Request that SACN withdraws from the negotiation table wrt RSA Strategy

[clem]

Many thanks for that Leon, but again in your second para the 2027 doc is trying to encompass all to do with the fishing scene, so arn't they just repeating themselves again and again. It appears to be more and more paperwork they are lobbing out to try and beat us all with rules and regs they want to impose on us for what? Not being funny but the way defra are going about this makes them appear that we all need to be controlled by them. The thing is all we are are rsa's but if we don't respond then i feel defra will walk all over us.

For who's benifit i wonder? No wonder you havn't got any time when you have to wade through that lot. Now i realise wot our 100 mill a year is being spent on. Rant over.

 

How can you relax on here ?

Paperwork, paperwork,rules, rules, paperwork,rules, systems , rules and paperwork its what DEFRA are all about just ask any farmer it really is unbelievable they could eat their way through any budget given to them.

Anyway back to the document in question I find it an extremely patronising , long winded and totally unnecessary its obviosly written by folk who have little or no knowlege of sea angling never mind northern sea angling.

Another point on the damage -no decimation economicaly this will cause to our sport if implemented I believe this has already started , I have friends who were going to spend £000s on tackle and one on a new outboard engine but are now adopting a "wait and see " policy.

Finally Thanks to GlennK for sticking with this one and fighting our corner so elequently and doggedly and without which I believe most of this would not have been brought to our attention. I bet 90% of RSAs are still not aware any of this is going on.

[glennk]

I'm pretty certain 90 percent or more in our region know nothing of this and those that do like myself don't really understand it. What I am certain of is anglers from our neck of the woods don't want bag limits and licences full stop. When it dawns on them what has been done and the fact it was a so called angling representative body (one with less than a thousand members) that gave away our fishing in return for a new slipway and a toilet block at the bottom of Gristhorpe cliffs I think they will hold that angling representative body solely responsible for what has been done to them.

 

 

Whoose gonna dig the foundations for our new toilet Leon ?

[JB]

and it is not about regional reps, it is national reps they talk to, 'tis just tha nature of civil servants

“tis just tha nature of civil servants”

 

It is also the nature of civil servants to impose blanket rules on extremely complicated and diverse practices. This is exactly what they did - and are still doing - with commercial fishing.

 

A 2,000 horsepower beam trawler, towing ten tons of chain along the sea bed at 8 knots, is looked at in the same way as a small boat working 400 hooks on a long line. This is one of the many contributory reasons for the monumental lash-up we are all facing today.

 

JB

[nick]

Firstly let me say that all of the comments I make are my own feelings, not anything to do with anyone else.

 

When will you folks wake up and smell the coffee?

 

We - anglers - do not decide whether there will be bag limits and licences or whatever. That is done to us by the powers that be.

 

We can either be involved in the process, or we can not.

 

If we are not then we will get what those involved in the process want us to have.

 

Do you want for example the commercial sector to decide without any opposition what should be done to benefit RSA? I don't.

 

Glenn - re the STRATEGY document, and the section I highlighted.

 

It is just that. A strategy. from the Oxford English Dictionary

a plan of action or policy in business or politics

So no wonder:

However it lacks substance they are just words on paper. No objectives, no committments, no timescales.

 

That is the purpose of this whole document to formulate the Strategy or Policy. The details of how to achieve this will be the next phase, unless I have read the whole thing wrong.

 

As for section 5 it is clear that that is the most difficult part of the whole document. We have got to accept that there is going to be a downside, indeed to be able to properly understand if any measures put in place are working there needs to be some sort of control. I don't want a licence particularly - but provided there is something given back in return I can accept it. Bag limits, yes I have no problem with them at all. Provided they are appropriate. How can we complain long and loud about the damage done to fish stocks by the commercials and then not accept that there may need to be some control on what we ourselves do?

 

Steve, I know that BASS have been around for a long time, and have done tremendous work for bass and RSA in general. I don't know why they are not still active in this. Do you? I would be interested to know.

 

As to becoming an expert overnight, and being around a month ago whilst it was being picked to pieces, I didn't feel the need, I had the opportunity to have my say, and did as I wished. Now we are being asked to get the RSA representatives to walk away from the table and I am giving my views as to why they should not do that.

