INSHORE FISHERIES WORKING GROUP

[barry luxton]

Steve,

 

Then you need to identify people with the time, knowledge, experience and commitment who could do the job better, and convince those that appoint representatives to put them forward if they are willing.

 

It's no use at all railing against those who are doing the job, unless you have some convincing and acceptable replacements who could do it better.

 

Have you people in mind, are they willing and available to do it?

 

It's so easy just to knock the efforts of others, but that achieves nothing other than to deter others from becoming involved.

 

Putting forward real alternatives would be a much better direction in which to channel your frustrations, actually making a positive difference for a change.

 

For my part I'm perfectly happy to step aside whenever there is someone better suited for the task in hand, and take every opportunity to do so.

 

I totally admire your commitment and energy Leon. If it was me i would feel a little bit jaded by now, having to listen to moans and complaint from all sides, fairplay to you.

[glennk]

Well now the golden mile is out the window too, what is left for you Bass boys ? A new loo maybe ?

 

Leon,

 

Paul Kilpatrick requested an invite to the Inshore Fisheries Working Group. He was turned down. He is a man wanting to represent himself, his industry and his angling colleagues - a group of anglers tenfold that of what SACN represent yet he was turned away. Paul certainly has 3 of the 4 attributes you mention. I think he would struggle for time due to working very hard taking anglers to sea, but if your IFWG has its way he will soon have all the time in the world.

 

Why is he unable to take a seat next to you at these meetings ?

[Steve Coppolo]

Steve,

 

Then you need to identify people with the time, knowledge, experience and commitment who could do the job better, and convince those that appoint representatives to put them forward if they are willing.

 

It's no use at all railing against those who are doing the job, unless you have some convincing and acceptable replacements who could do it better.

 

Have you people in mind, are they willing and available to do it?

 

It's so easy just to knock the efforts of others, but that achieves nothing other than to deter others from becoming involved.

 

Putting forward real alternatives would be a much better direction in which to channel your frustrations, actually making a positive difference for a change.

 

For my part I'm perfectly happy to step aside whenever there is someone better suited for the task in hand, and take every opportunity to do so.

 

What you've written there looks good Leon, but it's a load of rubbish and you know it is. It all boils down to the same old thing, that "we/I know best" attitude. You cry for help but the reality is, you don't want anyone interfering with your ideas and ideals. You don't have all the answers like you seem to think you do, and when anyone dares to suggest there might be different or better ways of doing things you are quick to brush them aside.

 

You know as well as I do that I offered to do anything I could to help out, and I have done plenty over the last 5 years or so. Everything was fine while I was agreeing with the Roskilly/NFSA stance on everything, but as soon as I started to question certain things it was made quite clear that my help wasn'nt wanted any more. The latest dirty trick was to mislead others about what happened during the DEFRA meeting in December . That was bullshit Leon. I asked the questions that needed asking, and got the answers that we needed. It might not have come out of the NFSA/Roskilly book of sucking up to influential people, but it was effective as far as I'm concerned.

 

It makes me laugh when I see you posting rubbish on the forums about how anyone is welcome to help out, and it also makes me laugh when I see those who have been sucked in, defending you. They will learn if they stick around long enough that all is well as long as they say what you tell them, when you tell them. As soon as they start thinking for themselves they will see straight through all that. You give the impression that everyone can have some input, but they can't.

 

To be honest, you're biggest qaulification as far as I'm concerned is the amount of work you put in, but you could be the one who ends up doing most damage to the sport, although you'll never admit that. Sometimes I'm convinced that you are more interested in the politics than the fishing.

[barry luxton]

What you've written there looks good Leon, but it's a load of rubbish and you know it is. It all boils down to the same old thing, that "we/I know best" attitude. You cry for help but the reality is, you don't want anyone interfering with your ideas and ideals. You don't have all the answers like you seem to think you do, and when anyone dares to suggest there might be different or better ways of doing things you are quick to brush them aside.

 

You know as well as I do that I offered to do anything I could to help out, and I have done plenty over the last 5 years or so. Everything was fine while I was agreeing with the Roskilly/NFSA stance on everything, but as soon as I started to question certain things it was made quite clear that my help wasn'nt wanted any more. The latest dirty trick was to mislead others about what happened during the DEFRA meeting in December . That was bullshit Leon. I asked the questions that needed asking, and got the answers that we needed. It might not have come out of the NFSA/Roskilly book of sucking up to influential people, but it was effective as far as I'm concerned.

 

It makes me laugh when I see you posting rubbish on the forums about how anyone is welcome to help out, and it also makes me laugh when I see those who have been sucked in, defending you. They will learn if they stick around long enough that all is well as long as they say what you tell them, when you tell them. As soon as they start thinking for themselves they will see straight through all that. You give the impression that everyone can have some input, but they can't.

 

To be honest, you're biggest qaulification as far as I'm concerned is the amount of work you put in, but you could be the one who ends up doing most damage to the sport, although you'll never admit that. Sometimes I'm convinced that you are more interested in the politics than the fishing.

