Would you consider a sea angling licence now?

[Ken Davison South Wales]

Id just go anyway. How would the cockle pickers deal with this

 

 

Now when your talking cockle pickers that piece of rope would come in DEAD handy if you see what I mean

[steve good]

I don't think anyone is asking you to!

Maybe at some future date there will be a proposal of a package of measures that include a licence, but we'll need to wait until then, and see what it contains, whether any of it will be of any benefit to anglers, before deciding whether to accept or reject it.

 

Until then it's pretty pointless trying todecide whether you are likely to be for or against it.

 

Hi Leon

 

Having read these posts on this subject it is clear to me that anglers want so much for nothing, impression is that you guys are above conservation, your veiw, is that it only applies to commercials, you blame them for all your ills.

 

You say that there is not much fish close to the shore for you to catch. This may be the case, how do we know that all of the milloins off sea anglers have not fished out the stocks of fish that existed close to the shore. After all charter boats are always fishing out wrecks. WHY should anglers not have conservation measures applied to them just like the commercials have. YOU can not point the finger at commercials and expect them not to come back with a counter.

 

You have made my mind up that all angling should be in fairness, be brought in to line with conservation the same as the commercials. Bag limits and licences and fees would help improve your allegded pleasure/sport. Bag limits would create more fish and make the position of illeagal netsmen and shore anglers that sell there catch untenable which will also make more fish. The licence fees would fund the sfc's to enforce the bag limits. After all the presidant is set with fresh water anglers who pay a licence fee for a catch and release situation. You say you are sportsmen then why can you not accept bag limits so as to conserve your supposed sport and for the betterment of it.

 

kind regards

steve

[Ken Davison South Wales]

Hi Leon

 

Having read these posts on this subject it is clear to me that anglers want so much for nothing, impression is that you guys are above conservation, your veiw, is that it only applies to commercials, you blame them for all your ills.

 

You say that there is not much fish close to the shore for you to catch. This may be the case, how do we know that all of the milloins off sea anglers have not fished out the stocks of fish that existed close to the shore. After all charter boats are always fishing out wrecks. WHY should anglers not have conservation measures applied to them just like the commercials have. YOU can not point the finger at commercials and expect them not to come back with a counter.

 

You have made my mind up that all angling should be in fairness, be brought in to line with conservation the same as the commercials. Bag limits and licences and fees would help improve your allegded pleasure/sport. Bag limits would create more fish and make the position of illeagal netsmen and shore anglers that sell there catch untenable which will also make more fish. The licence fees would fund the sfc's to enforce the bag limits. After all the presidant is set with fresh water anglers who pay a licence fee for a catch and release situation. You say you are sportsmen then why can you not accept bag limits so as to conserve your supposed sport and for the betterment of it.

 

kind regards

steve

 

You didn't read my post very well which pointed out that there where other issues to consider apart from how many fish were in the seas.

 

And why do you think commercials have limits placed on them?

 

Could it be something to do with over fishing, destructive methods and a million other reasons?

[Holmesy]

Hi Leon

 

Having read these posts on this subject it is clear to me that anglers want so much for nothing, impression is that you guys are above conservation, your veiw, is that it only applies to commercials, you blame them for all your ills.

 

You say that there is not much fish close to the shore for you to catch. This may be the case, how do we know that all of the milloins off sea anglers have not fished out the stocks of fish that existed close to the shore. After all charter boats are always fishing out wrecks. WHY should anglers not have conservation measures applied to them just like the commercials have. YOU can not point the finger at commercials and expect them not to come back with a counter.

 

You have made my mind up that all angling should be in fairness, be brought in to line with conservation the same as the commercials. Bag limits and licences and fees would help improve your allegded pleasure/sport. Bag limits would create more fish and make the position of illeagal netsmen and shore anglers that sell there catch untenable which will also make more fish. The licence fees would fund the sfc's to enforce the bag limits. After all the presidant is set with fresh water anglers who pay a licence fee for a catch and release situation. You say you are sportsmen then why can you not accept bag limits so as to conserve your supposed sport and for the betterment of it.

 

kind regards

steve

 

I'd be happy to pay for a licence for my "alledged" sport if it was managed like it is for the coarse fisherman, though in "fairness" its much easier to manage them, they have land locked and stocked waterways with no commercial pressure on them. How much do you think a licence will need to cost to provide the same benefits to a sea angler and provide the funds needed to police everything that happens on the sea ? I think they'd be missing the point if it was used to just enforce bag limits. Its been said before, why should a rod and line angler accept a bag limit when commercials don't ? Do you believe that "supposed" sport anglers account for more fish deaths than commercial fishermen ? If its conservation your after, start with the thick end of the wedge, address the issues that make the most difference before you try and tackle those that make hardly any.

[Pugs]

So why have you resurrected the idea here?

 

I raised it, as the response I recieved from DEFRA suggested that a licence is most certainly an option.

 

How many people actually know that????

[Holmesy]

I raised it, as the response I recieved from DEFRA suggested that a licence is most certainly an option.

 

How many people actually know that????

 

I should think all the peopel thats been involved in this sport for the last 20 or 30 years know about the licence, thats about how long its been kicked about for. They would've got it in if they'd tried in the 80's, there was at least a few fish to catch then.

[Steve Coppolo]

After all the presidant is set with fresh water anglers who pay a licence fee for a catch and release situation.

 

Hi Steve

 

The big difference is, course anglers don't have to compete with inshore trawlers and mile upon mile of gill net.

 

I'm happy to pay for my freshwater licence, but I'm buggered if I'd pay for a sea one as things are.

Edited August 28, 2006 by Steve Coppolo

[sam-cox]

And get their rivers and lakes looked after and stocked. As sea anglers who looks after us/ Oh yer Ben Bradshaw has just given us 4cm,,,yip!

[chesters1]

if they enforced bag limits then they would have to have officers to enforce it ,either the licence would be very expensive or it would cost more to enforce than the tax raised ,the dog licence was dropped for that very reason and even when it was in force how many officers checked you had one?.

had lots of dogs but never was asked to see their licences and have only seen EA checking licences twice in 25 years and both licencies involved "captive " licence holders ,how many officers would be needed to check every yard of the coast and every boat every day?

[Leon Roskilly]

how many officers would be needed to check every yard of the coast and every boat every day?

 

 

Don't need to Chesters.

 

All laws are broken by a small proportion of people.

 

The majority comply whether they fear enforcement or not.

 

Catching a small proportion of the small proportion of law breakers and punishing them keeps even more people lawful.

 

 

The Freshwater Licence brings in £12 million, and a little over £2 million is spent on administration and enforcement.

 

Far, far more miles of riverbank than coast (and they have to enforce both sides!), then there's lakes, ponds, gravel pits, canals ........... mostly heavily covered in thick vegetation and anglers wearing camo, in hard to get to places, often fenced off, anglers camping out nights, fishing from boats.....

 

Enforcing the coast would be a doddle compared to that, miles of open beaches, piers etc.

 

 

There may be problems with what any future package that includes a licensing proposal has to offer, but enforcement won't be a major concern.