Licenses, Bag Limits, MPAs, SFCs

[Guest challenge]

Perhaps you should form the Anti Representative Seaanglers Institute (LOL), representing sea anglers who either don't want to be represented or take an opposing view to the traditional bodies.

doc

If you want to call us all arse, s for not agreeing with what you say, then fell free doc.

I hope one day you are able to use your democratic rights in voting for your local parliamentary candidate with policy’s that you find agreeable.

Unfortunately for us RSA we have not got that luxury.

If we had I don’t think I would be voting for somebody who has just stated that if they are not in agreement with a self appointed representative who is trying to convince the powers that be something (that we don’t agree with) then we are arses.

I cannot understand why they sent you to the corner doc. I now believe they should of stood you at the front and said “here stands an self appointed leader of RSA who has come to lobby for his views and the views of a small minority of the masses who are RSA.” should we listen to him class?” because if we don’t I have heard from a good source that he will become childish and start calling us names.

How ironic doc that you said” you felt like a schoolboy, and then to prove them right you go and act like one.

You’re a very intelligent man doc, try channelling that intelligence by answering (regardless of provocation) people who do not agree with you in a less childish way.

Regards.

[Steve Coppolo]

It's been suggested that some anglers would rather have no representation. That may be true, maybe some don't want anyone changing the way they have done things for years. I happen to believe that we need some sort of representation, if we want to try to improve our sport that is. I also think that the people who choose to represent us should do just that, represent us and not just go full steam ahead with their own set of objectives hoping that everyone else will approve of them. That is a recipe for disaster. I also think that the representation needs to be open and honest.

 

I have read several times on this thread that licences, bag limits, MPA's, catch and release, etc, were all on the cards anyway and our RSA reps are just trying to get the best deal for us. I don't think that is the case. Maybe that's the position we are in now, fighting to protect our rights, but I don't believe what we are being told about how we got here. I think that the RSA orgs have created a monster that they now have no control over. Licences, bag limits and MPA's have worked in other countries where there are also restrictions on commercial activity. The whole package does benefit the fish stocks. But I think our RSA reps suggesting these restrictions on anglers to government/DEFRA, in the hope that they might be taken a bit more seriously, was a mistake. Maybe they didn't know the true nature of the beast they were dealing with. Again, hindsight is a wonderful thing. Now that the lesson has, (or should have been), learned, isn't it time to change tactics?

 

The Doc mentions all the RSA organisations that government speak to in order to get as wide a variety of views as possible. I find it very worrying when you look at what names crop up on each organisations list of RSA reps. Is that really giving a wide variety of views? Or is it the same set of objectives being pushed by the same people? As someone else said earlier, I have belonged to the NFSA and SACN, and I've never once been asked by them what I, (as a member), think about bag limits, licences, etc. Is that because they weren't interested in what I thought, or because they forgot to ask, or because they had already made their minds up what they wanted?

 

The Doc also mentions negotiating from a position of strength. What is the most powerful bargaining tool we have? Forget the ones we used to have like the right to free fishing, the right to take fish home to eat and the right to fish where we want to, they have already been given away. Think about our most powerful bargaining tool as far as the politician is concerned. It's the angling vote. Yet our RSA reps seem ever so reluctant to use it, or even mention it. I can't understand why. Is it because they fear the politicians will take a dim view of it and give us nothing?

 

HELLO!!!!

Edited October 23, 2006 by Steve Coppolo

[Jim Roper]

I admire your optimism, where the coal miners, steel workers, fishing industry, car manufacturers and all other industries have failed, you believe that sea anglers will win. With 1.45m voters I still don't think we would be able to shift this government, anglers are spread across the country, and to be honest from what I've seen of the tory manifest wrt sea angling, god help us if they get in.

 

Doc.

 

 

On average it usually takes only 70,000 floating voters to change a Government. Have a look at some of the Labour majorities!!!

 

I would have thought 1.45M votes would make a difference, especially taking into account the £63M VAT that sea angling generates.

It only wants 5% of anglers to be put off fishing by a license fee and the exchequer will lose more in VAT takings than the license will generate.

 

I have written to Gordon Brown to tell him so!

Others should do likewise.

[Guest challenge]

It's been suggested that some anglers would rather have no representation. That may be true, maybe some don't want anyone changing the way they have done things for years. I happen to believe that we need some sort of representation, if we want to try to improve our sport that is. I also think that the people who choose to represent us should do just that, represent us and not just go full steam ahead with their own set of objectives hoping that everyone else will approve of them. That is a recipe for disaster. I also think that the representation needs to be open and honest.