What do you suggest?

[Leon Roskilly]

Why is he unable to take a seat next to you at these meetings ?

 

I believe that Paul contacted DEFRA directly and was turned down by them, so I suggest that you ask them.

 

I'd only be guessing.

 

 

Not 'my IFWG' by the way.

 

SACN made strong representations for a seat on the Marine Stakeholders forum (of which the IFWG is a sub-group), to increase the level of RSA participation, but we were turned down on the basis that the number of places was limited in an attempt to keep the forum to a manageable size, and that it was considered that the NFSA was able to represent angling interests on the IFWG.

Edited March 4, 2007 by Leon Roskilly

[stavey]

Under the Salmon & Freshwater fisheries act, it is illegal to set a fixed engine (ie an 'anchored' gill net) anywhere within England and Wales.

 

The legislation was bought in to protect migratory species, principally salmon and trout (which travel high in the water column, and run close to the coast as they return to freshwater to spawn).

 

The legislation was confirmed by the case Champion V Maughan (see below)

 

However, Sea Fisheries Committees have the power to pass 'enabling' byelaws which allow the setting of fixed gill nets, at times and with certain restrictions (eg headrope must be at least 3 metres deep at all states of the tide, meaning they cannot be set close to the shore except in very deep water off the rocks say) where this can be demonstrated not to affect a run of salmon and/or sea trout (particularly in estuaries, or the approaches to estuaries).

 

Where enabling byelaws exist, if there is evidence that they do in fact interfere with a run of salmon and/or sea trout, the Environment Agency can require the local SFC to rescind byelaws allowing the setting of fixed nets.

 

(As salmon and sea-trout are known to travel close inshore, along most of the East coast, their is scope to attain evidence, present it to the EA and demand that they require banning of gill nets that are set inshore along much of that coast)

 

Although the legislation banning the setting of gill nets is to protect salmon and trout, it often applies in areas where bass and mullet are prevalent, so also affords protection to those and other species too.

 

Further information in the attached documents.

ChampionvMaughan.doc

 

LawRelatingtoFixedEngines.doc

That enabling byelaws can be implemented by SFCs, at the request of fishermen, is another example of how these committees fundamentally affect the inshore fishing of anglers.

 

And why, given their traditional sympathy towards the needs of the catching sector above the needs of other marine stakeholders, anglers should take a close interest in the business of their local sea fisheries committees, attend meetings, publicise issues that the committee is considering which will affect sea anglers in the district, and to engage with them to ensure that they fully consider the needs of sea anglers when they create and enforce byelaws etc

 

 

Hi leon

 

Yes we have this bylaw in my area and i challenged the sfc about it and even put forward a proposal to change it, nothing major only an extention by a couple of measly months ie, instead of it running from may to september how about april to october as mullet are around here these months to, i think anyone who has dealt with sfc's could guess what they said about that?

 

The fact is leon this was 2 years ago there was no rsa strategy to tell me or anybody about how to work with whoever!!

so i see nothing new in these current iwg/strategy and it is all looking like a whole total waste of time, i think a few of us are starting to see this, instead of working with the same old commercially biased rules we have had for the last god knows how long, reps and people who have put themselves forward to represent the rsa should be looking to change these crappy bylaws/rules not by working with them, i dont think you or anyone else will ever achieve anything worthwhile in our lifetimes and its a bloody shame after doing the hard bit ie, capturing the governments ears imo, cheers..........

[nick]

instead of working with the same old commercially biased rules we have had for the last god knows how long, reps and people who have put themselves forward to represent the rsa should be looking to change these crappy bylaws/rules not by working with them

 

Since when did the constitution of the UK change (don't worry I know it's not written down anywhere) to allow self appointed RSA reps to chenge the law?

 

As far as I am aware that is what we have parliament for?

 

Will you folks get real - no RSA rep decides on what is going to be done on our behalf. The government decide what the framework is, it is then up to everyone to try and get the best deal for us within that framework.

[thedogs]

As far as I understand its up to sea anglers to put their indervidual points on issues to the RSA reps. It would be inpossable for the likes of Steve Coppollo, Tom Pibough and Leon to keep in touch with the two million people who went sea fishing last year!

[glennk]

You must ask the question of how representative these groups are. As I've already stated SACN has less than 600 members yet has a seat at the table with government and has the ear of the minister. National federation of sea anglers represent how many people ? and also gets a seat at the table.

 

That still leaves more than 1.9 Million. Who represents these people ? NFSA ? SACN by default ? I'm surprised they haven't been slyly added to the figures of these organisations already.

 

How can a group who represents less than 1% of the countries anglers sit down at a table with DEFRA and tell them they know what the countries sea angling community want ?

[nick]

Glenn, yet again we are getting the negative aspect from you.

 

You are good at offering criticism of the status quo.

 

How about suggesting how RSA should be represented at such meetings? What body would you like there?