marine white paper

[Davy Holt]

Hiya Nick,

Read the whole white paper, can you not see any positives in there?

 

Of course they cant.. there would be nothing to moan about if they.. did mind you it will still be Leon and his cronnies (sorry Leon ) fault anyway no matter what.

 

Some people seem to want not only keep the cake but to eat it and own the bakery

[Leon Roskilly]

See NFSA Press Release:

 

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

[barry luxton]

See NFSA Press Release:

 

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

That is like a breath of fresh air for me to read that, although i have not looked at it in detail. Worse, is the proposal within the white paper not to charge commercial for a licence. This cannot be right and equall in the eye's of rsa. I thought this was to be a holistic approach etc. At this first stage the goverment are creating a them and us situation. They think the rsa are a soft touch? The nfsa would be classed as narrow minded in some peoples eyes. I don't think so, i think they are correct.

 

I look forward to sacn initial comments on the white paper.

Edited March 18, 2007 by barry luxton

[barry luxton]

Any offical comment from scan in the offing yet regarding the release of the paper? Will it be on the lines of the nfsa comments?

[Leon Roskilly]

Any offical comment from scan in the offing yet regarding the release of the paper? Will it be on the lines of the nfsa comments?

 

Barry,

 

The SACN doesn't have a press office, and doesn't issue press releases (if you feel like doing the job, watch out for an email from me later in the week).

 

What we will do in good time (hopefully) is to put together a response to what is contained within the white paper that will be distributed to the membership, as well as being sent to DEFRA.

 

At the moment it's the response to DEFRA's Fisheries 2027 Vision that is being worked upon (that closes on 26th April).

 

The Marine Bill White Paper response will be prepared for the deadline of 8th June.

 

The EU Maritime Green Paper has to be in by 30th June.

 

And the RSA Strategy consultation will probably start in the 'early summer' and last 12 weeks.

 

Previously SACN has followed the same line as the NFSA on Licenses, that you can't expect to charge anglers until you have at least shown that you can deliver some real benefits in the shape of fishery management that increases both the number and size of fish available to anglers.

 

Put that management in place, demonstrate that it's working, then if it's necessary for anglers to pay towards the cost of that management on a 'user pays' principle, then maybe we can start talking about that.

 

So long as the 'User pays' principle applies proportionately to others who also exploit the stocks being managed.

 

I don't see that stance changing.

[Jim Roper]

I've just logged on for the first time in 10 days as I have to stay with my sister most of the time after the NHS gave her too strong a dose of chemotherapy and she had a stoke! i therefore have not had time to read everything.

 

When the Poll Tax was first mentioned, our local levy was going to be £167. By the time the local council had rounded up things "to be on the safe side" it was brought in at over £300, hence the riots.

 

Watch this space!

Edited March 24, 2007 by Jim Roper

[dartangler]

How very disappointing that a subject of such major importance is generating such little comment from the forum!

Is it that the subject is too long or complex? I note there have only been some 466 views to date.

Given that, if the White Paper finds it way to the statute books, there will be tremendous impact on the marine environment, including some major implications for both RSA's and commercials, some welcome, some possibly not, I would have hoped to see more views.

 

My major concern, as a recent SFC Member, is in regard to the funding of the many proposals in the Paper. I sense a huge shortfall unless DEFRA can attract more funds from central government. Their track record, both in attracting their share of the Government Purse and in funding fisheries issues generally has not been too good to date. We have recently, as a result of EU fines in respect of farm payments, seen DEFRA claw back substantial sums from the Environment Agency budget, which has a statutory duty to maintain improve and develop fisheries and is already perceived by many, certainly here in the South West, as failing in that duty. We can now expect further reductions in their funding to affect their performance even more. Is that to be the case for sea fisheries?

