A Recreational Sea Angling Strategy

[stavey]

Thanks Stavey.

 

There's going to be one whether we like it or not.

 

What I am interested in is what people would like to see. So maybe from what you've written above I could just extract the fact that you believe there may need to be regional variations in the overall strategy.

 

Would you say that was a fair comment?

 

As far as I am aware the benefits are supposed to be derived from the measures put in place to achieve the strategic aims. Hence the suggested structure.

 

Hi nick almost a fair comment, there should be regional differences and maybe these should have been outlined by the rsa reps at the beginning of talks towards a strategy i dont know?

 

I think everyone on this forum a few years ago were delighted that a few individuals ie, the leons/toms/and steve c B>A>S>S etc where willing to speak up for the rsa and campaign to recognise what it was worth to the goverments coffers, and that i have a certain amount of gratitude for, recognition we have now got but what is going to be the price for such? i can tell you that the sea angling down here is as poor as p**s and as been for a very long time but it seems that in other areas they have atleast some quality left, i dont want to see those areas and there rsa's suffer for what they have left for a few tiny measures that aint gonna make a blind bit of difference down here, that makes no sense at all to me.

[nick]

what a pleasure to be able to agree with a post on this thread.

 

It makes banging my head against a brick wall worth while.

 

And for what it is worth such regional differences are reffered to within the draft document.

[Leon Roskilly]

From the SACN Response:

 

6) Regional Considerations

 

The characteristics of Recreational Sea Fisheries varies considerably around the UK, with geological and marine conditions, and the presence of different species, and predominance of different species, leading to very different approaches as to how the local RSA sector operates.

 

Management tools suitable for conditions and species in one region might be meaningless, or extremely detrimental in another.

 

The strategy needs to recognise and emphasise the different approaches that will need to be developed regionally

[barry luxton]

From the SACN Response:

Leon, i have also read this, not word for word in the next document 2027. This is where i'm saying that it's a repeat etc. It appears to me to be wasting our Money? While i appreciate you have said it's where defra wants to be in twenty years, much of the content is being introduced or worked on now.

 

Also within it (2027) i notice is the proposel to track the catch from inception to the end user, so are they thinking about gill tags?

[barry luxton]

A far bigger fear I suspect is looming from within the Eu. Member states have been asked to look into the volumes of fish that are being removed by illegal fishing methods like the Bass sellers from Torness power station, illegal gillnets, mullet beach catches etc. I believe they have also been asked to try and estimate RSA catches. Only my opinion but it is likely that the Eu will be looking to impose bag limits on anglers in the not to distant future, which will make any differences you have with the SACN seem insignificant.

 

 

No, your para Ian is only 'pub' talk. Based on the release last month of the pan europeon study, page 90-91 i think it details the only known figures i believe regarding the illegal selling and within it the black part of it is minor, based on the amount landed by both rsa and commercial. Cheers. I'm talking about the bass stocks here. So i have to ask again, have there been new figures released.

Edited March 1, 2007 by barry luxton

[Leon Roskilly]

Also within it (2027) i notice is the proposel to track the catch from inception to the end user, so are they thinking about gill tags?

 

 

The 'Buyers and Sellers' Legislation produces an audit trail that can be used to track fish back to the boat that the first sale is registered to.

 

This has only recently been introduced and I expect it will be tweaked and made more sophistcated as experience with its operation grows.

 

We have asked DEFRA to look at gill-tagging, which may be considered by DEFRA useful for some species or fisheries.

[Steve Coppolo]

Hi Nick

I must say I'm extremely confusd by your sudden interest in fishing conservation/politics. From what i've seen of your previous posts on this forum, I had you down as anti conservation, anti bag limit, anti licence, anti BMP, anti bass MLS increase and anti Leon Roskilly, (or Lord Mullet of Medway as he was known on your website). You even got involved in a heated discussion on the course forum where you demanded that it was your right to kill specimen Perch because you needed them for food.

 

I applaud anyone who decides to get involved in the fight for a better future for RSA, and I'll give them all the backing they want. But I think you need to step back a bit and learn a bit more about what's gone on while you were opposing almost every conservation measure being proposed. For example, you want to discuss the merits of a now defunct RSA strategy document, when the time to have asked your questions would have been two months ago. It might have achieved something back then, now all it's doing is getting people all wound up over nothing. That document is dead now, there's no merit in discussing what it was or wasn't any more. The next version will probably be the same, just worded differently, and there may be some merit in discussing that one when we finally get to see it, (although it will be too late to do anything about it by then).

