If you think bag limits are just for Bass...............

[Guest challenge]

The money from Sport England can only be spent on Sport Development, ie youth training and competitions etc, and comes with a lot of strings attached that involves paperwork and standards etc.

 

The money that comes from membership fees mainly goes towards paying administrative staff, membership services, rent etc.

 

That leaves very little over for what most members have said they would like to see the NFSA concentrating upon - conservation!

 

However, a Conservation Fund has been established which is 'ring-fenced', it can only be used for conservation and political work (and it can't draw upon any of the money supplied by Sport England).

 

So donations to the NFSA Conservation Fund, are all used to finance conservation work, and can't be touched, even if the NFSA cannot afford the rent, or to pay the electricity bills.

 

(er, Your reading of the relationship of SACN & NFSA and the ability of SACN to independently represent it's membership and their interests is ... er, faulty)

Yes Leon you might like to think so, but at the end of the day it is the NFSA that the government talk to at national level.

Simply because the NFSA is recognised as the governing body of sea angling.

you (SCAN) might sit at the same table at times Leon, but if the government had to choose come a disagreement between you (SCAN) and NFSA it would go with the NFSA every time. Err…. is that not correct?

[roryh]

I honestly think that there is a lot of 'it wont happen' thinking amongst the minority of sea anglers who even fully understand whats going on, a lot of people are under the mis-aprehention that as fishing from the shore is (at the moment) a crown right that it will remain so. People need to be educated that although it takes an act of parliment to remove this right, DEFRA being a government department, headed by a minister, this is exactly what they are in a position to and business of achieving!

 

Has anyone seen the interview with Ben Bradshaw in TSF? From his own mouth comes the fact that we need more effective lobbying!

[Leon Roskilly]

Yes Leon you might like to think so, but at the end of the day it is the NFSA that the government talk to at national level.

Simply because the NFSA is recognised as the governing body of sea angling.

you (SCAN) might sit at the same table at times Leon, but if the government had to choose come a disagreement between you (SCAN) and NFSA it would go with the NFSA every time. Err…. is that not correct?

 

 

It's never happened .... yet!

 

 

We do talk to the NFSA (in fact there are several members of SACN on the NFSA Conservation Group) and usually come to a consensus view on how best to approach major issues, not on the basis of who is biggest, but who puts forward the most reasoned argument.

 

If you look at many of the responses to consultations put in seperately by SACN and NFSA, to government consultations, it will be apparent that SACN does talk with an independent voice, and is listened to by government, when we put forward arguments that stand up to scrutiny.

 

In some cases where there is limited place at the table for RSA reps, in the past these have been filled by the NFSA and the SACN have been denied a seat.

 

(By the same token we have managed to field representatives for meetings which the NFSA haven't attended and, believe it or not, had to stick up for the catching sector's interests when they haven't fielded anyone either!)

 

However, we have been supplied with material, minutes agendas etc and have been able to submit our own views in writing, and again we can talk to the NFSA outside of the meeting and assist with arguments, research etc.

 

So, things are never as black and white as you might wish them Challenge, and angling unity is alive and well

[Guest challenge]

“Angling unity is alive and well”

 

I know it is Leon; fortunately neither SCAN nor the NFSA represent it.

Regards.

Edited February 10, 2007 by challenge

[steve good]

The Cornish SFC has recently voted to create a local bye law that will restrict anglers to how many bass they can keep, much the same as all the other SFC's around the country have been asked to do by Anthony Hynes of DEFRA. However, if you look at the document prepared by the Cornish SFC for their last meeting, here

you will see that bag limits are only being sought for a single species AT THIS TIME!!! The Cornish SFC already have a local bye law in place that prevents anyone other than a licenced commercial fisherman from taking more than two shellfish, (crabs/Lobsters), per day. They will soon have a bye law in place for bag limits on bass. What will be next?

 

These proposals for bag limits on bass are the thin end of the wedge. I believe that their ultimate goal is to impose bag limits on anglers for ALL species. Whether you fish for bass or not, bag limits will be coming your way soon. it's We need to all fight these mad proposals before too late. These bye laws will be advertised locally once they are written up by the SFC's. Letters of objection need to be sent in, not only to the SFC's but to DEFRA and Ben Bradshaw too via your local MP's. Get your club secretary to write on behalf of all the members.

