Licenses, Bag Limits, MPAs, SFCs

[Steve Coppolo]

Energies should IMHO be targeted at unifying sea angling federations behind one common, easily understood policy that needs neither introduction nor explanation.

 

Hi Andy

I agree, but also think that we should make sure we've got it right before charging off on one. I don't believe that the UK's sea anglers should automatically get behind one or two RSA reps, and their particular set of ideals, just because they are the ones in the driving seat at the moment. If things were going our way I would be prepared to let them carry on as they are, but the truth is we are being stuffed. Cranfield sums up the situation very nicely in his last post. It causes me great concern to that ordinary anglers seem to realise what's happening but those that represent us don't.

 

Touching on Ian's point, maybe Bradshaw and Hutchins don't read anglers net, but our RSA reps do. For some of us, these forums are the only place we can actually have our say. If the RSA reps choose to ignore what grass roots anglers are saying, they do so at their own peril. Should the future of our sport really be decided behind closed doors? I don't think so.

[Guest challenge]

Hi Andy

I agree, but also think that we should make sure we've got it right before charging off on one. I don't believe that the UK's sea anglers should automatically get behind one or two RSA reps, and their particular set of ideals, just because they are the ones in the driving seat at the moment. If things were going our way I would be prepared to let them carry on as they are, but the truth is we are being stuffed. Cranfield sums up the situation very nicely in his last post. It causes me great concern to that ordinary anglers seem to realise what's happening but those that represent us don't.

 

Touching on Ian's point, maybe Bradshaw and Hutchins don't read anglers net, but our RSA reps do. For some of us, these forums are the only place we can actually have our say. If the RSA reps choose to ignore what grass roots anglers are saying, they do so at their own peril. Should the future of our sport really be decided behind closed doors? I don't think so.

Well said, Steve.

[Leon Roskilly]

Hi Andy

I agree, but also think that we should make sure we've got it right before charging off on one. I don't believe that the UK's sea anglers should automatically get behind one or two RSA reps, and their particular set of ideals, just because they are the ones in the driving seat at the moment. If things were going our way I would be prepared to let them carry on as they are, but the truth is we are being stuffed. Cranfield sums up the situation very nicely in his last post. It causes me great concern to that ordinary anglers seem to realise what's happening but those that represent us don't.

 

Touching on Ian's point, maybe Bradshaw and Hutchins don't read anglers net, but our RSA reps do. For some of us, these forums are the only place we can actually have our say. If the RSA reps choose to ignore what grass roots anglers are saying, they do so at their own peril. Should the future of our sport really be decided behind closed doors? I don't think so.

 

So take the time to write to your MP, to Ben Bradshaw, your own MEP.

 

Vistit your MP at his surgery.

 

Respond to the consultations.

 

Make sure that your clubs, associations, federations and representative orgainsations are doing the same by attending their meetings, putting yourself forward to take on jobs and responsibilities.

 

 

The ones with the power to make a difference are those who have political power; members of the Government and Opposition; civil servants in charge of fisheries mangement; scientists and fishery managers.

 

Engage with them.

 

When meetings are arranged by DEFRA, to consult on the Marine Bill or whatever, go along.

 

When your local Sea Fisheries Committee meets to decide whether bag limits are going to be imposed on anglers, go along

 

If it's left to just a few people to carry the RSA message to them, that's what they hear and act upon.

 

If they are hearing a different story from many others who can bother to put pen to paper, who are prepared to engage with those with the power to make and implement decisions, who have their own ideas of what should be happening to develop the RSA sector, to protect fish stocks for the benefit of RSA, to deliver the Golden Mile etc etc etc

 

They will perhaps respond differently to the few who are engaging with them now, if they are not carrying the message coming from others who also are prepared to engage with them.

 

 

If you've time to respond on an internet forum (which is the modern equivalent of a pub conversation) you've time to write a letter to someone with real influence.

 

For useful contact details see: http://www.sacn.org.uk/Useful-Information-and-Contacts/

Edited October 21, 2006 by Leon Roskilly

[Holmesy]

So take the time to write to your MP, to Ben Bradshaw, your own MEP.

 

Vistit your MP at his surgery.

 

Respond to the consultations.

 

Make sure that your clubs, associations, federations and representative orgainsations are doing the same by attending their meetings, putting yourself forward to take on jobs and responsibilities.

The ones with the power to make a difference are those who have political power; members of the Government and Opposition; civil servants in charge of fisheries mangement; scientists and fishery managers.

 

Engage with them.

 

When meetings are arranged by DEFRA, to consult on the Marine Bill or whatever, go along.

 

When your local Sea Fisheries Committee meets to decide whether bag limits are going to be imposed on anglers, go along

 

If it's left to just a few people to carry the RSA message to them, that's what they hear and act upon.

