Jump to content

INSHORE FISHERIES WORKING GROUP


glennk

Recommended Posts

Ok after being told that anglers have to be represented by a group already in the inshore fisheries working group I got to thinking more about who are these people ? what is their orientation ? (RSA, Commercial Fishing, Government etc). We Know Leon heads up the SACN and has just short of 600 members. I know Of Nigel and he is representing the national federation of Sea Anglers along with Richard Ferre (not sure what there membership is - I did email them but got no reply). Bass are represented by John Leballeur ( I don't know anything about this group or they orientation of their rep - can someone fill me in).

 

So what about the other people on these lists who are to ensure the seas are full of fish for us sea anglers. Who are they ? Is it True that the chair of the Group Trevor Hutchings and Anthony hynes are commercial fishermen or from commercial fishing families ???

 

 

RSA SUBGROUP MEMBERSHIP

 

Member Organisation

 

Chris Venmore Shellfish Association of Great Britain (SAGB)/Devon SFC

Doug Beveridge National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO)

Graham Catt Department of Culture Media & Sports (DCMS)

John Leballeur Bass Anglers Sportfishing Society (BASS)

Leon Roskilly Sea Anglers Conservation Network (SACN)

Mat Mander Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee

Nigel Proctor National Federation of Sea Anglers (NFSA)

Richard Ferre National Federation of Sea Anglers (NFSA)

Rob Blyth-Skyrme Natural England (NE)

Tim Dapling Sussex Sea Fisheries Committee

Steve Colclough Environment Agency

Mike Pawson Cefas

Alistair McDonnell Marine Fisheries Agency

 

Defra

 

Anthony Hynes Coastal Waters Policy (Chair)

Nicola Clarke Coastal Waters Policy

Erin Priddle Coastal Waters Policy

Simon Mundy Defra Legal

 

 

INSHORE FISHERIES WORKING GROUP

MEMBERSHIP

 

Member Organisation

 

Barrie Deas National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO)

Chris Venmore Devon SFC

Diana Mompoloki South West Regional Development Agency

Godfrey Williams Environment Agency (EA)

Lisa Browning The Wildlife Trusts

Mike Pawson CEFAS

Peter Hunt Shellfish Association of Great Britain (SAGB)

Peter Winterbottom Association of Sea Fisheries Committees (ASFC)

Richard Ferre National Federation of Sea Anglers (NFSA)

Sue Utting Seafish Industry Authority (SFIA)

Tom Pickerell World Wildlife Fund UK

Mat Mander Eastern Sea Fisheries Joint Committee

Rob Blyth-Skyrme Natural England (NE)

 

Defra

Trevor Hutchings Coastal Waters Policy (Chair)

Anthony Hynes Coastal Waters Policy

Annabel Stockwin Coastal Waters Policy

Erin Priddle Coastal Waters Policy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Bass are represented by John Leballeur ( I don't know anything about this group or they orientation of their rep - can someone fill me in).

 

Hi Glenn

BASS are made up mostly of fit, good looking, virile, heterosexual men. But some do have homosexual tendancies I'm told.

 

:thumbs:

 

P.S. I've also heard that Hynes or Hutchins, (can't remember which one), has family ties with the commercial industry.

DRUNK DRIVERS WRECK LIVES.

 

Don't drink and drive.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Glenn,

 

 

 

The first list is the membership of the RSA strategy group created by the Inshore Working Group to produce a draft RSA Strategy, and to which SACN has only been invited/co-opted onto at the last meeting.

 

SACN are not represented on the Inshore Working Group itself.

 

RSA representation on that group is only via the NFSA.

 

(We tried hard to get a foot in the door, but in the interests of keeping the stakeholder group to a workable size the number of seats for any particular stakeholder group were limited, and DEFRA felt that the NFSA could best represent Englands Recreational Sea Anglers).

 

It might be of interest to know that the Inshore Working Group is itself one of the stakeholder working groups created by DEFRA's Marine Fisheries Stakeholder Forum.

