AN ADVERT IN A NATIONAL NEWSPAPER TO LET ANGLERS KNOW WHATS GOING ON BEHIND THE SCENCES

[Leon Roskilly]

So are you saying it is safe to say that the golden mile will get to the public consultation process? or that you need more direct reponses from the rsa to do so?

 

No, nothing in the current draft is guaranteed to make it to the final document.

 

Comments on the current draft have been requested from the participating organisations, and will be fed back to the IWG and DEFRA, and hopefully a final draft will be distributed more widely in early February.

 

Whatever anglers can do to build sentiment in the meantime will help.

[Jaffa]

It makes plenty of sense to me and it will to a lot down here in sussex! and it will bring a lot more rsa's back to the hobby more than anything i can think of in fact jaffa, now where are you located so i can judge if i feel it will mean the same to you and other rsa's in your area?

 

Then go attack your local SFC . I live on the east coast of scotland,where there is a huge commercial fleet and no angler/commercial aggro that i am aware of. I can see problems coming if the crap like the BMP and this golden mile continue to get spun as representing "anglers".

 

It does not represent my views.

[stavey]

Then go attack your local SFC . I live on the east coast of scotland,where there is a huge commercial fleet and no angler/commercial aggro that i am aware of. I can see problems coming if the crap like the BMP and this golden mile continue to get spun as representing "anglers".

 

It does not represent my views.

 

 

Oh right i can see where you are coming from now perhaps peterhead? that would explain a lot jaffa this golden mile thing is only being put forward i believe for england so realy does not concern you or your fellow rsa's now does it? as for attacking my local sfc' they will know what i think about how they go about things by just monotoring this forum as we all know they do, as a council tax payer of one of the highest in this country and their wages i feel duty bound to, see ya..........

[stavey]

No, nothing in the current draft is guaranteed to make it to the final document.

 

Comments on the current draft have been requested from the participating organisations, and will be fed back to the IWG and DEFRA, and hopefully a final draft will be distributed more widely in early February.

 

Whatever anglers can do to build sentiment in the meantime will help.

 

Ok gotcha thanks leon, i will have a few words

[Ken Davison South Wales]

A very interesting thread and so little understanding of what is actually going on.

 

Glenn you keep stating that Leon is avoiding the issues and failing to give straight answers but if you read his post quietly instead of firing from the hip you will see that currently everything is just a meld of ideas, nothing is cast in slabs of stone.

 

I get and answer several emails per week from various bodies because I took the time to log on and request them, rather than rely on someone else to do the job for me.

 

I often think I am p*ssing up against a brick wall with my efforts and the reason for that is a lack of interest by the vast majority of RSAs.

 

If your locals have such strong opinions on certain issues it is up to them to make their voices heard, not me, not Leon, not the NFSA, not SACN.

 

You seem to think that those that do participate from the RSA side are your enemies and you seem to totally miss the point that those RSAs which do attend are vastly out numbered on every committee or meeting.

 

How many of those two million RSAs have bothered to get up of their a**es and do something to put over their view to those who count, I suspect those who do are vastly outnumbered by those who only start to through bricks when it is to late.

 

Not all of them have the sort of access we enjoy, but there is nothing to stop them making their feelings felt at a local level via local councillors and MP surgeries or ensuring that their local club actually knows their feelings and that they are doing something about it.

 

Bottom line mate, look at turnout for general elections which is an issue of importance to every person of voting age.

 

My advice to everyone is stop moaning at those who take the time and put in the effort and start using that energy in a positive way.

 

I might not agree with your views on all points but then I and others who do try to make a difference are not the ones who are making the final decisions.

 

Cards on the table, as a NFSA and SACN member I support the Golden Mile as I can see benefits in my local area and of the south coast, that is my personal view.

 

If that was put in place I would support bag limits and a licence again my own personal view.

 

Without the Golden Mile I would oppose the bag limits and licence.

 

I think we should all remember this is not just about bass or cod it is about all species and our right to be able to catch them.