 

If they are hearing a different story from many others who can bother to put pen to paper, who are prepared to engage with those with the power to make and implement decisions, who have their own ideas of what should be happening to develop the RSA sector, to protect fish stocks for the benefit of RSA, to deliver the Golden Mile etc etc etc

 

They will perhaps respond differently to the few who are engaging with them now, if they are not carrying the message coming from others who also are prepared to engage with them.

If you've time to respond on an internet forum (which is the modern equivalent of a pub conversation) you've time to write a letter to someone with real influence.

 

For useful contact details see: http://www.sacn.org.uk/Useful-Information-and-Contacts/

 

Fair point well made.

[Steve Coppolo]

So take the time to write to your MP, to Ben Bradshaw, your own MEP.

Done that. Didn't make any difference. In fact I can't remember even getting a reply from them.

Vistit your MP at his surgery.

Didn't do that. What's the point when he won't even respond to a letter?

Respond to the consultations.

Done that. Didn't make any difference.

Make sure that your clubs, associations, federations and representative orgainsations are doing the same by attending their meetings, putting yourself forward to take on jobs and responsibilities.

Done that. Hasn't made any difference.

The ones with the power to make a difference are those who have political power; members of the Government and Opposition; civil servants in charge of fisheries mangement; scientists and fishery managers.

 

Engage with them.

Done that. Hasn't made any difference.

When meetings are arranged by DEFRA, to consult on the Marine Bill or whatever, go along.

Yeah, right. Who gives out the invites?

When your local Sea Fisheries Committee meets to decide whether bag limits are going to be imposed on anglers, go along

Now you're just being silly. You know as well as I do what the score is with SFC's.

 

If it's left to just a few people to carry the RSA message to them, that's what they hear and act upon

If they are hearing a different story from many others who can bother to put pen to paper, who are prepared to engage with those with the power to make and implement decisions, who have their own ideas of what should be happening to develop the RSA sector, to protect fish stocks for the benefit of RSA, to deliver the Golden Mile etc etc etc

 

They will perhaps respond differently to the few who are engaging with them now, if they are not carrying the message coming from others who also are prepared to engage with them.

If you've time to respond on an internet forum (which is the modern equivalent of a pub conversation) you've time to write a letter to someone with real influence.

 

You're dead right. Going to meet these people thinking that you have 100% backing of the UK's sea anglers can make you look foolish when it's pointed out to you that in fact you haven't. Isn't that what happened at the angling summit this year? Did it come as a surprise and catch you on the hop? The chances of the average angler meeting with fisheries managers or ministers are slim to none. That's why we have RSA reps isn't it? (If not, why do we need RSA reps?). As I said before, these forums are probably the best way for the average sea angler to voice his/her opinions. The RSA reps read them. If they choose to ignore them or dismiss them as irrelevant, they must be able to take the inevitable flack when things go wrong.

Edited October 21, 2006 by Steve Coppolo

[Stoaty]

So take the time to write to your MP, to Ben Bradshaw, your own MEP

Don't want to write any letters hate writing letters, can find better things to do.

 

Vistit your MP at his surgery.

 

Done that once, got talked down to like I was some kind of sub species. Not going there again. Except to torch the place. They are all snakes.

 

Respond to the consultations.

Not interested. Can't be bothered. Sooner go fishing.

 

Make sure that your clubs, associations, federations and representative orgainsations are doing the same by attending their meetings, putting yourself forward to take on jobs and responsibilities.

 

Not joining any clubs, like to fish my way, at my time, when I like, how I like and where I like on my own boat. NFSA threw me out many years ago for telling the truth about the commitee.

 

The ones with the power to make a difference are those who have political power; members of the Government and Opposition; civil servants in charge of fisheries mangement; scientists and fishery managers.

 

Engage with them.

Your having a laugh. They are only interested in what it will get THEM. Your better off singing to yourself while chucking a bait off the beach.

 

When meetings are arranged by DEFRA, to consult on the Marine Bill or whatever, go along.

 

I don't want to mix with any bunch of stuffed shirts. I am not going to meddle in things that will affect other anglers. I'd sooner go fishing.

 

When your local Sea Fisheries Committee meets to decide whether bag limits are going to be imposed on anglers, go along

No time. I am usually fishing. How can anyone do all this stuff and still fish?

 

If it's left to just a few people to carry the RSA message to them, that's what they hear and act upon

If they are hearing a different story from many others who can bother to put pen to paper, who are prepared to engage with those with the power to make and implement decisions, who have their own ideas of what should be happening to develop the RSA sector, to protect fish stocks for the benefit of RSA, to deliver the Golden Mile etc etc etc

 

They will perhaps respond differently to the few who are engaging with them now, if they are not carrying the message coming from others who also are prepared to engage with them.

