope. Bass and sea bream. All restricted.


New for 2016 TAT are the main instigators for the demise of the u k bass charter boat industry, where they went screaming off to parliament and for the first time assisting so called angling gurus set up bass take bans with the e u using rubbish exaggerated info collected by ices from anglers, they must be very proud.

Upgrade, the door has been closed with regards to anglers being linked to the e u superstate and the failed c f p. So TAT will no longer need to pay monies to the EAA anymore as that org is no longer relevant to the u k . Goodbye to the europeon anglers alliance and pathetic restrictions from the e u.

Angling is better than politics, ban politics from angling.

Consumer of bass. where is the evidence that the u k bass stock need angling trust protection. Why won't you work with your peers instead of castigating them. They have the answer.

Recipie's for mullet stew more than welcomed.

Angling sanitation trust and kent and sussex sea anglers org delete's and blocks rsa's alternative opinion on their face book site. Although they claim to rep all.

new for 2014. where is the evidence that the south coast bream stock need the angling trust? Your campaign has no evidence. Why won't you work with your peers, the inshore under tens? As opposed to alienating them? Angling trust failed big time re bait digging, even fish legal attempted to intervene and failed, all for what, nothing.

Looks like the sea angling reps have been coerced by the ifca's to compose sea angling strategy's that the ifca's at some stage will look at drafting into legislation to manage the rsa, because they like wasting tax payers money. That's without asking the rsa btw. You know who you are..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

 

 

 

Blimey Steve did you draft this all yourself. I happen to agree with it. Na i know you did Steve as your biggest grief with them is the dredgers, fairplay. B) Independant body, agree with that as long as they are audited and accountable. Might mean that the ratepayers money is spent more wizeley as opposed to spent on wages, pensions, fees and expences for i want a job burocratic waste of spaces. FWIW the only mp who appears to care about the marine recources is Salter.

 

Hi Barry

 

Yes I did draft this myself, I sent Defra something similar and they got most indignant about it.

 

I firmly believe the goverments position is compromised between their financial interest in the aggregate dredging industry and their introduction of the marine bill, you would think that the greens would take the goverment to task over the complete destruction of the eco-systemes by the aggregate dredging industry, but they dont.

 

The goverment signed the 1992 Earth Summit aggrement with regard to the protection of bio and geo diversity, to date the goverment have not made any meaningful effort to mitigate the distructive efferts of the aggregate dredging industry. I wonder why, I can think of £100,000,000 per year worth of reasoning.

 

I believe anglers and commercial fishermen should send the goverment a clear message of A VOTE OF NO CONFIDENTS in their ability to implement the marine bill fairly and without bias allowing for the goverments compromised position

 

I also believe anglers and commercials will come out worst under the marine bill as it takes away the present law of the publics right to fish, the marine bill supercedes current law and Defra will be able to do whatever they like under the marine bill once it formally passes through Parliment

 

Be prepared for the worst, the motivation behind it has already been predetermined

 

regards steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest challenge
Hi Barry

 

Yes I did draft this myself, I sent Defra something similar and they got most indignant about it.

 

I firmly believe the goverments position is compromised between their financial interest in the aggregate dredging industry and their introduction of the marine bill, you would think that the greens would take the goverment to task over the complete destruction of the eco-systemes by the aggregate dredging industry, but they dont.

 

The goverment signed the 1992 Earth Summit aggrement with regard to the protection of bio and geo diversity, to date the goverment have not made any meaningful effort to mitigate the distructive efferts of the aggregate dredging industry. I wonder why, I can think of £100,000,000 per year worth of reasoning.

 

I believe anglers and commercial fishermen should send the goverment a clear message of A VOTE OF NO CONFIDENTS in their ability to implement the marine bill fairly and without bias allowing for the goverments compromised position

 

I also believe anglers and commercials will come out worst under the marine bill as it takes away the present law of the publics right to fish, the marine bill supercedes current law and Defra will be able to do whatever they like under the marine bill once it formally passes through Parliment

 

Be prepared for the worst, the motivation behind it has already been predetermined

 

regards steve

Hi Steve.

I totally agree with you on your stance on “aggregate dredging”, it a subject that I don’t know a lot about but have been looking up quite a bit about it ever since I started to read some of your posts on the subject.

you say “I also believe anglers and commercials will come out worst under the marine bill as it takes away the present law of the publics right to fish, the marine bill supersedes current law and Defra will be able to do whatever they like under the marine bill once it formally passes through Parliament”

what law would that be, that gives the public the right to fish? And how are they going to take this law away?

You also say that “defra will be able to do what they like when the marine bill passes through parliament”?

I don’t believe that you can put something through parliament and get cross party agreement to it and then just add or take away what ever you want under the disguise of the said naming of the bill. We have all seen the problems that the government has had with terrorist laws and the new terrorist bill on what they can do and cannot do. Any changes to a bill have to go through parliament weather it be the marine bill or national security Steve.

Regards and all the best John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t believe that you can put something through parliament and get cross party agreement to it and then just add or take away what ever you want under the disguise of the said naming of the bill. We have all seen the problems that the government has had with terrorist laws and the new terrorist bill on what they can do and cannot do. Any changes to a bill have to go through parliament weather it be the marine bill or national security Steve.

Regards and all the best John

 

That is the most reassuring and sensible paragraph I've read for a long time. Sometimes it's easy to think that the lunatics really have taken over the asylum, but that isn't the case just yet. They are only trying to take it over. It's a shame that we don't have a similar system in place, within RSA, to keep the lunatics at bay.

DRUNK DRIVERS WRECK LIVES.

 

Don't drink and drive.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the most reassuring and sensible paragraph I've read for a long time.

 

It's a shame that we don't have a similar system in place, within RSA, to keep the lunatics at bay.

 

But we have my dear boy, we have.

 

Its called the NFSA, and a bloody good job they are doing as well, keeping the lunatics at bay that is.

 

 

Bd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We and our partners use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences, repeat visits and to show you personalised advertisements. By clicking “I Agree”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit Cookie Settings to provide a controlled consent.