 

I have read several times on this thread that licences, bag limits, MPA's, catch and release, etc, were all on the cards anyway and our RSA reps are just trying to get the best deal for us. I don't think that is the case. Maybe that's the position we are in now, fighting to protect our rights, but I don't believe what we are being told about how we got here. I think that the RSA orgs have created a monster that they now have no control over. Licences, bag limits and MPA's have worked in other countries where there are also restrictions on commercial activity. The whole package does benefit the fish stocks. But I think our RSA reps suggesting these restrictions on anglers to government/DEFRA, in the hope that they might be taken a bit more seriously, was a mistake. Maybe they didn't know the true nature of the beast they were dealing with. Again, hindsight is a wonderful thing. Now that the lesson has, (or should have been), learned, isn't it time to change tactics?

 

The Doc mentions all the RSA organisations that government speak to in order to get as wide a variety of views as possible. I find it very worrying when you look at what names crop up on each organisations list of RSA reps. Is that really giving a wide variety of views? Or is it the same set of objectives being pushed by the same people? As someone else said earlier, I have belonged to the NFSA and SACN, and I've never once been asked by them what I, (as a member), think about bag limits, licences, etc. Is that because they weren't interested in what I thought, or because they forgot to ask, or because they had already made their minds up what they wanted?

 

The Doc also mentions negotiating from a position of strength. What is the most powerful bargaining tool we have? Forget the ones we used to have like the right to free fishing, the right to take fish home to eat and the right to fish where we want to, they have already been given away. Think about our most powerful bargaining tool as far as the politician is concerned. It's the angling vote. Yet our RSA reps seem ever so reluctant to use it, or even mention it. I can't understand why. Is it because they fear the politicians will take a dim view of it and give us nothing?

 

HELLO!!!!

Again another great post (in my eyes) on a most important subject.

[big_cod]

On average it usually takes only 70,000 floating voters to change a Government. Have a look at some of the Labour majorities!!!

 

I would have thought 1.45M votes would make a difference, especially taking into account the £63M VAT that sea angling generates.

It only wants 5% of anglers to be put off fishing by a license fee and the exchequer will lose more in VAT takings than the license will generate.

 

I have written to Gordon Brown to tell him so!

Others should do likewise.

 

Good point jim with the tax thing its got to be counter productive many thousands of anglers who go fishing once a year on charterboats etc having to pay an extra £22 to go fishing for the day this is a no, no, all the visitors who buy a cheap rod and then go mackeral fishing with the kids on the peir an extra £22 would probably put them off a massive downturn with vat is on the cards i hope the treasury have done there sums here when grabbing money off joe public they are not usually wrong.

As an association we have already made our feeling clear with an email to gordon brown explaining that up and down the country millions of pounds of vat could be under threat here they read it how they want i know personally we would defernetly lose trade if licences were implermented and we would gain jack **** for the privolidge.

 

I think 95% of anglers would vote no to rod licences and i personally are totally against it but that is my choice but everybody i have mentioned it to say you have got to be joking whose idea is this they cant visualize that you would gain anything by paying for rod licence only create an exta few jobs for the boys.

I

[steve pitts]

Steve

 

I think that you have made some very valid points in your post.

 

My first encounter with fisheries managers was at Whitehall in 2000.

The venue was the 'old' MAFF building - Nobel House.

It's since had a multi- million pound face-lift and you wouldn't recognise the place now. (nice to know where the budget goes isn't it).

 

This was an annual meeting between civil servants and RSA (NFSA, Professional boatman's assoc, Cornish FSA, Bob Cox from the angling press and myself from BASS). We even managed to get someone very minor from Dept of Culture, Media and Sport along (it was news to her that angling was a sport)

 

We had 3 hours to discuss various topics, but firmly on MAFF's agenda was the topic of bag limits and licences. When I say it was on their agenda - it was on the formal, written agenda of the meeting. I believe that this was the third time this had been muted and no progress had been made

 

In a nutshell - RSA refused to even discuss bag limits on the grounds that MAFF were clearly the sponsors of commercial fishing (their words) and that this was an attempt to control sea angling by limiting angler catches, which were seen to be threatening the livelihoods of the commercial sector.

 

From this, I would suggest that licences and bag limits have been on the cards for some 8 years now and without some kind of representation (elected or unelected) to oppose these measures, we may have had them forced upon us a long time ago.

 

WRT a change of direction - some would argue that we have opened a pandora's box of anti-angling legislation, but as someone who has been involved as an elected representive of BASS for 12 years, I can honestly say that it was coming anyway.

