Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Licenses, Bag Limits, MPAs, SFCs


  • Please log in to reply
114 replies to this topic

#21 glennk

glennk

    Member

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

Posted 20 October 2006 - 07:26 AM

But what I'm saying fishings fine is that angling is not one body we are numerous people but lots of us see things very differently - The difference of opinion on catch and release expressed on this forum really does highlight this. Just for sake of debate. If I believe something different to sacn, bass or nfsa does that make me not part of "angling". The likes of these organisations only represent their members (which is only a very slight percentage of the angling population). If bass sacn or whoever was pushing through something I thought to be detrimental to fishing in my area then I would do my best to make my view point known.

Your way of thinking just doesn't sound very democratic to me :)

p.s. I backed stage 1 of BMP - so it wasnt me who complained. I back most if not all of bmp.

Edited by glennk, 20 October 2006 - 07:28 AM.


#22 Steve Coppolo

Steve Coppolo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,110 posts

Posted 20 October 2006 - 08:14 AM

If anglers are not careful when responding to these consultations they are not only heard but taken hostage in that they are seen as being supportive to the consultation process and by and large also to the outcome of it even if this is to the detriment of angling. So all I am saying is if angling wan't to be influential the angling camp should discuss and fight internally before consultations and not via consultations. :)


Very sensible words fishingsfine.
DRUNK DRIVERS WRECK LIVES.

Don't drink and drive.

#23 Steve Coppolo

Steve Coppolo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,110 posts

Posted 20 October 2006 - 08:19 AM

The likes of these organisations only represent their members


Do they????? :blink: I think that has been one of the problems. I don't think they have. I think the same few people have carried forward their own set of objectives, regardless of what the majority of anglers want, their members uncluded. Maybe things will change a bit now, (don't hold your breath though), because they are beginning to realise that they haven't been representing their members, never mind the majority of anglers, and it's coming back to bite them on the arse.
DRUNK DRIVERS WRECK LIVES.

Don't drink and drive.

#24 steve pitts

steve pitts

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 275 posts

Posted 20 October 2006 - 04:40 PM

Do they????? :blink: I think that has been one of the problems. I don't think they have. I think the same few people have carried forward their own set of objectives, regardless of what the majority of anglers want, their members uncluded. Maybe things will change a bit now, (don't hold your breath though), because they are beginning to realise that they haven't been representing their members, never mind the majority of anglers, and it's coming back to bite them on the arse.


Steve - there are very few anglers that even know about the Marine Bill, yet they will suffer under its legal framework, if licences are introduced.

Even fewer will have responded to the consultation, so, arguably, it is down to those orgs mentioned previously to at least attempt to fight RSA's corner, by swinging as widely as possible and hope a few blows land in the right place.

Here is the BASS response to the subject of licencing, which was raised in the Marine Bill consultation - does anyone disagree with the message?

Similarly reference is made in 7.26 to the possible need for powers to charge anglers -
without any explanation of the benefits anglers might receive in return for a charge.

Is it any wonder, that sea anglers are confused?
On the one hand, the Government have regularly declared its view, that sea angling is considered to be a ‘low-impact, highly selective, environmentally-friendly form of fishing’, whilst on the other it proposes regulation and charging, without any clear explanation as to why this is considered necessary, or what improvements in their sport anglers can expect, in return for such constraints and the introduction of licence fees.

This suggests that in practice and despite a stream of recommendations and statements by Government and other authorities to bring recreational fishing into mainstream marine policy, policy is still being driven by other stakeholders.

For example, it is well known that bag limits for anglers are a popular proposal with commercial fishermen, yet recent proposals to improve the quality and quantity of bass stocks, have met with vociferous opposition by the commercial fishing lobby.

If, as appears likely, the outcome of the recent consultation on the bass MLS proves to be yet another appeasement to the commercial sector and the proposals from anglers for a revised MLS of 45cm, on the grounds of improving and restoring the quality and abundance of the stock is not progressed, then sea anglers will perhaps rightly conclude that their requirements are not being met and would justifiably oppose the introduction of a sea angling licence

Our members and sea anglers in general, require more than lip service and vague platitudes, if we are to accept any proposals for bag limits and licencing.

Recreational Sea Anglers would appreciate some statutory measures, aimed at recognising and benefiting sea angling and more importantly, protecting species of vital importance to the RSA sector, consistent with the numerous recommendations and statements, from authoritative bodies e.g. Government’s Strategy Unit to that effect and particularly in the Government’s Charter for Anglers 2005.

