SEA FISHING LICENCE

[steve good]

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

 

Hi challenge/John

 

QUOTE/ what law would that be, that gives the public the right to fish?

 

DESCRIPTION OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT TO FISH

 

The public right to fish was described by Moore and Moore as follows:

 

In tidal waters, estuaries and arms of the sea below the high water mark of ordinary tides situate within the limit of the kingdom . . . the public as subjects of the realm, have the right to fish to the exclusion of the subjects of all foreign powers, except in such parts of those tidal waters as have been legally appropriated as private fisheries.

 

Since the Moores' time, UK territorial waters have expanded from 3 to 12 miles from the coast and the UK has created an exclusive fishing zone extending to 200 miles.

 

In neither case did the legislation set out clearly on what basis British and European fishermen would be operating in these additional waters but in the absence of any specific grant on the subject, it is likely that the public right extended to the 12 and 200 mile limits.

 

It is also likely, after the Factortame case, that the public right has extended to EU citizens.

 

In practice the public right to fish in law means that the entirety of territorial waters and the exclusive fishing zone have a primary use as a fishery using the most intensive methods possible, unless those rights have been specifically excluded.

 

This is in contrast to the European Commission's targets for the Common Fisheries policy of responsible and sustainable fisheries practice.

 

There is no mechanism in the public right to fish for seeding the sea or allowing it to lie fallow in the no take reserves proposed by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.

 

 

CONTEXT

 

Property lawyers would recognise three rights granted by the Crown or UK Government departments to commercial fishermen.

 

These are the public right to fish, some of whose users have a fishing vessel licence (of which there are a restricted number), some of whose users qualify for quota (for specific endangered stock).

 

The structure of rights in fishing can be shown diagrammatically as follows:

 

------------------------------------

 

| |

 

| Quota |

 

| |

 

------------------------------------------------------

 

| |

 

| Fishing Vessel Licence |

 

| |

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

| |

 

| Right to Fish |

 

| |

 

------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------

 

Sea angling and Commercial fishing with a

 

commercial fishing vessel

 

without a licence

 

 

 

 

Quota and vessel licences have been used as tools to restrict fishing effort, either by restricting the number of vessels in the UK fleet or by restricting the catch of species in danger of decline.

 

They also contain contractual restrictions and obligations.

 

Fishing vessel licences only operate in respect of the vessel.

 

It is the public right which permits a fisherman to catch fish.

 

In England and Wales this public right has been managed traditionally by the creation of byelaws from Sea Fisheries Committees and Ministerial Orders from Defra (often implementing EU policy).

 

These consist mainly of limitations on the public right, which are often highly technical and site specific.

 

The result is that some fisheries, such as commercial fishing from boats, are embroiled in a complex web of bureaucracy, while others, such as recreational sea angling or commercial capture of fish without a boat, are barely regulated at all. Quote from SACN

 

The only way the public right to fish can be taken away is by an act of parliment such as byelaw, regulating order or several order which severs the public right to fish.

 

QUOTE / And how are they going to take this law away? The marine bill wont take this law away it will supersede it in a far more positive way than byelaws,regulating and several orders.

 

Under the marine bill it will be possible for defra to make a no take zone from the high tide mark going seaward and make it a angling no take zone, there is no need to licence anglers because they can be controlled using the marine bill and bag limitations.

 

QUOTE / 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.

 

On the face of it the marine bill appears to be the holy grail of law that will readdress all the marine problems that may exist.

 

According to the marine bill and its innovators the greens, our eco-systems and the bio and geo diverisities within our coastal waters will be completely sustainable and the envy of the world. Is it no wonder that there is cross party support for it??? What MP would dare to speak out against it????

 

I believe,allowing for the financial goverment involvment in the aggregate dredging industry and maybe wind farms, the voting power of the greens and the possible power the greens maybe able to exploit from the goverments compromised position in my opinion the marine bill will be a insidious act of law that will have far reaching affects on the publics right to fish wether that be angler or commercial fishermen.

 

I have no faith in the motivation that drives the marine bill or the bodies that will implement it and overseer it I believe that it is not possible to achieve fairly and without bias

 

steve

[Steve Coppolo]

If your giving out teaching and spelling lessons Steve, there's a few on here who are much more in need than me, although that doesn't fit in with your argument, which is not very strong if you have to resort to insults. While your taking your acid tablets you may as well take some chill pills, you'll end up with chronic indegestion taking your self so seriously.

 

If Jaffa is Alex Salmond then that was one hell of a flukey guess, especially as I was not trying to 'out' anyone other than a tongue in cheek comment.