 

Those attending the July 2006 meeting of the forum were

 

LIST OF ATTENDEES

 

Defra meeting

 

Andrew Dewar-Durie (Chair) (Seafish)

Alex West (SFF)

Barrie Deas (NFFO)

Cliff Morrison (Food and Drink Federation)

Craig Whibley (South West RDA)

Fred Normandale (NFFO)

Jeremy Percy (WFFA)

Joe Horwood (CEFAS)

John Rutherford (Seafish)

Leon Roskilly (National Federation of Sea Anglers)

Mark Tasker (JNCC) Peter Hunt (SAGB)

Peter Winterbottom (ASFC)

Phil Morris (MFA)

Richard White (Wildlife Trusts)

Sue Dibb (National Consumer Council)

Tom Pickerell (WWF)

Rodney Anderson (Defra)

Fiona Mettam (Defra)

Lucy Colley (Defra)

Simon Doggett (Defra)

Marilyn Rawson (Defra)

John Lock (Defra)

Beth Simson (Defra)

 

UK meeting

 

Andrew Dewar-Durie (Chair) (Seafish)

Alex West (SFF)

Barbara Strathern (SEERAD)

Barrie Deas (NFFO)

Cliff Morrison (Food and Drink Federation)

Craig Whibley (South West RDA)

Eileen Sung (DARD)

Fred Normandale (NFFO)

Jeremy Percy (WFFA)

Joe Horwood (CEFAS)

John Rutherford (Seafish)

Leon Roskilly (National Federation of Sea Anglers)

Mark Tasker (JNCC) Peter Hunt (SAGB)

Peter Winterbottom (ASFC)

Phil Morris (MFA)

Richard White (Wildlife Trusts)

Sue Dibb (National Consumer Council)

Tom Pickerell (WWF)

Rodney Anderson (Defra)

Fiona Mettam (Defra)

Steve Ives (Defra)

Lucy Colley (Defra)

Simon Doggett (Defra)

Marilyn Rawson (Defra)

John Lock (Defra)

Beth Simson (Defra)

James Lingard (Defra)

 

http://www.defra.gov.uk/fish/sea/pdf/other...0714Minutes.pdf

 

(The next meeting is on 30th March)

Edited by Leon Roskilly

RNLI Shoreline Member

Member of the Angling Trust

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Glenn,

The first list is the membership of the RSA strategy group created by the Inshore Working Group to produce a draft RSA Strategy, and to which SACN has only been invited/co-opted onto at the last meeting.

 

SACN are not represented on the Inshore Working Group itself.

 

RSA representation on that group is only via the NFSA.

 

(We tried hard to get a foot in the door, but in the interests of keeping the stakeholder group to a workable size the number of seats for any particular stakeholder group were limited, and DEFRA felt that the NFSA could best represent Englands Recreational Sea Anglers).

 

It might be of interest to know that the Inshore Working Group is itself one of the stakeholder working groups created by DEFRA's Marine Fisheries Stakeholder Forum.

 

Those attending the July 2006 meeting of the forum were

 

LIST OF ATTENDEES

 

Defra meeting

 

Andrew Dewar-Durie (Chair) (Seafish)

Alex West (SFF)

Barrie Deas (NFFO)

Cliff Morrison (Food and Drink Federation)

Craig Whibley (South West RDA)

Fred Normandale (NFFO)

Jeremy Percy (WFFA)

Joe Horwood (CEFAS)

John Rutherford (Seafish)

Leon Roskilly (National Federation of Sea Anglers)

Mark Tasker (JNCC) Peter Hunt (SAGB)

Peter Winterbottom (ASFC)

Phil Morris (MFA)

Richard White (Wildlife Trusts)

Sue Dibb (National Consumer Council)

Tom Pickerell (WWF)

Rodney Anderson (Defra)

Fiona Mettam (Defra)

Lucy Colley (Defra)

Simon Doggett (Defra)

Marilyn Rawson (Defra)

John Lock (Defra)

Beth Simson (Defra)

 

UK meeting

 

Andrew Dewar-Durie (Chair) (Seafish)

Alex West (SFF)

Barbara Strathern (SEERAD)

