Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Licenses, Bag Limits, MPAs, SFCs


  • Please log in to reply
114 replies to this topic

#1 Leon Roskilly

Leon Roskilly

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,436 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rainham, Kent
  • Interests:Fishing (Coarse, Sea & Game), Conservation & Cycling

Posted 18 October 2006 - 03:32 PM

All subjects covered in the responses that DEFRA have recieved to the Marine Bill proposals.

See:

http://www.sacn.org...._Published.html

RNLI Shoreline Member

Member of the Angling Trust


#2 Leon Roskilly

Leon Roskilly

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,436 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rainham, Kent
  • Interests:Fishing (Coarse, Sea & Game), Conservation & Cycling

Posted 18 October 2006 - 04:16 PM

The Marine Bill proposals are probably one of the most important consultations undertaken by DEFRA that could affect many sectors that use the marine environment.

Dredging for Aggregates, Port Operations, Wind Farms, the Oil Industry, Angling, yachting and boating, birds, commercial fishing etc.

And big environmental organisations, able to run impressive campaigns.

So, given that the bass mls consultation recieved some 2,800 responses, you would be forgiven for thinking that responses to this would be much higher, several magnitudes so.

Wouldn't you?

A total of 1,233 responses were received.

A number of campaigns run by environmental non-Governmental organisations (NGOs) resulted in the submission of a substantial number (875) of “standard” letters or paragraphs expressing views or support for particular measures the NGOs wanted to see included in the Bill.

The consultation also attracted a large number (358) of ‘non-campaign’ responses from individuals and organisations representing a wide variety of interests.

Table 1 below shows the number of campaign and non-campaign responses received by sector.

It should be noted that responses expressing support for any of the NGO campaigns but also containing additional comments or views have been recorded in the table below as non-campaign responses.


Edited by Leon Roskilly, 18 October 2006 - 04:18 PM.

RNLI Shoreline Member

Member of the Angling Trust


#3 glennk

glennk

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,237 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 October 2006 - 04:35 PM

Recreational Sea Angling (RSA)
General
3.26 This issue received a large number of comments from environmental
NGOs, statutory advisors, government agencies, the commercial
fishing industry and recreational sea angling (RSA) organisations.
3.27 The majority of responses on this issue recognised that the angling
sector should have a role to play in the development of marine and
fisheries policy. Some of these respondents expressed that greater
consideration should be given to the management of stocks for RSA
purposes to reflect the numbers participating in the sport and the value
to the economy generated by RSA. There was also support in the
responses for an angling strategy provided that it’s development was
open and transparent.
3.28 However, not all respondents were convinced that the RSA sector
could make a relevant contribution to the management of most fish
stocks.
3.29 It was further suggested by respondents that if Marine Protected Areas
(MPAs) are introduced to protect commercial fish stocks, they should
also include protection of recreational species and therefore angling as
well as commercial fishing activity should be restricted or prohibited in
such areas. Other respondents however, were clear that MPAs
(whether introduced on their own or through a system of marine spatial
planning) should not ban angling, especially if catch and release
practices were adopted. It was also emphasised that there was a need
to identify areas of particular importance to RSA, for example the 1nm
belt around the coastline.
A chargeable licensing scheme and bag limits
3.30 There was support both from the angling sector and other respondents
for proposals in respect of “bag limits” and a chargeable licensing
scheme for angling. It was noted however, that revenue generated byഊSection 3: Managing Marine Fisheries
any charging scheme must be used for the benefit of the sport and
that before a charge was introduced there should be:
• a similar scheme to charge commercial fishermen;
• bans on destructive fishing practices;
• management measures (such as increased minimum landing
sizes) to re-build fish stocks around the shores for the benefit of
RSA; and
• a greater role for anglers in decision making on fisheries matters.
3.31 Suggestions for how a chargeable licensing scheme might benefit the
sport included:
• general enhancement and development of sea angling including
coaching and events, etc;
• better access to angling sites on the coast;
• the introduction of a Code of Conduct for anglers; and
• better data gathering from the angling sector.
3.32 A suggestion was made that any new chargeable licensing scheme for
recreational sea anglers could be integrated with the current rod
licence operated by the Environment Agency (EA) for freshwater
angling. This might save on administration costs and make it easier for
applicants given that many sea anglers will also hold a rod licence
issued by the EA.
3.33 The following suggestions were made regarding the introduction of
bag limits for anglers:
• bag limits are accompanied by reporting requirements to improve
enforcement;