Cheers
Steve

#25 Steve Coppolo

Steve Coppolo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,110 posts

Posted 20 October 2006 - 05:21 PM

Steve - there are very few anglers that even know about the Marine Bill, yet they will suffer under its legal framework, if licences are introduced.

Even fewer will have responded to the consultation, so, arguably, it is down to those orgs mentioned previously to at least attempt to fight RSA's corner, by swinging as widely as possible and hope a few blows land in the right place.

Here is the BASS response to the subject of licencing, which was raised in the Marine Bill consultation - does anyone disagree with the message?

Similarly reference is made in 7.26 to the possible need for powers to charge anglers -
without any explanation of the benefits anglers might receive in return for a charge.

Is it any wonder, that sea anglers are confused?
On the one hand, the Government have regularly declared its view, that sea angling is considered to be a ‘low-impact, highly selective, environmentally-friendly form of fishing’, whilst on the other it proposes regulation and charging, without any clear explanation as to why this is considered necessary, or what improvements in their sport anglers can expect, in return for such constraints and the introduction of licence fees.

This suggests that in practice and despite a stream of recommendations and statements by Government and other authorities to bring recreational fishing into mainstream marine policy, policy is still being driven by other stakeholders.

For example, it is well known that bag limits for anglers are a popular proposal with commercial fishermen, yet recent proposals to improve the quality and quantity of bass stocks, have met with vociferous opposition by the commercial fishing lobby.

If, as appears likely, the outcome of the recent consultation on the bass MLS proves to be yet another appeasement to the commercial sector and the proposals from anglers for a revised MLS of 45cm, on the grounds of improving and restoring the quality and abundance of the stock is not progressed, then sea anglers will perhaps rightly conclude that their requirements are not being met and would justifiably oppose the introduction of a sea angling licence

Our members and sea anglers in general, require more than lip service and vague platitudes, if we are to accept any proposals for bag limits and licencing.

Recreational Sea Anglers would appreciate some statutory measures, aimed at recognising and benefiting sea angling and more importantly, protecting species of vital importance to the RSA sector, consistent with the numerous recommendations and statements, from authoritative bodies e.g. Government’s Strategy Unit to that effect and particularly in the Government’s Charter for Anglers 2005.

Cheers
Steve


That is a great response Steve.

I was going to say in my last post that out of all the angling orgs BASS seem, (to me), to be more in touch with grass roots anglers. (The reason I didn't is because I didn't want to attract any more of that old BASS elistist crap from some other posters). I think this is down to the fact that most BASS members are very passionate about their angling and those who represent them wouldn't get away with selling them short or trying to pull the wool over their eyes.

Looking at the YALASA response, I'd say the same thing applies to them and their anglers.
DRUNK DRIVERS WRECK LIVES.

Don't drink and drive.

#26 Cranfield

Cranfield

    Member

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

Posted 20 October 2006 - 07:02 PM

Do they????? :blink: I think that has been one of the problems. I don't think they have. I think the same few people have carried forward their own set of objectives, regardless of what the majority of anglers want, their members uncluded. Maybe things will change a bit now, (don't hold your breath though), because they are beginning to realise that they haven't been representing their members, never mind the majority of anglers, and it's coming back to bite them on the arse.


Words I never thought I would say, "I agree completely with Steve Coppolo". ;)

"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."

So, SACN, BASS and Yalasa didn't support bag limits and licences, so who "representing" the RSA did ?
"I gotta go where its warm, I gotta fly to saint somewhere "

#27 Ken Davison South Wales

Ken Davison South Wales

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,153 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tycroes
  • Interests:sea angling

Posted 20 October 2006 - 07:06 PM

Words I never thought I would say, "I agree completely with Steve Coppolo". ;)

"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."

So, SACN, BASS and Yalasa didn't support bag limits and licences, so who "representing" the RSA did ?


There are plenty of other so called stake holders who would dearly love to misrepresent RSAs :rolleyes:
I fish, I catches a few, I lose a few, BUT I enjoys. Anglers Trust PM



http://www.petalsgardencenter.com

Petals Florist

#28 Leon Roskilly

Leon Roskilly

    Member

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

Posted 20 October 2006 - 07:41 PM

So, SACN, BASS and Yalasa didn't support bag limits and licences, so who "representing" the RSA did ?



