Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

September meeting with Defra?


  • Please log in to reply
178 replies to this topic

#171 Elton

Elton

    Site Owner

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Grundisburgh, Suffolk
  • Interests:fishing, internet, cars, my dog

Posted 18 February 2009 - 11:37 AM

I don't think he has a tash......but the rest is pretty spot on :D

Anglers' Net Shopping Partners - Please Support Your Forum

CLICK HERE for Dragon Carp Direct, one of the cheapest tackle shops anywhere.

CLICK HERE for all your Amazon purchases - books, photography equipment, DVD's and more!

CLICK HERE for Go Outdoors. HUGE discounts!


 

FOLLOW ANGLERS' NET ON TWITTER- CLICK HERE - @anglersnet
 
PLEASE 'LIKE' US ON FACEBOOK - CLICK HERE


#172 H.A.

H.A.

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,407 posts
  • Location:An island between Selsey and Portsea Island
  • Interests:None

Posted 18 February 2009 - 09:43 PM

Werzul ... Wassall.. wassisname ....

he's in my 'Top Ten' Blokes I wish ter met .......

unfortunately for Steven and Freddie, I'm booked up for the next few months with a different agender ...

She calls herself 'BOB'

Posted Image

Ahh well ... in fer a Penny ...

:rolleyes:

(Sorry, Nuwkt, I fergits the Q. easily?)

#173 big_cod

big_cod

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,720 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:fishing and ladies, Just love ladies.

Posted 19 February 2009 - 09:15 AM

Thanks, Ada, you're a nice bloke, too.

I'm not into blaming people for making mistakes. We all make them. What I can't abide, though, is repeated mistakes with nothing learnt from them. The mistakes that have lead us to where we are now, are still being made. The level of arrogance that prevented our unelected mouth pieces from acting on any point of view that didn't match their own, or risked upsetting their political masters, is still very much in evidence today. That meeting that we both attended, (back in 2005?), was the only one I ever managed to get into. Attempts were made to prevent me from doing so. I was criticised after the meeting, by Leon, for "wasting an opportunity of getting Rodney Anderson onside". My crime, apparently, was to oppose bag limits, putting him on the spot, and asking a few awkward questions. I'm sure if I'd sucked up to him, or said nothing, I would have got another invite. There is a catologue of similar instances. Another that springs to mind is a meeting that was held local to me with the Environmant Agency, local SFC, local anglers and, I think (?), English Nature, where the RSA strategy was going to be discussed. I only found out about it after the meeting had already taken place. When I asked why, (being a local angler with a known interest), I wasn't invited, I was told it was because, a) I didn't represent anyone, and b ) because my views on the RSA strategy were negative. So, I can anly assume that the meeting wasn't really for local anglers, it was for unelected mouth pieces and those who were prepared to toe the party line. Hardly representative of local, grass roots, sea anglers.

As I said, this selectivity is still happening today and as recently as December, attempts were made to stop another knowledgable and dedictaed angler from attending a meeting in London. Only those who meet the criteria of the unchosen few, (i.e, the party faithful), are deemed fit to speak to the decision makers. This has got to stop. How can those in positions of power be expected to do anything of value to sea anglers if those anglers aren't allowed to speak to them? I attended a public meeting with Defra officials when they travelled the country speaking to grass roots anglers about the proposed RSA strategy. The Defra people there were visibly shocked by the views of the anglers and their hostility towards the strategy. It was a good demonstration of how out of touch our misrepresentatives are with the wishes of local anglers. Yet we are still being kept on the outside. Meetings come and go, no one knows what is being discussed, no one knows what is being decided, no one knows what the same few people are telling decision makers about what we want.

It's not a blame game, Ada, it's a highlighting excercise. If no questions are asked and fingers aren't pointed, these people will be free to carry on as before, unchallenged. I'm not prepared to sit back and let that happen. You can ask for censorship and try stifle free speach as much as you like, but if this thread is locked I'll just start another one. The only way to stop this, is for those in a position to, to start answering the questions.


Nice one steve.

paul.

Edited by big_cod, 19 February 2009 - 09:15 AM.

http://sea-otter2.co.uk/

Probably Whitby's most consistent charterboat

Untitled-1.jpg


#174 Jaffa

Jaffa

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,172 posts

Posted 19 February 2009 - 06:21 PM

I am sure 99% of the anglers can agree to the objectives: more and bigger fish, preserve or expand access to fishing areas and stocks, sustainable fish exploitation, preserve the right to fish for recreational anglers. But opinions differ as how to achieve that.