Barrie Deas (NFFO)

Cliff Morrison (Food and Drink Federation)

Craig Whibley (South West RDA)

Eileen Sung (DARD)

Fred Normandale (NFFO)

Jeremy Percy (WFFA)

Joe Horwood (CEFAS)

John Rutherford (Seafish)

Leon Roskilly (National Federation of Sea Anglers)

Mark Tasker (JNCC) Peter Hunt (SAGB)

Peter Winterbottom (ASFC)

Phil Morris (MFA)

Richard White (Wildlife Trusts)

Sue Dibb (National Consumer Council)

Tom Pickerell (WWF)

Rodney Anderson (Defra)

Fiona Mettam (Defra)

Steve Ives (Defra)

Lucy Colley (Defra)

Simon Doggett (Defra)

Marilyn Rawson (Defra)

John Lock (Defra)

Beth Simson (Defra)

James Lingard (Defra)

 

http://www.defra.gov.uk/fish/sea/pdf/other...0714Minutes.pdf

 

(The next meeting is on 30th March)

 

 

Hi leon

 

These inshore working groups/rsa sub groups (apart from 2 nfsa and 1 bass members) look pretty much the same old same old situation we have had and still have within sfc's to me ie. run by commercials for commercials,does looking down the list of the members fill me with the utmost of confidence that these people will deliver pukka proposals that will realy benefit the rsa as whole? sorry, i think not!!!

 

I agree about being in it to try to change it, but if you are always the minority nothing will ever change imo unless the unballance where the commercial vote is atleast equal" rsa's reps are always going to be pi**ing in the wind its time defra realised this, do you know if they at all aware cos it sure dont look like it to me, cheers..........

I Fish For Sport Not Me Belly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree about being in it to try to change it, but if you are always the minority nothing will ever change imo unless the unballance where the commercial vote is atleast equal" rsa's reps are always going to be pi**ing in the wind its time defra realised this, do you know if they at all aware cos it sure dont look like it to me, cheers..........

 

Yes, and by being in it RSA will be deemed to have agreed to anything that the others decide on it's behalf.

DRUNK DRIVERS WRECK LIVES.

 

Don't drink and drive.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference with these groups is that they are not there to dictate policy, but to enable stakeholder to provide advice to DEFRA.

 

Unlike SFCs, there are no motions that have to be voted upon, where a dominant stakeholder can outvote everybody else.

 

In fact as most of those attending have little to say, so the RSA voice tends to be louder than most, even on issues that don't directly affect us. (On occassion I've had representatives from major environmental NGOs who have sat quietly through the entire meeting come and thank me for speaking on issues where they really should have been taking the lead).

 

DEFRA have made real efforts to have as broad and fair a representation as possible, whilst keeping the groups to a manageble size.

 

It's not a question of the majority winning the day, but of the best arguments persuavisly standing out.

 

Not just what is said, but how it is presented, and whether that brings other stakeholders on board.

 

Yes, it would be nice to have meetings comprised only of RSA, dictating to DEFRA what we want, but that isn't how any of it works.

 

Instead we have to have the arguments, and the ability to present them, that other stakeholders percieve as reasonable and sensible, and to which they can also sign up to.

 

And yes, we won't always get exactly what we want, and sometimes we will get some things that we don't want.

 

But we have to be there, presenting the arguments, knocking down or at least reducing the things that don't work in our favour, and advocating measures, policies and issues that will be of benefit to us, in a way that will bring other stakeholders on board with our aspirations.

 

If anglers were not there, saying what we want, we wouldn't get much at all.

 

And then we'd really have plenty to moan about (not that it would do any good at all).

 

And if the consensus is against us, no it doesn't mean that we will have deemed to accepted it, it just means that the arguments need to go on.

 

And that's where 'ordinary anglers', writing emails and letters, to their MPs, councillors, MEPs, to DEFRA and the Sea Fisheries Committees, and attending local meetings , and SFC meetings etc comes in.

 

Although an individual letter may seem to make no difference whatsover, a steady stream of constructive and constructively critical correspondance is also part of the process that brings about beneficial change and gives pause for thought to those who would implement measures that will be unpopular with most.