[glennk]

If your locals have such strong opinions on certain issues it is up to them to make their voices heard, not me, not Leon, not the NFSA, not SACN.

 

So what exactly is Leon doing then ? Whats his role here ? We want to get our voices into these meetings - from what I've been told it's a closed shop. Weve got the head of the nfsa claiming he knows what every angler in the country wants and then weve got Leon who wont declare nothing at all, just dodges the issue by talking about sex.

 

It would be a start if we even knew when these meetings are and what the agenda's - not learn about them afterwards.

 

Ken there is one point here. The people I know are not going to DEFRA saying we want bag limits, licences, no take zones, golden miles and whatever else. Some of the angling reps are - and they are doing it in our name. Now you may be happy with that. From memory I think you are and that's fine, all I am doing is trying to make sure that message gets through that we are not.

 

You call the anglers strategy a meld of ideas ? have you read it Ken ? This is a meld of ideas that suggests bag limits are to become reality - and soon. Its a meld of ideas where there is talk of raising revenue for the government. Its a meld of ideas where it is claimed that anglers have a large impact on fish stocks.

 

whilst we continue to call it a meld of ideas the process continues. We are a year or more down the line since I started to complain about this. Another 2 years (less for the bag limits) and it will be reality.

 

I would prefer if that meld of ideas said - a large percentage of anglers dont want non of this. We don't want this meld of ideas.

 

At the last meeting only 1 angling rep voiced concern about bag limits and licences - it wasn't Leon. Given his comments about nfsa and there so called research it's quite clear he is backing bag limits and licences but hasnt the balls to admit it.

 

Angling reps need to declare at the next strategy meeting, who they represent. What number that amounts too and what percentage of the national number of anglers that accounts for.

[Leon Roskilly]

At the last meeting only 1 angling rep voiced concern about bag limits and licences - it wasn't Leon. Given his comments about nfsa and there so called research it's quite clear he is backing bag limits and licences but hasnt the balls to admit it.

 

I wasn't at the last IWG meeting Glenn.

 

The only one I attended was as a stand in for someone from BASS who couldn't make it, and was therefore representing the BASS membership at the meeting that I attended, not SACN.

 

At the very first meeting with DEFRA, when the first draft of the RSA Development Strategy was presented to RSA (originally put together by those RSA organisations that attended the meeting, about half of those invited different species clubs/societies, different federations, boatmen's organisations etc), those attending first told DEFRA which organisations they were representing, what the membership was, and other relevant information about the organisations, so that DEFRA had a clear idea of who they were dealing with.

 

At every meeting it is customary to go around the table with each attendee introducing themself, and who they represent and what other relevant interests they have.

 

On the subject of bag limits for bass, I doubt that there is another person in the land who has put in as much effort as I have, supported by colleagues in SACN and from other organisations, to try to halt a proposal where restrictions will be put upon anglers for no overall benefit either for anglers or for the conservation of bass.

 

Letters to Bradshaw and DEFRA.

 

Emails to a number of SFCs

 

Plenty of phone calls

 

Dealing with emails on the subject from many anglers, and proividing the information needed.

 

Supporting other anglers sitting on SFCs grappling with the issue

 

Researching the subject

 

Finding out who is involved, who needs to be influenced, who will be making the decisions.

 

In fact probably many days of effort has gone into questioning the benefit, the justice, the legality of what has been proposed.

 

At the last regular meeting between angling organisations and DEFRA, when the subject of bag limits was bought up in front of Rodney Anderson, I certainly didn't keep quite.

 

If it comes into force, as proposed, it certainly won't be because I've personally not put in the effort to oppose it.

 

 

 

Have you done a fraction of what I have Glenn, to bury these proposals, or at least to ensure that if anything is put in place, it contains some real benefits for anglers in the shape of availability of more and bigger fish available to catch?

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

SACN Letter to ben Bradshaw, originally drafted by me and approved by the SACN Executive Group:

 

We are alarmed to learn that DEFRA, through the Association of Sea Fisheries Committees, are asking Sea Fisheries Committees to consider imposing bag limits on all non-licensed bass fishing.