 

Yes - we have reacted to change as best we know how and initiated some radical concepts to protect our sport. Those that I have come into contact with are not crusaders, just for the sake of it - they do care about the sport and its continued survival.

 

As you rightly say - time to asses the situation and to listen to those who do wish to be represented.

 

How we collect and assimilate these views, towards a common set of goals, is the difficulty.

 

Cheers

Steve

[glennk]

I think 95% of anglers would vote no to rod licences

 

 

You might well be surprised. Id put it nearer 50 50

Edited October 24, 2006 by glennk

[big_cod]

You might well be surprised. Id put it nearer 50 50

 

Glennk you cant get them greedy barstewards in the angling club to pay £2 for a night match never mind £22.

[Cranfield]

When the document is finalised, the membership will be asked to give their opinion, this will form the basis of how the various bodies proceed, irrespective of how the reps feel, it is the members who will determine whether the recommendations are acceptable or not.

Why is it laughable, if there are those with alternative views then they should make themselves known, beating any group with a big stick that may not share your views is repression, not progression. I would welcome others entering the arena, sea angling is a diverse sport with many diverse views. the problem is that many are asked but very few are prepared to put themselves out, it is afterall easier to sit at a computer and criticise. I think after all the s***e that has been aimed at the present sea angling reps, a small amount of jollity is acceptable, unless of course you happen to believe that some people are of such importance that they can throw it, but not receive it.

 

I will however, take you to task for your generalisations on how I allegedly always show contempt for anyone with alternative views (please show examples to support your accusations).

I have to say that whilst your views are your own, and you are free to make them, the snidey little remarks with which you try to make your point probably show your true colours (you accuse me of risible comments, of disdain, being patronising, subservient and biased all in a few sentences). Yet your whole post is quite obviously a veiled attack on someone who has a different perspective.

If you knew me you would know that I am neither a supporter of the labour party or the Conservatives, or anyone else to that end, I choose not to vote, not because I don't like any particular party, but because my local candidates are not to my liking (my local MP is John Prescott). When I have a local candidate that I feel I would like to vote for I will. I vote for a candidate, not a party, if thats not being apolitical then I don't know what is. You don't know me so I suggest you save your personal attacks for someone you do know if thats what 'turns you on'.

 

I would suggest you find the Tory manidfest yourself.

Doc.

 

 

Firstly, I am not attacking anyone personally, my comments are addressed to all the RSA representatives that post on this Forum.

 

My understanding of negotiations are, that if you are representing a group, prior to the negotiations starting the group is consulted, so that the negotiators can obtain a consensus of views and a mandate.

To my knowledge this has not been done and that causes dissent, charges of individuals having their own agendas and objections to the patronising, "we know whats best for you" attitude.

 

It would be wrong to consider at this late stage, any other players entering the negotiations representing "dissident" RSA's.

Even if it was possible to organise such a thing, sending such a divisive message to Defra would not help RSA's at all.

Even I recognise that.

 

My comments are not "snidey", they expose that there is a different viewpoint and I am not the only one expressing it.

It would be hoped that these views would be taken onboard and considered, not rejected out of hand.

The diplomatic thing to do, is to acknowledge you have heard what has been said and it will be considered.

That almost ends the debate.

Continually responding in the, "if you are not with us, you are against us" style, will only attract more unsupportive responses.

 

I have very little interest in Angling politics and I almost regret ever getting involved in this debate, but others hold similar views and at least I have aired mine.

[steve good]

On average it usually takes only 70,000 floating voters to change a Government. Have a look at some of the Labour majorities!!!

 

I would have thought 1.45M votes would make a difference, especially taking into account the £63M VAT that sea angling generates.

It only wants 5% of anglers to be put off fishing by a license fee and the exchequer will lose more in VAT takings than the license will generate.

 

I have written to Gordon Brown to tell him so!

Others should do likewise.

 

Hi Jim Roper

 

Our parliment is completly meaningless in the overhaul concept of fisheries management, 70,000 floating voters may change a UK goverment, but it will not change the european parliment, that has TOTAL control over fisheries policy and management, the track history of the european parliment, it's management of those fisheries is the reason that most fisheries are now in a state of depletion and your sport has collapsed accordeninglly

 

As you say, you have written to gordon brown, you can all write to him all 1,000,000 of you there is nothing he can do fisheries matters are BEYOND his and the uk goverments control

 

Nothing is going to change via the european parliment regarding their policies and control of OUR fisheries the day is lost except the enevitable

 

Regards steve