the criteria for deciding which species should be subject to bag-limits
must be clearly defined based on sound ecological and
management objectives; and
• if licences and bag limits were introduced for anglers, the new
measures must also apply to all non-commercial fishing activities
including spear gunners, those using pots and nets etc.
3.34 However, a number of respondents from the angling sector made clear
their opposition to the establishment of new measures to restrict RSA
for the reasons listed below:
• they considered that angling has a lower impact on fish stocks
compared with other exploiters of the marine environment,
particularly as many anglers adopt a practice of catch and release,
and therefore the proposed restrictions are unjustifiable;
• it was considered that the effectiveness of bag limits would be
difficult to measure due to other pressures on fish stocks;
• that these proposals would unjustifiably interfere with the public
right to fish; and
21ഊ• the practicalities of enforcing and running such schemes was
questioned.



3.30 There was support both from the angling sector and other respondents
for proposals in respect of “bag limits” and a chargeable licensing
scheme for angling


Will those who said this wasnt going to happen now wake up ?

#4 JRT

JRT

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 284 posts

Posted 18 October 2006 - 04:48 PM

Thanks Leon.

2,800 responses to the Bass MLS and they ignored them. Until RSA's stop arguing amnongst themselves and get behind bodies such as BASS and NFSA then we will have stuff imposed on us despite being the majority
:(

Come one people wake up!

JRT

#5 glennk

glennk

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,237 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 October 2006 - 07:07 AM

Whats the next step with this Leon.

Can you give an idea of how this whole things works from start to finish.

#6 Leon Roskilly

Leon Roskilly

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,436 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rainham, Kent
  • Interests:Fishing (Coarse, Sea & Game), Conservation & Cycling

Posted 19 October 2006 - 07:24 AM

Whats the next step with this Leon.

Can you give an idea of how this whole things works from start to finish.



The Marine Bill is merely 'enabling legislation' giving the government the powers to do the things discussed in the consultation.

They hope to be able to present it to parliament next year.

Then there will be a parliamentary debate before the bill is passed to the house of Lords etc, with perhaps amendments being made.

There is a risk that the government will run out of time and that the bill will not be presented to this session of parliament and a general election could mean that all bets are off.

Assuming that the bill is passed, and the Government gains the powers needed, then I would expect them to consult further on the actual proposals before implementation of any measures.

As with any proposals or consultations, the Government is not bound by the responses recieved, they just need to take note.

After that it's all politics.

Restrictions on RSA will be welcomed by the catching sector, and by many of the big environmental NGOs.

If angling organisations are not united in how the issues are to be addressed, or seen to be well supported by their membership and the sea angling community in general, their voice will hardly be heard.

(A major problem with the bass mls consultation was that some angling clubs and federations were actually opposing increases, saying this would restrict anglers, particularly shore anglers, from being able to take any bass home, noting that fish over 36cm were rare (because they are netted at 36cm. The idea was to get them bigger!!). That weakend the arguments of BASS, NFSA, SACN and anglers who supported the measures considerably)

RNLI Shoreline Member

Member of the Angling Trust


#7 Cranfield

Cranfield

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,935 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Romney Marsh
  • Interests:All coarse and sea fishing

Posted 19 October 2006 - 08:26 AM

3.30 There was support both from the angling sector and other respondents
for proposals in respect of “bag limits” and a chargeable licensing
scheme for angling.