 

Whilst we appreciate that there may be a perceived enforcement problem in some areas, and that bass caught by unlicensed vessels is finding its way onto a local black-market, we cannot accept that any measures to reduce this enforcement problem are in any way to be regarded as a conservation measure.

 

Bass is currently a non-quota stock, so licensed fishermen are able to remove as much fish as needed to supply market needs (subject to a 5 tonne weekly limit per vessel, which is rarely applicable to catches, particularly the catches of inshore boats).

 

Should the black-market supply of non-farmed bass be reduced or eliminated, the demand will still be there, and will certainly be filled by the licensed catching sector gearing up to supply the gap in market demand. (There is no limit on the number of nets that can be deployed, how often, or how long the nets are left to fish, and no figures available for the number of boats deploying such netting, and the total netting effort - how can anyone talk of ‘management’ of the bass fishery!)

 

In fact bona fide anglers, used to taking what they need for themselves and their families as a long established ancient right, if limited in the fulfilling of that need in future, will perhaps create an ever greater market demand.

 

From a conservation perspective, nothing at all will have been gained, other than to transfer mortality upon bass stocks from unlicensed suppliers to licensed suppliers (not necessarily illegal suppliers either. Both netsmen and ‘commercial’ rod and line fishermen do not need a licence if fish are being taken without the need to use a powered vessel, providing that it is under 10 metres • ie seine-netting or fishing with rod and line from the shore).

 

(It should be noted that we regard anyone who fishes with the intention of selling their catch as fishing for commerce, not recreation, and therefore when using rod and line, a commercial rod and line fisherman rather than a Recreational Sea Angler who will only take fish for their own use and not for sale).

 

Sea Fisheries Committees should only use their powers to conserve local resources in response to local conditions.

 

Clearly, there is no conservation objective attainable by introducing bag limits on non-licensed fishermen on a non-quota stock (unless further measures are also taken to cap licensed fishing).

 

And because the suggestion is coming from DEFRA, clearly this is not in response to local conditions or needs.

 

The imposition of bag limits on their own would only serve to protect the market and the market price of licensed fishermen, and as they would apply to bona fide Recreational Sea Anglers who do not sell their catch, and who would not benefit in any way from such a measure, they would be of a highly discriminatory nature, and probably illegal.

 

We would suggest that a much more equitable way of dealing with any black-market in bass, and at the same time providing a genuine conservation tool that could be used to cap commercial effort if needed, would be the introduction of carcass-tagging for bass, as described in the Bass Anglers’ Sportfishing Societies Bass Management Plan (see http://ukbass.com/bassmanagementplan/bmp/index.html ). Putting the risk onto the buyers, and therefore taking away the market, is a much more effective way of attaining compliance than difficult and costly attempts at enforcement on suppliers.

 

Perhaps more rigorous enforcement of existing legislation such as prosecuting the illegal sale of bass caught from unlicensed powered vessels, and of the new Buyers and Sellers Legislation would obviate the need for any further measures (if they are difficult to enforce, the enforcement of unpopular bag limits is likely to be a nightmare!)

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My personal comments on the SACN article at: http://www.sacn.org.uk/Conservation-and-Po...or_Anglers.html

 

The fact is that, for species where their is no quota, black fish landings are not a problem for RSA. Whether the market is being supplied legally or illegally makes no difference to the amount of non-quota fish that the market is taking.

 

It merely means that bona fide licensed fishermen have a greater problem selling into an already well supplied market, and get a lower price for their product.

 

Carwyn Jones seems to think that if the black market for bass is stopped that those fish will not then be taken out of the sea, so regards it as a conservation measure.

 

However the market will still be there.

 

By choking off the black market supply it will merely mean that it will be bona fide licensed fishermen supplying that market with those fish rather than unlicensed commercial fishermen (rod and liners as well as netters).

 

So it's really about protecting the market and market price of licensed fishermen, rather than about conservation.

 

And anglers will not benefit from that.