Edited by Leon Roskilly

RNLI Shoreline Member

Member of the Angling Trust

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, and by being in it RSA will be deemed to have agreed to anything that the others decide on it's behalf.

I know I am been -ve about this but it has to be said: DEFRA and for that matter The Environment Agency employ a lot of people on a lot of money with a lot of time on their hands they also have one eye on their generous pention package. I know this because of past dealings with both camps in a past job and the lists posted up seem to comfirm this. (I am suprised the RSPB has not sent a minibus full as well). They have got their teeth into this one and will not let go "Invest in Paper Pulp).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference with these groups is that they are not there to dictate policy, but to enable stakeholder to provide advice to DEFRA.

 

Unlike SFCs, there are no motions that have to be voted upon, where a dominant stakeholder can outvote everybody else.

 

In fact as most of those attending have little to say, so the RSA voice tends to be louder than most, even on issues that don't directly affect us. (On occassion I've had representatives from major environmental NGOs who have sat quietly through the entire meeting come and thank me for speaking on issues where they really should have been taking the lead).

 

DEFRA have made real efforts to have as broad and fair a representation as possible, whilst keeping the groups to a manageble size.

 

It's not a question of the majority winning the day, but of the best arguments persuavisly standing out.

 

Not just what is said, but how it is presented, and whether that brings other stakeholders on board.

 

Yes, it would be nice to have meetings comprised only of RSA, dictating to DEFRA what we want, but that isn't how any of it works.

 

Instead we have to have the arguments, and the ability to present them, that other stakeholders percieve as reasonable and sensible, and to which they can also sign up to.

 

And yes, we won't always get exactly what we want, and sometimes we will get some things that we don't want.

 

But we have to be there, presenting the arguments, knocking down or at least reducing the things that don't work in our favour, and advocating measures, policies and issues that will be of benefit to us, in a way that will bring other stakeholders on board with our aspirations.

 

If anglers were not there, saying what we want, we wouldn't get much at all.

 

And then we'd really have plenty to moan about (not that it would do any good at all).

 

And if the consensus is against us, no it doesn't mean that we will have deemed to accepted it, it just means that the arguments need to go on.

 

And that's where 'ordinary anglers', writing emails and letters, to their MPs, councillors, MEPs, to DEFRA and the Sea Fisheries Committees, and attending local meetings , and SFC meetings etc comes in.

 

Although an individual letter may seem to make no difference whatsover, a steady stream of constructive and constructively critical correspondance is also part of the process that brings about beneficial change and gives pause for thought to those who would implement measures that will be unpopular with most.

 

Leon, did you not have problems trying to keep the golden mile idea in the strategy and did'nt quite a few of the iwg members try to get rid?????

I Fish For Sport Not Me Belly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leon, did you not have problems trying to keep the golden mile idea in the strategy and did'nt quite a few of the iwg members try to get rid?????

 

Yes, not a popular concept with some stakeholders, and even the NGOs question whether it is 'scientifically' meaningful.

 

We never expected an absolute ban on all commercial activity within 1 nm.

 

What we have achieved is to get all parties to accept that the close inshore area is of particular value to RSA, and the area where most of our fishing activity takes place.

 

And that the presence of nets and inshore trawling has a negative effect on the 'angling experience' (rather like trying to listen to birdsong whilst someone blares out rap music - you can still hear the birds, but the experience is ruined).

 

Having accepted that, they are now looking more closely at how to identify areas of special significance to anglers, which require special consideration, and are actively talking about using existing tools to limit fixed gill-nets close inshore, to increase the number and size of nursery areas etc, as well as considering how to identify and implement 'angling only' areas.

 

Another example of the need to be engaged, to float ideas, to counter those who would otherwise just laugh at the very idea and turn it down flat, and to work towards solutions that most would see as reasonable.

RNLI Shoreline Member

Member of the Angling Trust

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We and our partners use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences, repeat visits and to show you personalised advertisements. By clicking “I Agree”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit Cookie Settings to provide a controlled consent.