 

The Paper gives vastly more duties and responsibilities to SFC's. My impression, certainly given the amount of illegal fishing activity , both RSA and commercial, that takes place now, is that they already struggle to cope with the existing plethora of legislation and are fairly poorly funded. The Paper proposes that, as now, the new SFC's will be funded by precept on Local Authorities, who will have some reduction in their allocated Committee Membership, but importantly will be the only Members entitled to vote on funding issues. In other words that could entirely politicise the Committee!

After 30 years as a police officer, I know that enforcement costs dearly! Will the funds be forthcoming to permit the new SFC's to operate effectively? I have my doubts!

 

I noted earlier comment about the welcome intentions for the development of RSA facilities, along with the proposal for rod licence. I noted too, the debate about income/expenditure. What they imply will be done to improve the lot of the RSA, whilst commendable, will certainly cost a lot - or are we just to see a few token projects as gestures? Will income match required expenditure? Somehow I doubt this unless RSA's are to pay a fortune for their licence!

 

I note, as an RSA and Commercial, just how the Paper fudges the question of funding in respect of commercials!

 

We have some time yet to respond to this Paper and there are other matters more pressing, such as the Fisheries 2027 Vision consultation, closely linked to the White Paper. I just hope we do not lose sight of this important issue in this forum.

[barry luxton]

How very disappointing that a subject of such major importance is generating such little comment from the forum!

Is it that the subject is too long or complex? I note there have only been some 466 views to date.

Given that, if the White Paper finds it way to the statute books, there will be tremendous impact on the marine environment, including some major implications for both RSA's and commercials, some welcome, some possibly not, I would have hoped to see more views.

 

My major concern, as a recent SFC Member, is in regard to the funding of the many proposals in the Paper. I sense a huge shortfall unless DEFRA can attract more funds from central government. Their track record, both in attracting their share of the Government Purse and in funding fisheries issues generally has not been too good to date. We have recently, as a result of EU fines in respect of farm payments, seen DEFRA claw back substantial sums from the Environment Agency budget, which has a statutory duty to maintain improve and develop fisheries and is already perceived by many, certainly here in the South West, as failing in that duty. We can now expect further reductions in their funding to affect their performance even more. Is that to be the case for sea fisheries?

 

The Paper gives vastly more duties and responsibilities to SFC's. My impression, certainly given the amount of illegal fishing activity , both RSA and commercial, that takes place now, is that they already struggle to cope with the existing plethora of legislation and are fairly poorly funded. The Paper proposes that, as now, the new SFC's will be funded by precept on Local Authorities, who will have some reduction in their allocated Committee Membership, but importantly will be the only Members entitled to vote on funding issues. In other words that could entirely politicise the Committee!

After 30 years as a police officer, I know that enforcement costs dearly! Will the funds be forthcoming to permit the new SFC's to operate effectively? I have my doubts!

 

I noted earlier comment about the welcome intentions for the development of RSA facilities, along with the proposal for rod licence. I noted too, the debate about income/expenditure. What they imply will be done to improve the lot of the RSA, whilst commendable, will certainly cost a lot - or are we just to see a few token projects as gestures? Will income match required expenditure? Somehow I doubt this unless RSA's are to pay a fortune for their licence!

 

I note, as an RSA and Commercial, just how the Paper fudges the question of funding in respect of commercials!

 

We have some time yet to respond to this Paper and there are other matters more pressing, such as the Fisheries 2027 Vision consultation, closely linked to the White Paper. I just hope we do not lose sight of this important issue in this forum.

 

Hi Dartangler welcome, unfortunatly due to mr bradshaws latest involvement with the bass issue my faith in his leadership has dissappeard down the plughole. I have read the paper only once and sure i have many reservations to date, you might not have a place on the sfc as the proposel is to halve them, it would obviously mean the policing of all these new proposed laws will become a joke as usuall. Defra indeed talk a lot, not saying that all of it is good, i too fear for what is comming, they are detailing something that will be uncontrollable.

 

The burden of cost at the hands of defra will pass to the public and to rsa, but not to commercial if you have noticed, as again in the paper defra states that the rsa will pay for the science etc but it will be unfair to charge commercial. It stinks of onesidedness.