If you've time to respond on an internet forum (which is the modern equivalent of a pub conversation) you've time to write a letter to someone with real influence.

 

The person I have real influence over is me. I'm going fishing. Like 4 million other people I am not interested in this stuff.

[Holmesy]

I'm getting that way a bit Stoaty. I spoke to a work mate today who has been told he's not expected to be here in 6 months time, puts evrything into perspective really. I'll definately be spending less time here its getting me down.

[The doctor]

Done that. Didn't make any difference. In fact I can't remember even getting a reply from them.

 

Didn't do that. What's the point when he won't even respond to a letter?

 

Done that. Didn't make any difference.

 

Done that. Hasn't made any difference.

 

Done that. Hasn't made any difference.

 

Yeah, right. Who gives out the invites? You know, you've had them in the past

 

Now you're just being silly. You know as well as I do what the score is with SFC's.

You're dead right. Going to meet these people thinking that you have 100% backing of the UK's sea anglers can make you look foolish when it's pointed out to you that in fact you haven't. Isn't that what happened at the angling summit this year? Did it come as a surprise and catch you on the hop? The chances of the average angler meeting with fisheries managers or ministers are slim to none. That's why we have RSA reps isn't it? (If not, why do we need RSA reps?). As I said before, these forums are probably the best way for the average sea angler to voice his/her opinions. The RSA reps read them. If they choose to ignore them or dismiss them as irrelevant, they must be able to take the inevitable flack when things go wrong.

 

So in other words its easier to do nothing and sit on an internet forum and beat those with a big stick who are at least prepared to continuously put themselves out.

 

Thats real big of you, and makes me feel pleased to know you are on our side!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Doc.

[mr motorola]

Don't want to write any letters hate writing letters, can find better things to do.

Done that once, got talked down to like I was some kind of sub species. Not going there again. Except to torch the place. They are all snakes.

Not interested. Can't be bothered. Sooner go fishing.

Not joining any clubs, like to fish my way, at my time, when I like, how I like and where I like on my own boat. NFSA threw me out many years ago for telling the truth about the commitee.

Your having a laugh. They are only interested in what it will get THEM. Your better off singing to yourself while chucking a bait off the beach.

I don't want to mix with any bunch of stuffed shirts. I am not going to meddle in things that will affect other anglers. I'd sooner go fishing.

No time. I am usually fishing. How can anyone do all this stuff and still fish?

The person I have real influence over is me. I'm going fishing. Like 4 million other people I am not interested in this stuff.

I have never bothered with all the conservation issues stoaty , but the last line is absolutely BANG ON , you sound like a real die hard angler WELL SAID and I agree entirely with the last line of your post!

Edited October 22, 2006 by mr motorola

[The doctor]

I’m really looking forward to future meetings with DEFRA, of course the Environmental NGO’s (EN, WWF & WLT’s) and commercial sector (NFFO, reps from the SFC’s) will be there, each to support their own uniform ideals and targeted ends, each singing from their respective hymn sheets. I can imagine the questions now;

 

(DEFRA etc.) What is the angling perspective on a sea angling rod license?

 

(Angling Reps) “Well anglers are vehemently opposed to a sea angling rod license, full stop”.

 

(DEFRA etc.) But we’ve had acknowledgement from a number of anglers that they may be willing to pay for a sea angling rod licence

 

(Angling Reps) “Yes but that is a minority position and even that belief is only as long as benefits accrue to the sea angling sector.”

 

(DEFRA etc.) So in other words you can’t make your minds up!!

 

(NGO’s) We believe that a rod license for anglers would be of great benefit to the marine environment, revenue generated could be used to support infrastructure to manage and monitor marine protected areas with anglers getting buy in to the principals of marine conservation.

 

(NFFO etc) We agree, the recreational sector should be licensed, they take many millions of fish each year without having to pay anything towards the management or enforcement of their activities. Commercial fishermen are regulated to the hilt, they have significant costs to pay, not just before they go to sea, but also to enable them to catch a reasonable amount of fish in order to make a living. Anglers are just playing at it, if they can afford to buy fishing gear they can afford to buy a license.

 

Outcome; Implementation of a sea angling rod licence without any benefits accruing to sea anglers and RSA as a whole.

 

Anglers response; Our representatives sold us down the river!!!

 

Part 2

 

(DEFRA etc.) What is the angling perspective on Bag Limits?

 

(Angling Reps) “Well anglers are vehemently opposed to a bag limits, we can see no reason presently to restrict the angling of marine fin fish as its insignificant in comparison to the commercial take”.