 

Jesus H. the reason no-one comes on the conservation board is because a few of you have your shreddies stuck up where the sun dont shine, lighten up man, go fishing or something!!!!

 

If you had taken time to read my original comment surely it must have struck you that it was tongue in cheek, of course I could have added a couple of smiley's but that would have been too obvious. Chill out Steve your beginning to sound paranoid.

 

There we are one just for you. Just so you know like.

 

Of course, spelling, grammar and punctuation on forums isn't the be all and end all. But when someone leads others to believe that they are an authority on the subject in hand, it helps to get them right. After all, if the said person doesn't, (does not), even have a fair grasp of their own language, which is real basic stuff, why should we believe that they have a grip on anything else? Why should we believe that they are, (they're), qualified to tell us how and when we should fish? I've, (I have), read quite a few of your posts on this forum and you do give the impression that you are involved in the RSA "campaign", for want of a better word, in some shape or form. Making silly mistakes with basic English doesn't, (does not), do your credibility any good, old chap. (Lots of smillies.)

 

As for my argument being weak, I don't, (do not), have an argument. I've, ( I have), been through, and seen through, all the bull**** and now just want to be left alone to fish in peace, without the interference of know nothing busy bodies who are simply not qualified to tell others anything about fishing, let alone where, when and how they should and shouldn't, (should not), go about it. If you don't, (do not), count yourself as one of those that I speak so highly of, then none of this applies to you, anyway. All I endevour to do nowdays is to question everything and expose some of what is going on in the background regarding the future of our sport. This is getting inceasingly difficult as the RSA lobby closes ranks in the face of opposition to their plans. (smiley with a serious face for this paragraph. Possibly a frowney?)

 

It didn't, (did not), occur to me that your original post was made tongue in cheek, probably due to the content of your previous posts on this forum. As for me being paranoid and taking myself too seriously. You're, (you are), having a tin bath, (laugh). (Lots and lots of smilies).

 

P.S. I'll take a chill pill when the RSA lobby take f*** off tablet.

[barry luxton]

As for my argument being weak, I don't, (do not), have an argument. I've, ( I have), been through, and seen through, all the bull**** and now just want to be left alone to fish in peace, without the interference of know nothing busy bodies who are simply not qualified to tell others anything about fishing, let alone where, when and how they should and shouldn't, (should not), go about it. If you don't, (do not), count yourself as one of those that I speak so highly of, then none of this applies to you, anyway. All I endevour to do nowdays is to question everything and expose some of what is going on in the background regarding the future of our sport. This is getting inceasingly difficult as the RSA lobby closes ranks in the face of opposition to their plans. (smiley with a serious face for this paragraph. Possibly a frowney?)

 

Know what you mean. Just revisited the link below and was wondering if these tosse er guys still support item 5 and what evidance did they base this recommendation on. Good for the stock or good for their status quo i wonder.

 

http://www.anglersnet.co.uk/forums/BASS-WINS-t9420.html

[glennk]

Shows it for the ****s it was.

 

What ever happened to the BMP ??

[steve pitts]

Good for the stock or good for their status quo i wonder.

 

Hi Barry

 

The objective was that, as part of a management package for bass, it could be good for the stock.

As part of a package of measures, bag limits for anglers, to which you refer, was one of several proposals and I've underlined the terms for you (from the BMP).

 

Bag Limits For Recreational Sea Anglers

Subject to the other management mechanisms being in place, a daily bag limit for the retention of bass is proposed as a measure to control sea angling fishing mortality and to facilitate enforcement. Useful management information may also result through a managed voluntary catch return system.

 

 

As it happens, the status quo was maintained when Shaw pulled out of the MLS increase.

 

 

 

Cheers

Steve

Edited September 12, 2008 by steve pitts

[Steve Coppolo]

As it happens, the status quo was maintained when Shaw pulled out of the MLS increase.

 

 

Hi Steve

I think it is very important that people stop to think before lumping all the blame on Shaw. Let's not forget that it was Bradshaw who promised the earth, it was Bradshaw who failed to deliver the 45cm and promised the measly 40cm that wasn't going make any difference to anything anyway; and it was Bradshaw who initiated the infamous review of the already abismal decision to raise the MLS from 36 to 40cm. It might have been Shaw who pulled the trigger, but Bradshaw had already loaded the bullets and aimed the gun by then.

 

I sometimes worry that those representing the interests of sea anglers consider their relationship with certain politicians and civil servants more cosy that they actually are. Make no mistake, Bradshaw was no different to Shaw, is no different to Salter, is no different to Benn, is no different to Brown, etc. The latest dose of blind faith is eminating from the apparent support for Trevor Hutchins' replacement at Defra.