You can obtain copies of the responses to public consultations.


The summary document shows a list of organisations and individuals that responded

(Interesting that some that have views important enough to post on the forums are not in the list of those who responded to the consultation where their views may have made asome difference!)


http://www.defra.gov...ses-summary.pdf

"at the end of the consultation period copies of the responses we receive may be made publicly available through the Defra Information Resource Centre, Lower Ground Floor, Ergon House, 17 Smith
Square, London SW1P 3JR."


From the NFSA Response:

Licensing.

The bill proposes to take powers to regulate RSA activity, via possible licensing and bag limits.

Against the background of a fishery management regime that has for years made decisions solely for commercial fishing needs and has overseen drastic declines in fish stock size and numbers, there is strong opposition within the sea angling community to such a move at this time.

Until a regime is in place that will recognise and respond to the needs of RSA and will rebuild the fish stocks around our shores that RSA depends on the NFSA opposes such a proposal.

(A more comprehensive statement on the NFSA position on this is attached.)




(Attachment)

NFSA Position on Licensing and Bag Limits.


Licensing.


As things stand today the NFSA opposes the concept of licensing.

The fishery management regime has for years ignored the existence and needs of the recreational Sea Angling (RSA) Sector, fish stocks have been seriously depleted in size and numbers, primarily by the dramatically increased use of uncontrolled levels gill netting and weak quota management of offshore fisheries.

As major fish stocks have been decimated, the traditional RSA species, which until now have been of little commercial interest, are increasingly under commercial pressure and threat. In this environment, when commercial license are not charged for, it is hard to understand the logic of charging the sea angler for the right to fish.


However, the NFSA is fighting hard for changes to the system which would benefit the RSA sector.

If these change were implemented and the improvements to fishery management processes resulted in increased size and numbers of the species that RSA target the NFSA would support the concept of licensing provided:

1. Substantial amount of the funds generated were ploughed back into the development of the sport, particularly access.

2.Commercial Licenses were also charged for.

For the avoidance of doubt, the changes that the NFSA believes would be necessary to improve the fish stock position are as follows.

- Inshore Fishery management bodies that are tasked to fairly represent all marine stakeholders and users and ensure the best socio-economic of marine resources without damaging the environment.

-Minimum Landing Sizes for all important RSA species above maturity.

-Ban on all use of nets within one mile of shore.

-Management Plans for all important RSA species.

-Controls on the overall level of gill net effort around our shores.


Bag Limits.

The opening paragraph for licensing applies here also.

Until there are controls on commercial activities that are improving stocks, imposing regulations on RSA would be a meaningless exercise.

However, given a situation where adequate controls are being exercised on commercial activity such that stocks are at an adequate level, some form of bag limit control would not be an unreasonable step, providing it recognised local RSA priorities.

Eg, In the South of England Black Bream are important to RSA, in the North East they are not


Edited by Leon Roskilly, 20 October 2006 - 07:45 PM.

RNLI Shoreline Member

Member of the Angling Trust


#29 glennk

glennk

    Member

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

Posted 20 October 2006 - 07:45 PM

Not quite sure what you mean there Ken ? which stake holders misrepresent RSA ?

Cranfield - Recent consultations have gone out to a wider audience - future ones will go out to a wider one still. The list of who gets asked is now quite large. There are many people who might have gone for bag limits. Looking at the views of many anglers here there could be lots of responses in favour of bag limits.

This is the list of consultees for the recent tope one.

http://www.defra.gov...consultlist.htm

A lot of those organisations will have asked lots of other people to reply.

Edited by glennk, 20 October 2006 - 07:46 PM.


#30 glennk

glennk

    Member

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

Posted 20 October 2006 - 07:48 PM

You can obtain copies of the responses to public consultations.
The summary document shows a list of organisations and individuals that responded

(Interesting that some that have views important enough to post on the forums are not in the list of those who responded to the consultation where their views may have made asome difference!)
http://www.defra.gov...ses-summary.pdf

"at the end of the consultation period copies of the responses we receive may be made publicly available through the Defra Information Resource Centre, Lower Ground Floor, Ergon House, 17 Smith
Square, London SW1P 3JR."
From the NFSA Response:



Not all responses are publically available though

Edited by glennk, 20 October 2006 - 07:50 PM.