 

(DEFRA etc.) But once again, we’ve had acknowledgement from a number of anglers that they may be willing to accept bag limits for sea fish

 

(Angling Reps) “We would accept that bag limits may be applicable if a particular species was under significant threat or in severe decline under threat of collapse, and similar restrictions were placed on the commercial sector.” But as with the issue of sea angling rod licenses, only as long as benefits accrue to the sea angling sector. In addition, those who are in favour of such restrictions are in the minority. Such a move would significantly impact both anglers and the economics of sea angling. We would vehemently oppose a broadscale implementation of bag limits on all species irrespective of status.

 

(DEFRA etc.) So in other words once again you can’t make your minds up!! We have been monitoring sea angling fora, and the general consensus is that marine fish are in significant decline, there are very few fish to catch, and the number of large adult fish are few and far between. What anglers at grass roots are saying is that sea angling experience is poor, but we have to be allowed to continue taking as much as we can as and when we want irrespective of the impact of our activities.

 

(NGO’s) We would welcome bag limits for anglers, especially in marine protected areas. It makes sense to impose restrictions on anglers when there is no information on the level of angler take, this is especially important when there are so many unknowns in general related to fin fish populations. We consider that such a move would be of great benefit to the marine environment, and would propose that bag limits are implemented not just in marine protected areas, but in all sites of scientific interest and with buffer zones around MPA’s to not only encourage enforcement but also to ensure that fin fish have space to migrate out of and into MPA’s. Anglers would benefit in the longer term by having access to larger fish.

 

(NFFO etc) We agree, the recreational sector take of marine fin fish is an unknown metric, and whilst there are significant restrictions on the commercial sector, unknown exploitation levels should be minimised. If there are as has been suggested 1.45 million anglers in England and Wales, if each catches just 1 cod, 1 bass and 5 whiting per year that equates to 1.5m cod, 1.5m bass and 7.5m whiting. Anglers are taking commercial magnitudes of fish without restriction or consideration. Bag limits are the only feasible way ahead and all species should be assigned a daily limit.

 

Outcome; Implementation of a bag limits without any benefits accruing to sea anglers and RSA as a whole.

 

Anglers response; Our representatives sold us down the river!!!

 

And so it goes on, the discussions on this forum have shown that there are many diverse points of view, there are those who have some foresight, there are those who have none, there are those who should know better but play to the audience, and there are those who are prepared to stand up for what they believe. Either way, and what ever your perspective, it’s a fight to the end, there was a time when alliances could have been forged, however, it’s a case now of anglers against the rest. The commercials have drawn a line in the sand, as have the NGO’s, unfortunately anglers are still arguing whether the tide is in, out or too rough to test the water, that indecision will probably cost us dearly.

 

There are anglers who consider their own activities to be outstanding, fish a plentiful, there are those who’s local angling is dire, there are those who live inland and travel to the most prolific areas and as a consequence don’t really see the state of some coastal areas. I think it time that those lucky enough to have decent fishing on their doorsteps to stop deriding those less fortunate and put down their rose tinted glasses for just an evening to appreciate what some anglers are faced with. As fish don’t respect regional boundaries, neither should those who have currently good fishing, anglers are cut from the same cloth, and in the same way that commercial fishermen support others that may be out of area, anglers should for once consider others less fortunate. After all what goes around comes around, your fishing may be excellent at the moment, but who’s to say in a few years that the roles will not be reversed. At this moment in time we need to consolidate, not disintegrate.

 

The extremely vocal anglers who are hypercritical of those that represent them, should take time out to consider, these representatives are unpaid, largely unskilled (in terms of dealing with government) and extremely under funded in comparison to those who sit opposite. These representatives have frequently requested assistance, they’ve asked for better funding, they’ve asked anglers to attend meetings, the response from the angling fraternity has been conspicuous by its absence. There are those on here (not mentioning any names, they know who they are) who have stated that they would attend meetings, would represent RSA, would travel to London to meet with DEFRA and other officials, and……………. always pulled out at the last minute. I find it strange that these people then see fit to beat RSA representatives with a big stick, the words either put up or shut up spring to mind!!!!!!!!!!!

 

The point that the representatives often visit AN and should have a good idea of angling attitudes is well made, in fact the indecision and conflicting views only compound the problem, or are these hypercritical posters suggesting that their own point of view take president. If that was the case no consensus would ever be reached.

 

Well here’s the rub guys. I’d far rather be fishing than sat up at 02:00am in the morning writing responses to DEFRA consultations, SFC proposed byelaws etc. The persistent vitriol from some members of this forum who seem to have a singular belief that they are right and are more than willing to dismiss out of hand any opposing view, has become tiresome. The offer has not changed, if certain people who are sure they can do better would like to step forward, then please do so.