 

As you have obviously read it where do you see a promise of good things for the rsa? If you note the first things defra mensions are licences etc. The benifit in my view will be restrictions followed by a hollow promise of bigger fish, but regarding defra's crap track record they will fail big time as usuall.

 

ps have you signed the bass petition yet? Do you know the rsa guys who have supported bens desision to halt the mls increase.

Edited March 29, 2007 by barry luxton

[dartangler]

Hi Barry - thanks for welcome!

 

1. The Marine Bill - I see many of the proposals ( subject to adequate funding - not just additional taxation on RSA and Commercials) such as the establishment of MMO's, greater emphasis on conservation, such as MPZ's, and some revised legislative changes such as those strengthening the bye-law capability of SFC's , as being of benefit in the long term. However concentrating here on the proposals relating to RSA's such as those in Para 7.113 - all would be beneficial - but all will cost huge sums!

I would love to see artificial reefs to protect/ enhance some areas off my South Devon coast, which have been badly damaged over the years by trawling effort. But how much would just one of those cost? I really cannot see the income from an RSA charging/licence scheme alone providing adequate funding! My great fear, which I share with many others, is that we will all get the charges, but no real RSA improvements!

I think the points made by the Countryside Alliance on the subject of licences very relevant. My personal opinion, just as in the game fishing world, where I have until recently been more active, including such matters as compensating commercial netsmen not to fish, is that I would be prepared to contribute more, but only provided other sectors, including Government and the public as a whole put up a realistic share. We are all beneficiaries of an improved environment.

 

2. The alleged South West RSA Rep, who spoke at the DEFRA/NFFO Meeting, has been identified in other sites/postings, but to date I am unaware if he has made any public explanation of his input, authorised or not at that Meeting. My own view is that his comments will not have affected the outcome one iota, other than perhaps demonstrating to the Minister yet again how disunited is the RSA lobby. The NFFO input on its own left the Minister with little choice, but to take time out to reconsider the alleged new evidence.

On the subject of unity I have taken the time to speak personally to both David Rowe of the NFSA and to Leon of SACN on the subject. They know my views. With all that is currently on the agenda in the Fisheries world, an agenda in which the role and status of RSA's has been enhanced due to the efforts of individuals such as them and others in the NFSA, SACN , BASS and others too numerous to name, if ever there was a time for unity - then this is it! I might add that in my humble opinion then that unity should be shared with commercials as far as possible, for there are indeed many areas when we can work together towards improvements that would benefit us all.

 

3. Have I signed the bass petition - No! I wrote to the Minister personally following the recent debacle. My letter concentrated on other bass conservation issues, which in my opinion are far more serious than size limitation, such as the continued obscene pair trawling for mature pre-spawning bass. In my opinion the Minister needs to do more, both at home and within the EU on this subject, which is causing immense harm to the stocks, despite the limited efforts to control this aspect to date. ( reported - 28 tonne in one 2 hour trawl by the Guernsey pair in February - quite legally as things stand!) I have fished for bass for a good many decades. I saw a healthy mixed size stock get decimated with increased restaurant demand, the advent of monofilament nets and a degree of increased angling pressure. The sacrifices that were made by both RSA's and commercials in giving up many of our South Coast estuaries, as nursery areas, was slowly beginning to pay off and stocks of mixed size fish were beginning to recover quite well. Then unfortunately we saw the skilled and technologically efficient pair trawlers discover the locations of the winter spawning bass shoals and the stocks, particularly of the larger mature bass, plummeted once again. The causal link is very clear to see from the timing. Solve this problem and the need for size limitation, bag limitation and other issues that cause so much controversy between and within RSA's and commercials, may well disappear if the breeding stocks could be left alone to do what comes naturally!

My personal views entirely - David

[barry luxton]

Hi Barry - thanks for welcome!

