A Recreational Sea Angling Strategy

[wurzel]

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.

 

 

You got in first Steve.

 

Quote

 

All I mean by their past greed is that they have taken too many fish of their preferred species for too long and therefore the populations are now struggling to survive.

 

So Nick if in the future you enter into negotiations with DEFRA with in your opinion true facts on fish stocks, what sort of allocation of cod would you agree on for the N E charter fleet, it will come down to these sort of negotiations.

[nick]

So Nick if in the future you enter into negotiations with DEFRA with in your opinion true facts on fish stocks, what sort of allocation of cod would you agree on for the N E charter fleet, it will come down to these sort of negotiations.

 

I would think that RSA should be allocated at least half of the current UK cod quota, based on the relative value of RSA to UK plc compared to the value of commercial fish landings.

 

I suspect that should allow most anglers to take a reasonable number of cod home

[Leon Roskilly]

"recreational fisheries will now be regulated, allowing for only one bluefin tuna per fishing trip."

 

 

The same thing was tried in Alaska with halibut, cutting the recreational bag limit from two fish per angler to just one.

 

But the RFA, who engage with the political establishment and fisheries management, able to mobilise lobbying skills, has won the argument.

 

See: http://www.sacn.org.uk/Conservation-and-Po...h_per_Boat.html

 

Members of the sportfishing community knew that a one-fish bag limit would not only devastate Alaska's recreational and tourism industries, but also undermine the recently re-authorized Magnuson Stevens Act (MSA), which mandates that all proposed regulations consider public input.

 

According to RFA Executive Director Jim Donofrio, "We have fought long and hard to guarantee that decision-makers listen to and respond to the concerns of recreational anglers."

[nick]

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.

Because after reading all the information I could find I believed - and still do that a phased increase was most likley to be achievable. I do not (and did not) believe that the immediate increase was likley to be implemented as desired by BASS (and many others) I fully believe that in any negotiation it is better to move further, slower, but with all parties in agreement, rather than trying to achieve all your aims in one leap against strong opposistion.

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.

 

Commercials are no part of the angling scene. They have mismanaged their own fishery thinking only of short term gain, whereas if they had been prepared to accept some short term pain many years ago and put their own house in order there could still be a viable (and valuable) commercial fishing industry. I need no lessons form those guys!

 

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.

Soundly argued opinion I have absolutely no problem with. Personal insults based purely on the fact that someone disagrees with what you believe has no part in rational argument. At best name calling should be confined to the school play ground, and even there it marks out the immature child from the more mature.

 

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'.

The moderators should not need to remove offensive personal remarks. we are all supposed to be grown ups. Why therefore can we not stick to discussing issues rather than petty name calling?

Edited March 1, 2007 by nick

[wurzel]

The same thing was tried in Alaska with halibut, cutting the recreational bag limit from two fish per angler to just one.

 

But the RFA, who engage with the political establishment and fisheries management, able to mobilise lobbying skills, has won the argument.

 

See: http://www.sacn.org.uk/Conservation-and-Po...h_per_Boat.html

 

 

Hello leon

 

But would the out come be the same if the one doing the negotiating on behalf of the RSA believes that

 

Quote

populations are now struggling to survive.

[wurzel]

Because after reading all the information I could find I believed - and still do that a phased increase was most likley to be achievable. I do not (and did not) believe that the immediate increase was likley to be implemented as desired by BASS (and many others) I fully believe that in any negotiation it is better to move further, slower, but with all parties in agreement, rather than trying to achieve all your aims in one leap against strong opposistion.

 

 

Commercials are no part of the angling scene. They have mismanaged their own fishery thinking only of short term gain, whereas if they had been prepared to accept some short term pain many years ago and put their own house in order there could still be a viable (and valuable) commercial fishing industry. I need no lessons form those guys!

 

Soundly argued opinion I have absolutely no problem with. Personal insults based purely on the fact that someone disagrees with what you believe has no part in rational argument. At best name calling should be confined to the school play ground, and even there it marks out the immature child from the more mature.

The moderators should not need to remove offensive personal remarks. we are all supposed to be grown ups. Why therefore can we not stick to discussing issues rather than petty name calling?

 

 

I have commented on these threads as an angler, my opinion of you has not changed in fact the more I read your posts the more it is enhanced.One short sharp quip saved a whole page of rational argument which would have had the same meaning.

Opinions I have absolutely no problem with, statements of inaccurate facts I do, they can not be part of a rational argument.

 

As a commercial I think you are an asset. You are to RSA what Ted Heath was to commercial fishing .

[barry luxton]

Because after reading all the information I could find I believed - and still do that a phased increase was most likley to be achievable. I do not (and did not) believe that the immediate increase was likley to be implemented as desired by BASS (and many others) I fully believe that in any negotiation it is better to move further, slower, but with all parties in agreement, rather than trying to achieve all your aims in one leap against strong opposistion.

 

 

Commercials are no part of the angling scene. They have mismanaged their own fishery thinking only of short term gain, whereas if they had been prepared to accept some short term pain many years ago and put their own house in order there could still be a viable (and valuable) commercial fishing industry. I need no lessons form those guys!

 

Soundly argued opinion I have absolutely no problem with. Personal insults based purely on the fact that someone disagrees with what you believe has no part in rational argument. At best name calling should be confined to the school play ground, and even there it marks out the immature child from the more mature.

The moderators should not need to remove offensive personal remarks. we are all supposed to be grown ups. Why therefore can we not stick to discussing issues rather than petty name calling?

 

 

Hi Nick, Bass mls, Your reply i think is a bit weak mate, you considered a phased increase based on solidarity. You must have known all along that commercial would not accept any increase, they still don't so your argument is therefore not valid. As a member of sacn i'm surprised that you have had this slowly, slowly attitude which can only be bad for the bass.

 

Commercial fishing is part of the angling scene. Don't tell me that you do not visit fish and chip shops etc. Your stance of being so one sided again is not very good where you have indicated you are on the sacn committee. For that reason i feel all of your involvement with sacn will be unbalanced, as i'm also a member i would indeed feel uncomfortable in you representing me. You do need to converse with commercial. Leon for example has to sit on regular sfc committees where he is proberbly the only rsa in with commercial guys that can only be commendable and the only way to truly understand what the situation is. It is for defra and the eu at present who are managing commercial, as you are well aware we pay 100 mill per year to defra to do it alone. That's not including the amount of our monies paid to the eu again to rule on our fish tac etc. Who are the one's miss-managing, i don't think the commercial are. It is down to bradshaw and co. If you don't talk to commercial i would say that you would instigate a wall being built.

 

Unfortunatly because of the nature of the beast, moderators do need to look at the posts in particular where the subjects are so emotive, i do not have a problem with that.

Edited March 1, 2007 by barry luxton

[nick]

Barry I don't ignore the entire commercial fishing industry, I simply choose not to get involved any more than I can help with discussions on here with the commercial stirrers.

[barry luxton]

Barry I don't ignore the entire commercial fishing industry, I simply choose not to get involved any more than I can help with discussions on here with the commercial stirrers.

 

 

Fair enough Nick, i think we will dissagree on this one purely on your comment of: ..........commercial are no part of the fishing scene..............

[nick]

please read what I say Barry

 

Commercials are no part of the angling scene

 

There is a world of difference.

 

This site is not fishermansnet, but rather anglersnet, and here I wish to interact with other anglers.