 

Yet in order to protect that market, the intention is to take away the rights of bona fide Recreational Sea Anglers, because the perception is that will make supply to the black market more easy to enforce.

 

If a cap was to be placed on the effort on bass then perhaps a cap on the Recreational catch would be acceptable.

 

But the current bag limit proposals make no mention of a limit on total effort, licensed fishermen will still be able to put out as much netting as they possibly can, leave it in the water for as long as is practical, fish for as many hours as they can manage.

 

And when the black market is quashed, and the price of fish goes up, there is no way that the supply of fish will fall, rather the licensed catching sector will gear up to take up the slack.

 

And that is why the carcass tagging idea is preferable. It not only makes life difficult for those who supply black fish, but it enables a cap to be placed on total effort, increasing the market price and meaning that bona fide licensed fishermen will actually be able to fish less for the same level of income.

 

Not only protecting the market and price of bona fide licensed fishermen, but delivering conservation benefits as well.

 

And there is no need to place unnecesary restrictions on bone fida Recreational Sea Anglers taking home fish for their own use, and to feed their families, though with a cap on commercial effort perhaps an angling bag limit would be more acceptable and equitable .

 

Win Win Win for everyone, and most importantly for the fish stocks themselves.

 

 

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Information put together by me, following correspondance and input with quite a few others from RSA and sent to a number of SFCs, which is being distributed within the SFC organisations and to the ASFC.

 

 

 

Bag Limits for Bass

 

Proposals for an SFC Byelaw

Some Issues that need to be Considered

 

14 December 2006

 

 

Establishing the need for bag limits

 

DEFRA, in considering the Bass Management Plan (BMP) (http://ukbass.com/bassmanagementplan/bmp/index.html) have, suggested a number of other measures to complement an increase in the mls for bass.

 

Although the Bass Management Plan (BMP) has a greater range of suggested measures, DEFRA have stated that “These may include bag limits for recreational sea anglers, near shore netting restrictions, closed areas and/or seasons and further gear restrictions”

(http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/bass-mls/letter.htm).

 

 

 

- Conservation Need

 

The intention of introducing bag limits in the BMP was to develop the Recreational Bass Fishery, and to provide a more valuable and robust stock structure for the catching sector, by introducing a complementary package of measures that would ensure more and bigger bass for all stakeholders.

 

Bag limits in particular were envisaged as part of a package that would cap the total catch of bass, the cap would apply to both licensed and unlicensed fishermen and to Recreational Sea Anglers.

 

Bag limits introduced as a standalone measure, with no cap on the total catch, will not achieve this, or deliver any net conservation benefit.

 

 

- Reducing ‘Illegal’ Sales

 

In Wales in particular there is a suggestion that a significant proportion of the total catch is comprised of sales of bass made by unlicensed fishermen.

 

In many quarters, the assumption has been made that these are illegal sales.

 

However, although it is illegal to sell fish caught from an unlicensed unregistered powered vessel, or a vessel over 10 metres in length, anyone catching fish from the shore, or from a small unpowered vessel (e.g. oar or sail powered, warped etc), can legally sell any quantity of fish that they catch without the need for quota, or registration under the buyers and sellers legislation etc, whether the catches are made by net or by rod or line.

 

 

 

- The Extent of the ‘Problem’

 

Although in some areas in particular the problem is imagined to be significant, there is little real evidence to support that assertion.

 

 

- Back-Pocket Sales

 

The situation is further complicated by ‘back-pocket’ sales made by licensed fishermen in some areas.

 

These are sales of fish legitimately caught by licensed fishermen, but instead of ‘going through the books’, a much higher profit per fish is attained by selling a few fish for cash ‘at the back-door’, thus avoiding payment of tax etc.

 

By representing themselves as ‘anglers’, questions of the applicability of buyers and sellers legislation can be avoided.

 

Such sales can comprise a fair portion of the perceived problem, yet would not be affected by the imposition of bag limits on unlicensed fishermen.

 

This problem needs to be address in tandem with the issue of unlicensed sales if anything meaningful is to be achieved.