 

1. The Marine Bill - I see many of the proposals ( subject to adequate funding - not just additional taxation on RSA and Commercials) such as the establishment of MMO's, greater emphasis on conservation, such as MPZ's, and some revised legislative changes such as those strengthening the bye-law capability of SFC's , as being of benefit in the long term. However concentrating here on the proposals relating to RSA's such as those in Para 7.113 - all would be beneficial - but all will cost huge sums!

I would love to see artificial reefs to protect/ enhance some areas off my South Devon coast, which have been badly damaged over the years by trawling effort. But how much would just one of those cost? I really cannot see the income from an RSA charging/licence scheme alone providing adequate funding! My great fear, which I share with many others, is that we will all get the charges, but no real RSA improvements!

I think the points made by the Countryside Alliance on the subject of licences very relevant. My personal opinion, just as in the game fishing world, where I have until recently been more active, including such matters as compensating commercial netsmen not to fish, is that I would be prepared to contribute more, but only provided other sectors, including Government and the public as a whole put up a realistic share. We are all beneficiaries of an improved environment.

 

2. The alleged South West RSA Rep, who spoke at the DEFRA/NFFO Meeting, has been identified in other sites/postings, but to date I am unaware if he has made any public explanation of his input, authorised or not at that Meeting. My own view is that his comments will not have affected the outcome one iota, other than perhaps demonstrating to the Minister yet again how disunited is the RSA lobby. The NFFO input on its own left the Minister with little choice, but to take time out to reconsider the alleged new evidence.

On the subject of unity I have taken the time to speak personally to both David Rowe of the NFSA and to Leon of SACN on the subject. They know my views. With all that is currently on the agenda in the Fisheries world, an agenda in which the role and status of RSA's has been enhanced due to the efforts of individuals such as them and others in the NFSA, SACN , BASS and others too numerous to name, if ever there was a time for unity - then this is it! I might add that in my humble opinion then that unity should be shared with commercials as far as possible, for there are indeed many areas when we can work together towards improvements that would benefit us all.

 

3. Have I signed the bass petition - No! I wrote to the Minister personally following the recent debacle. My letter concentrated on other bass conservation issues, which in my opinion are far more serious than size limitation, such as the continued obscene pair trawling for mature pre-spawning bass. In my opinion the Minister needs to do more, both at home and within the EU on this subject, which is causing immense harm to the stocks, despite the limited efforts to control this aspect to date. ( reported - 28 tonne in one 2 hour trawl by the Guernsey pair in February - quite legally as things stand!) I have fished for bass for a good many decades. I saw a healthy mixed size stock get decimated with increased restaurant demand, the advent of monofilament nets and a degree of increased angling pressure. The sacrifices that were made by both RSA's and commercials in giving up many of our South Coast estuaries, as nursery areas, was slowly beginning to pay off and stocks of mixed size fish were beginning to recover quite well. Then unfortunately we saw the skilled and technologically efficient pair trawlers discover the locations of the winter spawning bass shoals and the stocks, particularly of the larger mature bass, plummeted once again. The causal link is very clear to see from the timing. Solve this problem and the need for size limitation, bag limitation and other issues that cause so much controversy between and within RSA's and commercials, may well disappear if the breeding stocks could be left alone to do what comes naturally!

My personal views entirely - David

 

 

A very interesting read David and thanks for that. I apologise for imposing with my post this morning, on reflection i feel that i could have posted differantly.

 

I would like to see the reefs particulary in lyme bay, a few old gas rigs, redundant pair trawlers would do to start. The nffo guys have said that they are concerned regarding discard, well my answer to that is to stop trawling for the bass, full stop. The amount of bass landings are 3-4 mil per year so the nffo would not lose out to a great degree. I don't have a problem with bycatch or gill netting as the discard is apparently reasonable. This would inturn help the bass recruitment situation. I think every one heard about that bass landing, again in the light of what is happening locally in the channel isles with regards to bag limits, it's like an own goal.

Edited March 29, 2007 by barry luxton