Licenses, Bag Limits, MPAs, SFCs

[Leon Roskilly]

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.

 

 

This is something that we took DEFRA to task over severely on the bass consultation.

 

Of around 500 consultees intially contacted, only around 20 were RSA.

 

We suggested many other RSA organisations that should be contacted, and gave directions about how to find out contact details of many others.

 

It was good to see that they took that on board and made an effort to include many more RSA organisations in later relevant consultations, such as the tope consultation etc.

 

 

We also provided details of many angling publication and website contact details to aid the distribution of DEFRAs 'Fishing Focus' Newsletter, and a greater balance towards articles of relevance to RSA, again that seems to have been taken aboard with the last issue of the newsletter.

[seaside]

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.uk/corporate/consult/...consultlist.htm

 

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

 

Over 150 have 'Angling' in their name so may be taken to be representing RSA in one way or another.

[Jim Roper]

(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!)

 

 

So now we know! Views expressed on this forum are of no consequence and make no difference.

 

If people are concerned that the SACN submission did no represent their views, they could always right in and say so. If the number of such messages were to outnumber the SACN membership that 'might make a difference'.

Edited October 21, 2006 by Jim Roper

[Steve Coppolo]

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

 

 

I believe the answer might lie here.

 

 

(Attachment)

 

NFSA Position on Licensing and Bag Limits.

 

 

Licensing.

 

 

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

 

<snip>

 

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.

 

Is it just a coincidence that some of the items on the NFSA wish list have turned up in the marine bill? Who followed who? The problem is, they, (DEFRA/new labour), aren't taking the wish list seriously. The increased MLS bit has already proved too much for them to cope with. The new inshore fisheries management body will just be the same old sea fisheries committees, but "modernised", (ie, cut back). God help us. There is an angling strategy being worked on, but I'll be too old to go fishing by the time that comes to anything, if it ever does. The other things on the wish list won't come to much either because they probably think that they're doing a great job of satisfying the UK's sea anglers with their half hearted and inefectual measures, and that they've already ticked enough items off the wish list to justify licences and bag limits.

 

In hindsight, the right approach should have been, "Forget bag limits and licences. The sea stocks are in a terrible state and there is no way that sea anglers should pay for years of bad fisheries mangement. Come back and talk to us when you've sorted it out." That won't ever happen though because it wasn't DEFRA who came to RSA with licences and bag limits, it was the other way round.

 

So does RSA keep going down the same track, or does it look at where we are going and adopt a change in tactics? From what I've seen so far they'll just keep beating the dead horse.

[Steve Coppolo]

So now we know! Views expressed on this forum are of no consequence and make no difference.

 

Well spotted!

[Holmesy]

I think it was Steve C who mentioned this shambolic government earlier in this thread. I personally think its the worst possible scenario (for anglers at least) that we get a change of government. If we do, by the time they have come into power, sorted out their own high profile national strategies on taxation (which may include a licence by default), immigration, NHS, crime etc etc it'll be about time for another general election. As we are at the minute, sea angling and fish stocks and all the related issues are at least on the table, it would be so far down any new governments priority list there'd be no time to do anything constructive.

[Ian Burrett]

Well spotted!

 

I can't imagine Ben Bradshaw or Trevor Hutchins from defra are members, so views expressed make no difference whats so ever.

As Leon has said many times If you have a RSA problem then tell defra about it.

[Ryford]

Steve,

 

If I recolect correctly, the 'user pays' idea came out of the IEEP some time before Net Benefits was pubished back in the March of 2004.

 

The idea if a rod license is certainly not new in the UK let alone the world, and its my view that as soon as the politicians twigged how many sea anglers there were, combined with the seed of 'user pays' from the IEEP, that they probably thought of it all on their own.

 

Of course RSA representatives, (and those who end up in informal conversations with NGO representatives) have to respond or at least offer reasons why not as well as offer a hypethetical scenario where a rod license would become acceptable to ordinary sea anglers.

 

Leon and the others (including to yourself as an SFC representative) have to make some response when challenged. If the conversation or debate goes further, it should not mean that RSA reps are selling sea angling down the river.

 

Energies should IMHO be targeted at unifying sea angling federations behind one common, easily understood policy that needs neither introduction nor explanation. As I see it right now, the commercial fishing representatives and their apologists (Defra) are the ones pulling all the strings.

 

andyR

[Cranfield]

Steve,

 

 

 

The idea if a rod license is certainly not new in the UK let alone the world, and its my view that as soon as the politicians twigged how many sea anglers there were, combined with the seed of 'user pays' from the IEEP, that they probably thought of it all on their own.

 

 

andyR

 

I think if a rod licence is implemented, the Government may find there are not as many Sea Anglers as they (and the RSA representatives) thought ?

 

My personal view is, that we are likely to be asked to give, long before we will receive (if ever).

The whole thing will be on the basis of promises and "trust us".

Already the Defra "spin" is that the RSA representatives are supporting licences and bag limits, so it won't be Defra's fault when RSA's object.

I think the expression "smoked like a kipper" springs to mind.

[Guest challenge]

I think if a rod licence is implemented, the Government may find there are not as many Sea Anglers as they (and the RSA representatives) thought ?

 

My personal view is, that we are likely to be asked to give, long before we will receive (if ever).

The whole thing will be on the basis of promises and "trust us".

Already the Defra "spin" is that the RSA representatives are supporting licences and bag limits, so it won't be Defra's fault when RSA's object.

I think the expression "smoked like a kipper" springs to mind.

 

well said cranfield.