 

Hi Steve

 

QUOTE/ We need to all fight these mad proposals before too late.

 

Will you not just be fighting for and on behalf of the very people you say have ruined your sport, unlicenced commercials, whatever happened to catch and release, was it just fancy talk?

 

steve

[Leon Roskilly]

Will you not just be fighting for and on behalf of the very people you say have ruined your sport, unlicenced commercials, whatever happened to catch and release, was it just fancy talk?

 

There are better ways to clamp down on a relative few unlicensed sellers of fish than restricting and criminalising hundreds of thousands of Recreational Sea Anglers.

 

(Or would you be prepared to accept an 8pm curfew to cut down on the amount of anti-social behaviour; only one shopper allowed in any shop at any one time as a measure to combat shoplifting, even in Tescos; the banning of private motoring to stop the death and injuries caused by the few who ignore speed laws etc., or any other draconian measures that could be dreamed up to restrict the vast majority because of the actions of a few?)

 

Once the principle is accepted, a 'generous' bag limit of (say) 6 bass per angler per day, could easily become just one; and cod, plaice, mackerel etc could all follow suite.

 

Catch and Release is currently practised by many anglers, but when bag limits are introduced it's likely to become the norm that most anglers feel that they must take full advantage of their right to their bag limit, or lose it. Then when they have 6 bass and catch a bigger one, the smallest is discarded.

 

So the measure is likely to increase overall mortality rather than reduce it.

 

Bag limits should only be applied to anglers as part of a necessary conservation measure that caps the number of fish taken by everyone, and applied proportionately, rather than as a measure that reserves fish for others, protects the back-pocket trade of licensed fishermen, or is simply designed with the idea of making enforcement easier (though where the resources to enforce bag limits on anglers is going to come from heavens knows!)

Edited February 11, 2007 by Leon Roskilly

[barry luxton]

Pay the NFSA? Don’t they already get plenty of money from the tax payer through sport England? A GOVERNMENT body.

That’s why the government will only talk to this body and you lot at SACN have to go hand in hand with what the NFSA say and do regard to RSA issues.

Regards.

 

 

Not quite correct challenge, that money is ring fenced for competions and quite rightly so, its got nothing to do the normal day to day issues that nfsa and sacn and the rsa are trying to address. From what i have seen recently again you are incorrect, sacn do have a dialogue with the goverment through defra. Us lot also have a choice, at the moment, my choice is not to join the nfsa, it is a personal one. Cheers.

[Ian Burrett]

“Angling unity is alive and well”

 

I know it is Leon; fortunately neither SCAN nor the NFSA represent it.

Regards.

 

And I suppose you do Challenge.

 

By your own admission, even your local organisation has banned you from expressing your commercially biased views

[barry luxton]

“Angling unity is alive and well”

 

I know it is Leon; fortunately neither SCAN nor the NFSA represent it.

Regards.

 

Thats a rather crap statement challenge, Both of those orginisations main brief is to try and protect the fish stocks around the uk. That must be good for commercial, rsa and the public.

Edited February 11, 2007 by barry luxton

[Steve Coppolo]

Hi Steve

 

 

Will you not just be fighting for and on behalf of the very people you say have ruined your sport, unlicenced commercials, whatever happened to catch and release, was it just fancy talk?

 

steve

 

Hi Steve

No Steve, you've got it wrong. Anglers aren't the ones who have caused the problems, and therefore they aren't the ones who should be penalised or restricted. It's like saying all drink drivers drive cars, so we'll ban all drivers to solve the problem. Would you be happy with a driving ban because the police couldn't catch the drink drivers?

 

The easiest and best solution is to get rid of all nets from inshore waters.

 

Bag limits for bass won't affect me that much because I don't take that many bass home to eat, I took three or four last year, but it's just plain wrong to penalise innocent people for the actions of others. And to impose restrictions on anglers while commercial fishermen continue to take as many bass as they want is a nonsense, it's dicriminatory and I doubt whether it's legal.