 

 

- Would there be any conservation benefit?

 

Even if the volume of sales by unlicensed is reduced, the market demand still exists.

 

Bass are a non-quota species (though subject to a meaningless 5 tonne per week, or 20 tonne per month, landing limit).

 

Without any meaningful total cap on the total catch, or reduction of market demand, mortality would simply transfer from the unlicensed sector to the licensed sector, without any conservation benefit at all.

 

 

 

 

Why are the SFCs being asked to undertake the imposition of bag limits?

 

 

Upon closer examination, DEFRA have found that they are unable to introduce bag limits by means of a statutory instrument and have requested that the SFCs step in to enable bag limits to be introduced by means of ‘local’ byelaws.

 

 

 

Who Pays the Costs?

 

If such byelaws are introduced, there is likely to be a considerable cost involved, not only in processing the byelaw through the various stages of advertisement, consultation and implementation, but ongoing enforcement and monitoring its effectiveness to ascertain whether or not such enforcement continues to be practicable and worthwhile.

 

If the SFC goes along with DEFRA’s request, it should ensure that ongoing funding is supplied by DEFRA to cover the likely considerable costs of implementation and ongoing enforcement, and to meet the costs of any legal challenges.

 

 

 

Should the SFC be doing this?

 

The strength of SFCs is their suitability to dealing with locally identified issues, to a large extent independent of government.

 

The committee needs to seriously consider the implications of being driven by DEFRA on this, not least the amount of time, effort and resources that will need to be diverted to the introduction and maintenance of a ‘local’ byelaw which has arisen not due to any defined local need, but to support a DEFRA policy.

 

 

 

Legality

 

By imposing what is a restriction on the ancient ‘right to fish’, backed by Magna Carta, and a measure that appears to have no conservation benefit, but is clearly discriminatory, there is every chance that once the byelaw is in place, there will be a robust legal challenge.

 

Although similar byelaws have been introduced regarding the taking of lobsters by unlicensed ‘hobby fishermen’ these have not been subject to legal challenge by the Recreational Sea Angling lobby, which has experience of dealing with proposed bait digging bans on similar grounds in the past.

 

Therefore it is important that expert legal advice is obtained (hopefully at DEFRA’s expense!) before the committee goes too far down this road.

 

 

Impacts

 

Before implementing a bag limit byelaw, the committee needs to fully understand the value of the Recreational Sea Fishery within the district, and how such a measure is likely to impact upon the development of the Recreational Sea Fishery, and on the businesses and dependent livelihoods dependent upon the RSA sector within the district.

 

Also what enforcement of this byelaw on Recreational Sea Anglers will mean to the resourcing of other commitments that require enforcement and the impact on other fisheries of a failure to be able to maintain an adequate level of enforcement across the board.

 

 

Monitoring

 

If the measures are to be worthwhile, they will require enforcement action and a programme of continual monitoring to ensure that they remain effective.

 

Putting a byelaw onto the books that is either ineffective, or cannot be enforced, and is widely acknowledged as such, can only lead to more difficulties with the committee’s ability to manage its responsibilities in the future.

 

The committee needs to be confident that it understands the reasons for introducing the byelaw, the ongoing costs and responsibility for future management and the criteria needed to judge whether it is worthwhile and will continue to be worthwhile.

 

 

Alternatives

 

Representatives of the RSA sector that were contacted appear to hold a common view that the bag limit proposals being suggested are like using a sledge hammer to crack a nut and not addressing the root of the problem of ‘black bass’, which is the catering trade's willingness to buy fish from individuals, and the ‘commercial sector's’ propensity to sell fish at the back door. (The ‘commercial sector’ including anyone selling fish, licensed or not).

 

These activities are ALREADY encompassed by the buyers and sellers SI, albeit in an unsatisfactory manner!

 

If funding is found to progress the bag limit issue it seems that a more efficient use of such funds would be through the introduction of carcass tagging to licensed and registered fishermen.

 

A description of such a scheme is provided within the BASS Management Plan within a more holistic management approach to achieving best value from the resource.