 

Finally - the thread getting pulled, that was me. I simply asked the mods to look at whether or not the whole text of the document was supposed to be fully in the public domain. My understanding was that it was not. If it is not supposed to be then it does RSA no good whatsoever to publish it openly. It breaches the trust that is important in dealing with official bodies. I did not wish to stifle debate, and was very pleased to see it back here this morning.

 

It really makes me very angry to see Leon (and others) being pilloried for working his butt off for the benefit of all sea anglers. Just because he is working in the real world of real poilitics and has to deal with realities and not fantasy does not make him the enemy. He is doing a bloody hard job, spending a lot of his own time, and I suspect money driving forward the cause of RSA, for the benefit of all.

 

If SACN walk away from the table we will still get a strategy document. It will just not be quite as favourable in outcomes as if we are in their fighting.

 

"tis just tha nature of civil servants"

 

It is also the nature of civil servants to impose blanket rules on extremely complicated and diverse practices. This is exactly what they did - and are still doing - with commercial fishing.

 

A 2,000 horsepower beam trawler, towing ten tons of chain along the sea bed at 8 knots, is looked at in the same way as a small boat working 400 hooks on a long line. This is one of the many contributory reasons for the monumental lash-up we are all facing today.

 

JB

 

Particularly if no-one is in there pointing out the error of there ways and fighting tooth and nail to ensure that another point of view does get heard!

[nick]

I'm pretty certain 90 percent or more in our region know nothing of this and those that do like myself don't really understand it. What I am certain of is anglers from our neck of the woods don't want bag limits and licences full stop. When it dawns on them what has been done and the fact it was a so called angling representative body (one with less than a thousand members) that gave away our fishing in return for a new slipway and a toilet block at the bottom of Gristhorpe cliffs I think they will hold that angling representative body solely responsible for what has been done to them.

 

I'm pretty certain that the figure from your region and elsewhere is probably over 95%

 

And I'm also pretty certain that when they realise that if no angling reps had been involved in this whole process we would have got far less out of it they will still rant and rave for a month or two and then go fishing...

 

IF bag limits and licences are imposed it will not be that SACN has brought them in. It will simply be that they were unable to stop them. But there is a good chance that by being in the process it will be possible for them to be introduced with some sort of sense behind them.

[nick]

As the only bit of real concrete in the document lets take a quick look at section 10.

 

 

what are the outcomes they wish to measure:

Angling participants:

Number

Social structure

 

Number of RSA target species managed:

Stock numbers

Stock size range

 

Angling expenditure and contribution to UK economy

 

Site access

Number accessible

Access improved

Number and location of facilities for anglers

Boat launches

Artificial reefs

Amenities

Information displays

 

Number & location of Angling only areas

 

The items in bold are the actual measurables, i.e. what the strategy is setting out to achieve

 

They will be measured by various means. and with various bodies responsible for the monitoring.

 

Now please tell me what am I missing? What bad bits do you see in there? What should be removed?

 

Do we want less anglers?

Less fish?

Less facilities?

Less accessibility to fishing?

[clem]

As the only bit of real concrete in the document lets take a quick look at section 10.

what are the outcomes they wish to measure:

Angling participants:

Number

Social structure

 

Number of RSA target species managed:

Stock numbers

Stock size range

 

Angling expenditure and contribution to UK economy

 

Site access

Number accessible

Access improved

Number and location of facilities for anglers

Boat launches

Artificial reefs

Amenities

Information displays

 

Number & location of Angling only areas

 

The items in bold are the actual measurables, i.e. what the strategy is setting out to achieve

 

They will be measured by various means. and with various bodies responsible for the monitoring.

 

Now please tell me what am I missing? What bad bits do you see in there? What should be removed?

 

Do we want less anglers?

Less fish?

Less facilities?

Less accessibility to fishing?

Looks glaringly obvious to me impose more rules, regs. then :

There will be less anglers

There will be less fish (the year on year decline due to commercial pressure will continue)

There are little or no facilities now there will be even less when many pack in angling

There will be less accessibility to fishing as charter boats will become un viable for the above reasons.