Who in the "angling sector" supported bag limits ?
"I gotta go where its warm, I gotta fly to saint somewhere "

#8 Leon Roskilly

Leon Roskilly

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,436 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rainham, Kent
  • Interests:Fishing (Coarse, Sea & Game), Conservation & Cycling

Posted 19 October 2006 - 08:55 AM

Who in the "angling sector" supported bag limits ?


This from the SACN Response:

- Bag Limits

Bag Limits have been introduced as part of a package of fish stock management measures for the benefit of Recreational Sea Anglers elsewhere in the world.

However, given that it is generally acknowledged that anglers have a minimal impact on fish stocks compared with the removal of fish by other exploiters, Angler Bag Limits simply on their own have no benefit, especially when the sole purpose is to make available a larger number of fish to others, or to protect the local markets of others from a perceived threat that some unlicensed rod and line fishermen may be selling their catch.

Bag Limits for a particular species could only be recommended to our members if they were part of a necessary package of conservation measures that would ultimately make more and bigger fish available to anglers, and fully take into account local issues, such as the need to maintain the viability of angling charter fleets etc.,

Bag Limits that are imposed on anglers should also be imposed on other ‘recreational/hobby’ (ie unlicensed) fishermen, using nets, spear guns etc

It would be ridiculous if an angler was only allowed to take (say) two bass, and then put out a net to take another 30 on the same tide!


RNLI Shoreline Member

Member of the Angling Trust


#9 glennk

glennk

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,237 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 October 2006 - 04:31 PM

(A major problem with the bass mls consultation was that some angling clubs and federations were actually opposing increases, saying this would restrict anglers, particularly shore anglers, from being able to take any bass home, noting that fish over 36cm were rare (because they are netted at 36cm. The idea was to get them bigger!!). That weakend the arguments of BASS, NFSA, SACN and anglers who supported the measures considerably)


I guess this just shows that you will never be able to represent every sea angler Leon. You really only represent those who joined The SACN (not sure how many that is?) and even then some of those may not always agree with the party line. I know you arent suggesting everyone should have the same beliefs but you cant blaim people for having their own point of view and expressing it.

Lets take the bag limit thing for example. There are many behind this proposal, but in my neck of the woods just as many against (at least on the cod front). You would be asking too much for us all to agree, it just will never happen.

A nice response to the Marine Bill from SACN though Leon. Nice to see you mentioned local issues with regard to charter boats. Better than I thought it would have been. I was getting a little paranoid that SACN were all for bag limits and to hell with everyone else. I was clearly wrong and do apologise.

#10 The doctor

The doctor

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 195 posts

Posted 19 October 2006 - 04:54 PM

Lets take the bag limit thing for example. There are many behind this proposal, but in my neck of the woods just as many against (at least on the cod front). You would be asking too much for us all to agree, it just will never happen.


And what about our own response Glenn (from Yalasa);

We note with significant concern that the proposed bill indicates that it may be prudent to initiate, via licensing and bag limits, powers to regulate RSA activity. We question the rationale behind such a move, and note the subtle change from the ‘Drew and Bradley reports’ where much of the discussion was of how to develop and enhance RSA activity, to the present climate of managing RSA activity. We cannot support any legislation that restricts our natural freedom and right to fish, on the basis that such regulation would be of benefit to the marine environment as a whole. The association considers that sea anglers are becoming increasingly more environmentally aware, have great consideration for the marine environment, and have a negligible impact on both habitat and resources. We see no justification for taxing those who have not contributed directly to the present poor state of many marine biological resources. Notwithstanding this, if finances were to be used solely to enhance RSA within the regions (not simply for enforcement of users) and that prior to implementation measures were put in place to enhance and develop sea angling and the resources it requires to be a successful activity, then we can envisage a time when such a scheme may be acceptable, however, until such time YALASA vehemently opposes the introduction of rod licences and or broadscale bag limits.


Bet you a pound to a penny a certain person will be jumping up and down accusing us of selling anglers down the river!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

cheers


Doc.