 

It's self interest that drives these people, not the desire to do anything good for anyone else. You would think that RSA's chief negotiators would have realised that by now. Unless, that is, some of it has rubbed off on them too?

[steve good]

Commen sense, where is it?

 

B.A.S.S, NFSA and any other angling REPS just keep bashing their heads against a brick wall.

 

The BMP and/or The Marine Billl, looking to the future 2027, ect, ect, blah blah blah, if implemented wont make any difference whatsoever to fish stocks, the goverment and defra know this.

 

Most fish stocks in UK waters (inside the 6 mile) are migratory and therefore spend as much time out of our waters as they do in it. Defra know this or should do.

 

There is an enorous armada of other E U Member states permantlly fishing in the 6 to 12 mile zones around our shores, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 12 months of the year. Some not all of these vessels have GPS tracking fitted. These european fishermen fish our 6 to 12 mile zone because it is the best place to fish, all they are doing is GRINDING AWAY OUR FISH STOCKS Defra should know this

 

To introduce the BMP into just Uk waters is complete lunacy any benifit there maybe will soon be HOOVERED up by the awaiting european shytalks and there aray of enorous trawls, as these fish stocks migrate offshore. Defra should know this

 

Any one with any commen sense would or should know the Bmp should be done only at european level for it to have a half chance of succeeding Defra know this

 

It is clear to me that most of the RSA REPS have no understanding of the commercial side of things.

 

I challenge RSA REPS to what they should have done before submitting the BMP and that is ask Defra for a chart of all the other european member states fishing activities in the UK's 6 to 12 mile zone, then they may realise what I am saying has substance.

 

DEFRA has this information the BlueFinger satellite tracking system (SAFFIRE) it monitors fishing activity in UK waters of all vessels over 15 metres and can track up to a 1000 vessels a day

 

When the BMP was submitted to defra I cannot understand why defra did not discuss these points with the RSA reps or were whey lead up the garden path by defra????????

 

steve

Edited September 12, 2008 by steve good

[barry luxton]

Bradshaw's last year in fishing, he spent £130000 in expenses alone off the tax payer, money well spent?

[thedogs]

Commen sense, where is it?

 

B.A.S.S, NFSA and any other angling REPS just keep bashing their heads against a brick wall.

 

The BMP and/or The Marine Billl, looking to the future 2027, ect, ect, blah blah blah, if implemented wont make any difference whatsoever to fish stocks, the goverment and defra know this.

 

Most fish stocks in UK waters (inside the 6 mile) are migratory and therefore spend as much time out of our waters as they do in it. Defra know this or should do.

 

There is an enorous armada of other E U Member states permantlly fishing in the 6 to 12 mile zones around our shores, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 12 months of the year. Some not all of these vessels have GPS tracking fitted. These european fishermen fish our 6 to 12 mile zone because it is the best place to fish, all they are doing is GRINDING AWAY OUR FISH STOCKS Defra should know this

 

To introduce the BMP into just Uk waters is complete lunacy any benifit there maybe will soon be HOOVERED up by the awaiting european shytalks and there aray of enorous trawls, as these fish stocks migrate offshore. Defra should know this

 

Any one with any commen sense would or should know the Bmp should be done only at european level for it to have a half chance of succeeding Defra know this

 

It is clear to me that most of the RSA REPS have no understanding of the commercial side of things.

 

I challenge RSA REPS to what they should have done before submitting the BMP and that is ask Defra for a chart of all the other european member states fishing activities in the UK's 6 to 12 mile zone, then they may realise what I am saying has substance.

 

DEFRA has this information the BlueFinger satellite tracking system (SAFFIRE) it monitors fishing activity in UK waters of all vessels over 15 metres and can track up to a 1000 vessels a day

 

When the BMP was submitted to defra I cannot understand why defra did not discuss these points with the RSA reps or were whey lead up the garden path by defra????????

 

steve

 

From what I have seen from the ruddy NFSA, SACN and to a certain extent from BASS, sense aint to common!

[Jaffa]

BMP, Shaw, Bradshaw, big bass, small bass, evil or saintly commercials etc etc etc

 

Anyone have any idea what will/could/should happen in 2013 (give or take a year!) when "we" (commercial / rsa/ "hybrid"/fun fisher on summer holiday: ie UK fishers ) have to stand up and scrap for the last of our fishing limits?

 

The "should" camp will no doubt be most vocal, as usual , but its the lack of the "could" and "will" camp atm that worries me.