Am I right or am I right?

[Ian Burrett]

Hi Glen

 

We are fortunate in Scotland as at the moment there is no talk of licenses. SOS, SACN Scotland and the SFSA are lobbying the Scottish exec. to try and get them to be more active in conserving species like tope, common skate, spurdog and rays.

 

To get the exec to listen, we had to promote the value of RSA to Scotland and finally after three years of much letter writing, the exec have commissioned an economic survey. Hopefully they will be more active in promoting and conserving prized RSA stocks after the results.

 

The question I would like you to answer is.

 

If the Scottish exec turn round and say, We will back your calls for an eco based management system on RSA stocks, we will put nursery areas in place for the spurdog, we will ban the killing of tope and skate, but we want to impose a license as a quid pro quo. Have I and others sold Scottish anglers "down the river"?

Edited February 27, 2007 by Ian Burrett

[nick]

now folks, please please please read and understand this.

 

The document under discussion is a STRATEGY document.

 

The strategy quite clearly states that what it sets out to do is make the Recreational Sea Angling experience a better one. (SECTION 2)

 

It the waffles in a vague sort of a way for the next 9 sections about various means of achieving this.

 

Then in SECTION 10 it tells us how it will measure success.

 

Now ask yourselves why does the government want to do this? Is it becuase all of a sudden it has realised what a nice bunch of blokes the RSA types are? Or is it all about money?

 

Take a look at the MEASURABLES. Particularly the third one:

 

Angling expenditure and contribution to UK economy

 

For the government that is the only one that counts. They want more money from RSA. Ain't that a surprise. The government want more money from us. They see I believe that the commercial sector is dying as any sort of economically important business. And they would like to tap into a new source of free funds from fish stocks. And how are they going to achieve the maximum return from RSA?

 

They going to wallop you with a huge licence fee of what £20?

 

So £20 x 2 million sea anglers = wow £40 million pounds.

 

That'll be there big plan then make £40 million a year and give us nowt in return. Job done.

 

OK now read the reports that are referred to in the OPENING paragraph of the strategy document. The Drew report says that we 2 million anglers spent £538 million pounds on sea angling in one year!

 

So 17.5% of that is £94.5 million. Wow that's over twice as much as they will get from a licence fee

 

Now if they could double the number of sea anglers, and maybe even double the number of days that each angler spends fishing per year (and hopefully double the spend) then we would be talking some serious money available to UK plc

 

So lets devise a strategy that delivers benefits to sea anglers, makes it a more attractive sport to more people, makes them want to spend more money doing it right here in England, and what do you know, before very long the government have spent money (our licence money true) on RSA because it can make them as much money per year as a small stealth tax, and all voluntary.

 

Not bad for a days work by the Prime Ministers Strategy unit

 

Come on guys read and understand. They don't care how many cod you catch, if there's enough there you can fill your freezer, just pay them lots of VAT for the pleasure.

[wurzel]

Particularly if no-one is in there pointing out the error of there ways and fighting tooth and nail to ensure that another point of view does get heard!

 

 

 

 

 

Hello Nick

 

Are you really that naive ( I nearly said THICK) to think that commercials have not fought tooth and nail to ensure their point of view gets heard?

 

DEFRA love people like Leon who provide them with loads of work free of charge, Leon does it because he would rather go to a meeting than fishing, nothing what so ever to do with representing millions of anglers who just want to go fishing when they want, where they want ,catching what they want and keeping what they want. whether it's once or twice on the pier on a sunny afternoon with the wife and kids or every weekend on a wind swept headland on a cold winters night.

 

On the bag limit issue I can foresee a time when Big Cod’s anglers will be limited to just 2 cod per day even though they are experiencing the best fishing ever, DEFRA won't be able to increase the limit in tune with the stock because they have swapped a large part of the NE anglers cod allocation for a pile of bass for the anglers in the SE , this is, paid for by you, management DEFRA style it just needs to be scaled down a bit and include all species to fit anglers.

 

You think I'm joking?

 

 

 

 

It's you that needs to wake up and smell the coffee, you need to look hard and deep into the abyss you

and your kind are about to jump into pulling all other anglers with you.