 

Just coming on the forum and blindly following what you're being told by leon roskilly isn't the best use of your new found enthusiasm.

 

Good luck.

Steve

[nick]

Hi Steve

 

I have probably disagreed with more issues with Leon than I have agreed with.

 

I have had a deep seated interest in conservation, particularly with the freshwater and marine environment for over 30 years, far before it became trendy.

 

I do most of my fighting in private, writing to MP's MSP's MEP's Ministers etc

 

Any one that knows me will tell you that I am not the sort of person to blindly follow what anyone says. I have my own very strong minded opinions, and they take some swaying. I question everything I am ever told. I adore debate - but not blind unreasoned argument.

 

Yes, I defend anyones right to take fish for the table and do not want to see a blanket ban on people being able to do so. If there is a good conservation reason for a ban or a bag limit then I will support it. The perch issue you mention was that I oppose a blanket ban on being able to take coarse fish for the table which was being suggested. (Prompted largely by racist attitudes.)

 

I have never been against an increase in the MLS increase for bass - I just believed that the line that you expected everyone to follow was the wrong one and I opted for the phased introduction - in which I seriously disagreed with Leon!

 

As for the redundant document - quite simply it is not redundant as it will form the basis of the final Strategy document put out for public consultation.

 

I have been involved in the consultation all the way through, I have not just jumped aboard.

 

I chose not to get involved in discussions on this forum when it was created quite simply because far too many commercials post on here and to be quite honest I am not interested in what they have to say to me. Also there are several posters who do not believe in anyone having a right to a different point of view, and will resort to personal sniping if anyone dares to disagree with them.

 

I reluctantly decided to pitch into this discussion because quite frankly the whole debate on here was based on mis-information, and personal attacks on someone who I believe works very hard for RSA in the UK. I hope you would agree that I have stuck to the points under discussion and tried to present my opinions backed up by facts were possible.

[Steve Coppolo]

I hope you would agree that I have stuck to the points under discussion and tried to present my opinions backed up by facts were possible.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion Nick, but you must be very careful in saying yours are backed up by fact. I'd say that your opinions are a little naive, and backed up by more opinions rather than fact. I'm only mentioning this because I've made exactly the same mistake in the past as I see you making now. I've been guilty of being a touch naive in the past. The last few years have been a real eye opener for me.

[barry luxton]

I have had a deep seated interest in conservation, particularly with the freshwater and marine environment for over 30 years, far before it became trendy.

 

Any one that knows me will tell you that I am not the sort of person to blindly follow what anyone says. I have my own very strong minded opinions, and they take some swaying. I question everything I am ever told. I adore debate - but not blind unreasoned argument.

 

I have never been against an increase in the MLS increase for bass - I just believed that the line that you expected everyone to follow was the wrong one and I opted for the phased introduction - in which I seriously disagreed with Leon!

 

I have been involved in the consultation all the way through, I have not just jumped aboard.

 

I chose not to get involved in discussions on this forum when it was created quite simply because far too many commercials post on here and to be quite honest I am not interested in what they have to say to me. Also there are several posters who do not believe in anyone having a right to a different point of view, and will resort to personal sniping if anyone dares to disagree with them.

 

I reluctantly decided to pitch into this discussion because quite frankly the whole debate on here was based on mis-information, and personal attacks on someone who I believe works very hard for RSA in the UK. I hope you would agree that I have stuck to the points under discussion and tried to present my opinions backed up by facts were possible.

 

Hi Nick, please excuse me but i have to ask you questions based on your post.

 

Can you tell me why you opted for a phased increase, when you are aware the bass do not breed untill they have reached a particular size. So the first increase in my mind is pointless. It will only be in the later part of this exercise when there could be some benifit to the stock. The stock is the most important part in all this.

 

As for not communicating with commercial if they are right or wrong you are missing out on an important part of the angling scene. It would be up to you surely to either accept or reject the argument put forward, but to dismiss it outright i believe is wrong. Based purely on their experience of the marine environment they have a huge amount of good information on hand for you.The same for personal sniping, you again surely must be old enough to dismiss, deal with it, without either letting it get to you or to join in. You know yourself that the items under discussion on this part of the forum are quite frankly very emotive and sure if something is read that someone does not agree with, then they are going to try and defend the position as they think fit, sure it might not be as you see it but it is an opinion of someone else, either right or wrong. It is the moderators who would deal with any situation that gets out of hand and from what i have seen they are indeed doing a good 'job'.