 

In addition, the view has been put forward from some RSA representatives contacted that it may be far easier and more cost effective for SFC officers and other enforcement agency officers to visit restaurants, pubs and fishmongers in order to check freezers and fish slabs (together with checking of carcass tags at point of capture, markets etc) rather than tramping along miles of sea shore in search of anglers who might have caught a bass or two and be well within the proposed bag limit.

 

If additional powers are needed for such an activity then this should be the focus for progression.

 

 

Concerns by the RSA Sector

 

There are currently no effective restraints on the numbers/weight of bass that can be retained by either commercial or recreational users of the public bass resource.

 

In many other parts of the world, bag limits do apply to recreational anglers BUT ONLY as one management measure amongst a suite of measures designed to deliver the 'best value' on a sustainable basis from a public natural resource.

 

Those who are advocating bag limits on recreational anglers in the UK may benefit from taking a closer look at why and how bag limits/slot limits are applied in other countries.

 

Recent MLS changes are to apply to ALL stakeholders, however, the RSA sector would object in principle against the introduction of bag limits on their sector whilst the commercial sector could take whatever they could catch without appropriate limitations, such that the perceived benefits to stock provided through the limitation on anglers could be rapidly absorbed by increasing and uncontrolled commercial effort!

 

It is manifestly unfair that a huge number of bona fide Recreational Sea Anglers, legally taking fish for their own consumption, should be criminalised in an effort to crack down on the activities of a minority of people fishing with the intention of selling fish (not necessarily illegally). Punishing the innocent in a (probably futile) attempt to restrict the activities of the guilty.

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

Before considering imposition of a limit to the 'right to fish', it may well be sensible to quantify in some way the scale of the 'problem', and how much the measures are likely to reduce the 'problem'.

 

So far all we have is anecdotal allegations, confused perhaps by the difficulty to recognise what part of the back door trade comes from:

 

a) Illegal sales - Fish caught using unlicensed powered vessels or vessels over 10 metres.

 

Legal sales of fish caught that can be legally sold by unlicensed fishermen (from the shore etc)

 

c) Back-pocket sales by licensed fishermen or others.

 

Until the scale and circumstances of the problem is properly assessed, and the right measures to address all of the problems identified, there is a risk of sinking into an expensive mire of legally unenforceable measures which will not fully tackle all or any of the perceived problem(s).

 

 

If the intention is to improve the conservation of bass, then a system, such as carcass tagging, which puts a cap on the total catch of bass, is needed to supplement bag limits, along with other conservation measures such as a review and expansion of bass nursery areas, close seasons etc should be introduced at the same time.

 

If the intention is to reduce the sale of back door bass, especially illegal sales, then more rigorous enforcement of existing regulations, and especially those aimed at reducing back pocket sales would seem to be a far more effective solution than introducing additional legislation that is likely to be difficult and expensive to enforce.

 

 

Whereas most anglers would undoubtedly accept a conservation package, including bag-limits that will manifestly lead to an improved Recreational Fishery (as well as delivering long term benefits to the catching sector) bag-limits applied inequitably, for no clear conservation benefit, are likely to be largely ineffective and lead to other problems of enforcement and co-operation by anglers with fishery management objectives.

 

Appendix

 

From document issued to members of the Cornwall Sea Fisheries Committee • 22nd April 1983 following receipt of a letter from the Ministry:

 

Reasonableness

 

Bye-laws which may be regarded as unreasonable are those which inter alia impinge inequitably on the common law rights to take fish from the sea and are partial and unequal in their operation as between different interests.

 

Discrimination

 

Bye-laws which openly discriminate between ‘full-time’, ‘part-time’ and ‘hobby’ fishermen may give rise to considerable difficulties: Minister’s present policy is that the law should not be used merely to exclude a particular category of fishermen from a fishery.

 

 

 

Definitions

 

Hobby Fishing - This term has sometimes been used to cover both unlicensed netting and Recreational Sea Angling, but is more often used to describe unlicensed fishing excluding RSA. The needs, attitudes and circumstances of both these ‘sectors’ are very different and therefore using the term ‘hobby fishing’ to encompass both should be avoided. I.e. instead use ‘hobby fishing and Recreational Sea Angling’ instead.

