Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Removal of worms, crabs and Small fish for bait to be banned?


  • Please log in to reply
172 replies to this topic

#21 Steve Coppolo

Steve Coppolo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,110 posts

Posted 09 November 2006 - 02:23 PM

If its thrown out, anglers will question your motives, impartiality, impacts to the commercial sector etc.,


Nonsense! Anyone with even half a clue can work out that sea anglers will be against this proposal. Since when did sea anglers put the impact on the commercial sector before their need for fresh bait? If it's thrown out, who on earth from RSA do you really believe will question it?

if its carried they simply call for your head,


Maybe, but that's what you have to expect when you put yourself up for this sort of thing.

Edited by Steve Coppolo, 09 November 2006 - 02:23 PM.

DRUNK DRIVERS WRECK LIVES.

Don't drink and drive.

#22 The doctor

The doctor

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 195 posts

Posted 09 November 2006 - 02:31 PM

Nonsense! Anyone with even half a clue can work out that sea anglers will be against this proposal. Since when did sea anglers put the impact on the commercial sector before their need for fresh bait? If it's thrown out, who on earth from RSA do you really believe will question it?



A call for not using fish, that are under MLS, for bait seems a logical reaction to anglers stirring up commercial fishermen and trying to cut their income!

you should have read the preceding post Steve

Maybe, but that's what you have to expect when you put yourself up for this sort of thing.

Is that why you aren't involved at a national level now Steve, or do you just fundamentally disagree with Tom and Leon on principal?

#23 Ian Burrett

Ian Burrett

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,679 posts

Posted 09 November 2006 - 04:09 PM

Ian,

Your silly comments do little to patch up a rift which is fast growing between anglers and reps. I see what is happening here with the fishing reps. Communicating by pm then posting and supporting each other to prove your incredible worth to us lesser mortals is a tad transparent. If I agree with your policies I will let you know I like all other anglers have the right to disagree with you and other reps and make that publically known too, whilst you continue with this line of sillyness I dont see relations improving. I thought you were a little more diplomatic than that. Lets hope you dont try the same line with your next meetings with the scottish Mps .


Glen

You are totally wrong

I have certainly not had any correspondence with Nigel or Leon on this.

You made a statement about not backing tope conservation measures. What the xxxx has the tope done to you. The Defra tope consultaion is about survival of a species. It was brought about by Defra consulting with the WWF and Sharktrust; this has been stated many times. Our job was to try and make sure anglers could still fish for them and we won't know the answer to that for a while yet. You witnessed first hand the birth of SOS just 18 months ago, so know we couldn't have been involved with the Defra stance on Licenses and bag limits.


If you actually took off your blinkers you would see that no one has asked for baglimits for Cod. I believe all species and regions should and must be taken on merit. If the stocks are healthy and fished in a sustainable way, then there is nothing wrong with RSA harvesting the sea. Ask any of the so called unelected if they have ever seen written or asked for baglimits on Cod. The trouble is if you don;t get the answer you want you will accuse them of lying which really gets me peed off.

I voted on your Cod Poll because i believe RSA should stick together and fight the coming problems as one voice. I could honestly say I wouldn't care personally if I never saw a Cod again in my life but I would happily spend an hour writing to Defra defending your rights, to catch and keep a few.

On a personal level I do agree with bag limits on endangered species as I can't expect the commercials to stop fishing for a species on conservation grounds and allow RSA to kill them. The term quid quo pro springs to mind.
www.ssacn.org

www.tagsharks.com

www.onyermarks.co.uk

#24 Steve Coppolo

Steve Coppolo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,110 posts

Posted 09 November 2006 - 04:11 PM

you should have read the preceding post Steve

I did, and I understood it. Did you?

Is that why you aren't involved at a national level now Steve, or do you just fundamentally disagree with Tom and Leon on principal?


I never was involved at national level Nigel, I thought you knew that. I don't understand the second part of the question, could you enlighten me please?
DRUNK DRIVERS WRECK LIVES.

Don't drink and drive.

#25 Guest_challenge_*

Guest_challenge_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 November 2006 - 04:15 PM

I wonder if he is still well respected after this one. And I wonder for how long he is still a member of the committee (which depends on who and how he can be thrown out). Calling on ethics in this dispute does himself, commercial fishing, fishfarming and angling no favours.

Maybe he wants to live one day at a time emphasizing ethics rather than rules?
Anyway is he not a member of the ethics committee? Or are you suggesting that he is weakening the ethics process? :lol:

#26 stavey

stavey

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,770 posts
  • Interests:sea angling

Posted 09 November 2006 - 04:21 PM

Bl**dy hell what will there next move be i wonder? banning all rod and line angling???????
I Fish For Sport Not Me Belly

#27 ColinW

ColinW

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,417 posts

Posted 09 November 2006 - 04:22 PM

Surely the sensible response would be to agree to the measure regarding undersized fish, pointing out that anglers self-impose size limits on themselves which are larger than those accepted by commercial fishermen and that we are not the ones killing thousands of tons of immature fish each year. I have never used an undersized fish as livebait, how many have? A legal mackerel can be unbelievably small!
Then, having got the high ground, you can make him look the complete anti-angling prat that he is for the ridiculous suggestions about worms and crustacea.
If you can establish his anti-angling credentials then I think you have good grounds for proposing that he is in future banned from voting on any issue that might affect angling.

Edited by ColinW, 09 November 2006 - 04:23 PM.


#28 Scotty T

Scotty T

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,064 posts
  • Location:Poole , Dorset
  • Interests:Sea Angling boat and shore

Posted 09 November 2006 - 04:26 PM

Bl**dy hell what will there next move be i wonder? banning all rod and line angling???????


Nahhh, expect they'll just ban hook's, so don't panic!!!!

Scott
No Luck This Time..............Roll On Next Time

#29 Steve Coppolo

Steve Coppolo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,110 posts

Posted 09 November 2006 - 04:28 PM

How about putting the contact details for the K&ESFC on here so people can write to Joss Wiggins?
DRUNK DRIVERS WRECK LIVES.

Don't drink and drive.

#30 Steve Coppolo

Steve Coppolo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,110 posts

Posted 09 November 2006 - 05:05 PM

I think he would like just that. Maybe better to inform his commercial friends about his doings (this said in the hope that these guys do have the brain to grasp his wrong doings - but have they? :blink: )


Mr Wiggins is the chief fisheries officer. Any letters of objection to the proposal must go to him in order to be included in the agenda notes for the meeting on the 20th.
DRUNK DRIVERS WRECK LIVES.

Don't drink and drive.