Would you pay a licence fee?

[thedogs]

Personally I’m not against an rsa licence, but only if the long journey to good fisheries management is started first.

 

I think it would be a huge leap of faith for sea anglers to happily except a licences fee before restrictions are put on inshore commercial effort. This would give angler a few more and bigger fish and give them hope for the future.

 

Promises of wheel chair access and toilet facilities at popular venues are just pie in the sky without first having decent sized fish at those venues first.

 

 

We only have hindsight to go on when it come to trusting DEFRA to make the appropriate changes. I’m afraid that DEFRAs past record on managing our fisheries just aint good enough for me to pay a licence fee just on trust.

 

Would you except an rsa licence just based on the quality of fishing we have now?

 

What circumstances would you accept a licence?

[snakey1]

They can shove their licences up their ar*e i wouldn't accept one under any circumstances. the govenment gets enough money off me already so screw them.

[clem]

There is no way I would accept the licence idea it is just an ill concieved ill thought out money raising racket that if ever brought in will backfire big-time. The people in offices peddling these ideas have there own self intrests (and pentions) in mind and nothing else.

[steve good]

Personally I’m not against an rsa licence, but only if the long journey to good fisheries management is started first.

 

I think it would be a huge leap of faith for sea anglers to happily except a licences fee before restrictions are put on inshore commercial effort. This would give angler a few more and bigger fish and give them hope for the future.

 

Promises of wheel chair access and toilet facilities at popular venues are just pie in the sky without first having decent sized fish at those venues first.

We only have hindsight to go on when it come to trusting DEFRA to make the appropriate changes. I’m afraid that DEFRAs past record on managing our fisheries just aint good enough for me to pay a licence fee just on trust.

 

Would you except an rsa licence just based on the quality of fishing we have now?

 

What circumstances would you accept a licence?

 

Hi thedogs

Why is it that anglers want improvments in fish stocks before paying a licence fee,

Anglers blame commerials and mismanagement and yet millions of anglers collectively have added greatly to the anglers claims of less fish and smaller sizes.

 

Licence fees and bag limits should not be conditional, they will only bring anglers into what is rightly just conservation measures.

 

regards steve

[fishyrob]

I would happily pay any amount for licence, for the golden mile. Anything less will be a sell out.

I will also never believe a word that dribbles from the mouth of pussy bradshaw, since the MLS farce, so if he is responsible, and even if he promises the golden mile, I wont be buying a licence until such time it is passed into law. Its a real shame we cant trust our countries politicians to deliver on their promises.

[Bob Jerunkel]

No one takes comercial fisherman serious any more because they are a joke.

They talk rubbish and steve good is living proff.

saying that anglers are anything to do with the state of fish stocks is taking the peese

when it comes from a comercial fisherman it is even more of a joke.

Theres only one place all the fish have gone and thats into comercial nets.

They should stick there sea angling licence up there bum but charge comercial fishermen thousands

to put right all the damage there've done.

[thedogs]

Hello Steve Good, Anglers can over fish but only on a very local level, for instance all those channel wrecks that were fished clean of conger and pollock in the early 80s. But this is a pee in the ocean compaired to the discusting state that you commercials have left our inshore fisheries.

I think sea anglers, the tackle trade should take the govenment to court for letting you guys pillage and rape our seas.

[thedogs]

I would pay a lisence fee for the golden mile.

 

http://www.sacn.org.uk/Articles/The_Golden_Mile.html

[barry luxton]

Hello Steve Good, Anglers can over fish but only on a very local level, for instance all those channel wrecks that were fished clean of conger and pollock in the early 80s. But this is a pee in the ocean compaired to the discusting state that you commercials have left our inshore fisheries.

I think sea anglers, the tackle trade should take the govenment to court for letting you guys pillage and rape our seas.

 

I don't think i agree with being picked clean at all. There are many wrecks that hold good eel and pollack and other fish species. Don't know of a lot of guys that would even take a conger home, i know that commercial use them for pot bait, nothing wrong with that. I am aware the stamp of bass on the shore is very small compared with years ago, the mls for them definatly needs addressing for all to benifit, that has nothing to do with global warming in my mind. I also think that there is more fish around today than the recent past, the size of codling at the top end of the channel appear to be getting larger. only time will tell.

One of the problems i see on a regular basis is finding a good wreck , this could be 20-30 miles offshore on a low tide that ain't netted.

 

As for a licence, i think it is fair if we pay for them on the basis of what we take, commercial as well. The more you take the more you pay.

[wurzel]

These threads are pointless, you are going to get two choices buy a licence or stop fishing end of story.

 

Sam can't you come up with anthing remoteley constructive, quotes like

"the discusting state that you commercials have left our inshore fisheries.

I think sea anglers, the tackle trade should take the govenment to court for letting you guys pillage and rape our seas."

only serve to get you a feel good pat on the back from a few like minded anglers and not much else.

 

 

If anglers can pick clean a wreck 25 miles off why can't they pick clean a mark from the

shore?