 

Recreational Sea Angler • Should only be used to describe those who fish purely for recreation and who take fish only for their personal needs. Anyone who fishes with the intention of selling their catch is fishing for commerce, not recreation, and are better described as ‘unlicensed commercial rod and line fishermen’.

[barry luxton]

Hi barry

 

You are jolly lucky to be able to spend £100.00 on your hobby everytime you go, a lot of rsa's could not afford that sort of expenditure including myself, a yearly license fee of say £25.00 a year would be a push and i would have to think about that? and i certainly would not pay it under the present state of the quality of our sport or should i say the lack of it that is for sure, but if there was something defo on the table with substance that i know would improve things like the gm then i would probably think it money well spent and pay it.

 

Barry the state of the shore fishing where i am is so bad now that i consider it a waste of money even for a couple of score of worms mate so i know longer go at all at the moment, and unless things change radically that is the way it will stay, you see i am for change and if that means the 25 quid a year license and putting up with only taking home a couple of bass (which i wont catch now under present conditions anyhow) then so be it, cheers...........

 

Hi Stavey,

I work hard but i play even harder. I am lucky in that i can travell down the south coast for two and a half hours to reach a port that has a massive diversity of fishing all the year round. It does however come at a cost and that is what it is for the day. If it comes to licences and quotas for us rsa,s then i fear that all is lost as there is a massive amount that can be done by the guys who are allready taking our hard earned cash to feather their own pension nests. The mechanics are allready in place, the amount of our money spent by the uk and eu is massive, why can they now not get it right i wonder? Locally we also have problems with the take, at present the winter migration of good cod is happening so what do we see, loads of inshore trawlers having a go at them including boats with funny registrations who we do not see all year so i suppose that when they have cleared this lot out they move on to another area, bless em.

 

Cheers Stavey regards barry

Edited December 27, 2006 by barry luxton

[barry luxton]

I often think I am p*ssing up against a brick wall with my efforts and the reason for that is a lack of interest by the vast majority of RSAs.

 

 

How many of those two million RSAs have bothered to get up of their a**es and do something to put over their view to those who count, I suspect those who do are vastly outnumbered by those who only start to through bricks when it is to late.

Not being funny Ken but i am getting a bit fed up with being classed as an apathetic rsa. It is not only you mate. I consider that the vast majority are very passionate and do care about their sport as i am, at the end of the day however that is what it is, a sport. A lot of the guys i imagine do not have the time or want to get invloved and why should they, it does not need to be pushed down their throats. I would add however that in this age of the internet it is easy for the rsa to make their view known and count.

[stavey]

Hi Stavey,

I work hard but i play even harder. I am lucky in that i can travell down the south coast for two and a half hours to reach a port that has a massive diversity of fishing all the year round. It does however come at a cost and that is what it is for the day. If it comes to licences and quotas for us rsa,s then i fear that all is lost as there is a massive amount that can be done by the guys who are allready taking our hard earned cash to feather their own pension nests. The mechanics are allready in place, the amount of our money spent by the uk and eu is massive, why can they now not get it right i wonder? Locally we also have problems with the take, at present the winter migration of good cod is happening so what do we see, loads of inshore trawlers having a go at them including boats with funny registrations who we do not see all year so i suppose that when they have cleared this lot out they move on to another area, bless em.

 

Cheers Stavey regards barry

 

 

Hi barry

 

I know where you coming from and i agree with you about our money being squandered by those in higher places but i'l tell you what! i will agree to come out of sea angling retirement and take you for a session down on my local beach if you are willing to come down? i dont know if it would cost you the sum of £100 to do such a trip but if it does you could then tell me afterwards whether it was real value for money or not, i am pretty certain that you will be dissapointed with the lack of the quality of sport, but then again i could be wrong? and you might catch a few bass and cod like we always used to????? cheers................