Two "schools": Some believe angling are able to operate "below the radar", do nothing but shout stop when proposals affecting us hit the agenda. Others believe angling has to "be part of the game". The latter is the main stream today - and for very good reasons I would say. A lot of threats are mounting up against RSA. Contrary to the belief of some, these threats are not caused by angling officers have spoken or wished too much. There are guys and girlies out there who want you to stop fishing for various "green" or "emotional" reasons through many years. They have multi-million strong backing. This one is one of the latest at the European scene working against your interests http://www.pewenviro...eu/ourwork.htmlThey are well known from the US where our colleges have them on their most scarriest list. This one and other likeminded orgs have the money to provide the "science" and scientists to deliver the answers they want - and so they do. You can shout "stop" till the cows come home it won't change a thing. You need something to match them with.

Then there is the commercial exploitation. Borg says (and we have even seen a well known angling columnist in a well known angling magasine saying the same thing recently):

"I also believe that we cannot impose ever more restrictions on professional fishermen, while the recreational fishing industry in some cases catches important quantities of fish threatened by collapse. It is only right that the recreational fishing industry contribute to the efforts undertaken by professional fishermen to bring these fish back to healthy levels."

This kind of mis-perception about the right to access and exploit a public ressource, the ownership and who is a threat to who, cannot be changed without "being part of the game" as it needs addressing on a daily basis at the right tables, consultations etc.

If leaning back and shout is all you have, then your opponents and misguided decision-makers (and some angling columnists) will walk all over you till your fishing is over - and that could be in your life time.


99% of anglers may agree that "sustainable fish exploitation" is something they wish to support but what is actually meant by that word "sustainable" ?

You see two schools of thought in all this and think "the head in the sand" school is daft because it ignores all the trouble that is about to hit our cozy hobby. You are spot on (MHO) with the fact that this stuff does not originate with the angling "reps" but is bigger, and likely to get much worse. On the other hand our reps come across as being footsoldiers for the very forces that threaten what we do. Its surely also the case that people generally have had it up to their necks in EU legislation and centralised planning, and its a lot more than RSA that are getting fed up and angry, so the "head in sand" brigade might not be the dead end you see atm?

Borg is now apparently looking at relative stability as being up for change in 2012, which might be an alien term to most reading this but looks like another pandoras box to me, esp as it will happen just before the protections on uk limits come up for grabs.

A lot of personal flak has been given out to the people that decided to try and do what they saw as good, a lot of it as ugly as the the typecasting and anti commercial stuff that used to happen here.

FWIW Leon has pointed me in the direction of more good sources of information than anyone , but my Leon filters now work at a high level :D Personally i don't care if he has 666 across his scalp; he has "informed" me plenty and the constant attacks on him seem like some new kind of bloodsport.

FWIW i see "RSA" power currently in the South and that is also where "RSA" have the biggest contridictions . Its fair enough for an angler to get peeved if they are banned from catching half a dozen cod, when they know full well the commercials will take many times that. Its surely also ****s for RSA to be on a political high-horse and ignore those species where RSA are likely to have a bit of an impact, yet they will; Turbot and Brill in the channel for instance?

Chris
Help predict climate change!
http://climateprediction.net

#175 barry luxton

barry luxton

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,348 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:rochester
  • Interests:Boat fishing and more boat fishing. Some times i have to go to work so it does interfere with my boat fishing, but not much.

Posted 19 February 2009 - 06:29 PM

Its surely also ****s for RSA to be on a political high-horse and ignore those species where RSA are likely to have a bit of an impact, yet they will; Turbot and Brill in the channel for instance?

Chris


Do you not think that the commercial sector have had no influence on this stock then?

 Free to choose apart from the ones where the trust poked their nose in. Common eel. tope. Bass and sea bream. All restricted.

 
New for 2016 TAT are the main instigators for the demise of the u k bass charter boat industry, where they went screaming off to parliament and for the first time assisting so called angling gurus set up bass take bans with the e u using rubbish exaggerated info collected by ices from anglers, they must be very proud.

Upgrade, the door has been closed with regards to anglers being linked to the e u superstate and the failed c f p. So TAT will no longer need to pay monies to the EAA anymore as that org is no longer relevant to the u k . Goodbye to the europeon anglers alliance and pathetic restrictions from the e u.

Angling is better than politics, ban politics from angling.
 
Consumer of bass. where is the evidence that the u k bass stock need angling trust protection. Why won't you work with your peers instead of castigating them. They have the answer.

Recipie's for mullet stew more than welcomed.
 
Angling sanitation trust and kent and sussex sea anglers org delete's and blocks rsa's alternative opinion on their face book site. Although they claim to rep all.
 
new for 2014. where is the evidence that the south coast bream stock need the angling trust? Your campaign has no evidence. Why won't you work with your peers, the inshore under tens? As opposed to alienating them? Angling trust failed big time re bait digging, even fish legal attempted to intervene and failed, all for what, nothing.
 
Looks like the sea angling reps have been coerced by the ifca's to compose sea angling strategy's that the ifca's at some stage will look at drafting into legislation to manage the rsa, because  they like wasting tax payers money. That's without asking the rsa btw. You know who you are.. 


#176 Jaffa

Jaffa

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,172 posts

Posted 19 February 2009 - 06:35 PM

Do you not think that the commercial sector have had no influence on this stock then?


Well lets find out ;)
Help predict climate change!
http://climateprediction.net

#177 cleeclive

cleeclive

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 191 posts

Posted 19 February 2009 - 10:03 PM

I am sure 99% of the anglers can agree to the objectives: more and bigger fish, preserve or expand access to fishing areas and stocks, sustainable fish exploitation, preserve the right to fish for recreational anglers. But opinions differ as how to achieve that.

Two "schools": Some believe angling are able to operate "below the radar", do nothing but shout stop when proposals affecting us hit the agenda. Others believe angling has to "be part of the game". The latter is the main stream today - and for very good reasons I would say. A lot of threats are mounting up against RSA. Contrary to the belief of some, these threats are not caused by angling officers have spoken or wished too much. There are guys and girlies out there who want you to stop fishing for various "green" or "emotional" reasons through many years. They have multi-million strong backing. This one is one of the latest at the European scene working against your interests http://www.pewenviro...eu/ourwork.htmlThey are well known from the US where our colleges have them on their most scarriest list. This one and other likeminded orgs have the money to provide the "science" and scientists to deliver the answers they want - and so they do. You can shout "stop" till the cows come home it won't change a thing. You need something to match them with.

Then there is the commercial exploitation. Borg says (and we have even seen a well known angling columnist in a well known angling magasine saying the same thing recently):

"I also believe that we cannot impose ever more restrictions on professional fishermen, while the recreational fishing industry in some cases catches important quantities of fish threatened by collapse. It is only right that the recreational fishing industry contribute to the efforts undertaken by professional fishermen to bring these fish back to healthy levels."

This kind of mis-perception about the right to access and exploit a public ressource, the ownership and who is a threat to who, cannot be changed without "being part of the game" as it needs addressing on a daily basis at the right tables, consultations etc.

If leaning back and shout is all you have, then your opponents and misguided decision-makers (and some angling columnists) will walk all over you till your fishing is over - and that could be in your life time.

You are quite right in what you say, any arguments that we have need to be backed by scientific evidence, and it is very dangerous if the only real evidence being supplied is coming from the potential enemy. I spoke on another site recently about this after the Countryfile report. The key thing here is that political controversy is what drives the funding bodies to provide the finance and the angling world needs to be working with a tame University that is pro-angling to seek out funding possibly from the EU to establish a project to seek out the real impact that angling is having on specific stocks . If this was done through EU funding it would have to be in conjunction with several European partner institutions. I worked in this area for several years undertaking selectivity research and managed several EU and Chief scientist funded projects whilst at the University of Humberside during the 1990s. However I have been out of that field for several years and now run a gardening business so do not have the time to chase this.
We are of course talking 3-4 years to get a project funded and completed and it would appear that things are moving much more quickly on a political front.
The other major problem which researchers face is the division within the angling community as CEFAS will be finding with their MCZ projects. There is of course a great danger here in that findings could be based on fiction which at the end of the day does not benefit anyone. It is very apparent to me that the current divisions may be very damaging to our cause on a range of issues.
Cleeclive

#178 Steve Coppolo

Steve Coppolo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,110 posts

Posted 14 February 2010 - 08:58 PM

Just bumping this because, given recent developments, it makes interesting reading. If anyone has 15 minutes to spare, it's well worth going back and reading it from page one. Take note of the dates involved.
DRUNK DRIVERS WRECK LIVES.

Don't drink and drive.

#179 Sharkbyte

Sharkbyte

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,371 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 February 2010 - 12:20 AM

Same people pulling the strings, same foul ups being made, same BS and lack of transparency.