Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Sea Fishing Licence - would you pay?


  • Please log in to reply
296 replies to this topic

#291 wurzel

wurzel

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,730 posts
  • Interests:fishing and more fishing

Posted 11 March 2008 - 11:08 PM

This part of the forum is called "Conservation and Politics".
We are interested in conserving fish stocks. How can anything be more about angling than that?


Hello Collin

Funny enough so am I, I am also interested in conserving my way of life which is where most conflict arises.
I fish to live and live to fish.

#292 H.A.

H.A.

    Member

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

Posted 11 March 2008 - 11:58 PM

I am also interested in conserving my way of life which is where most conflict arises.


Of course conflict arises!
You appear to be part of and supportive of the the commercial fishermen which together form the industry. An industry which has decimated stocks of fish all around the world, although most of us here are concerned about the rare occurence of quality fish for anglers in UK waters.

In this weeks 'Fishing News' the new under 10m inshore commercial association are whingeing and whining yet again about the lack of quota issue.

One of the comments was something along the lines of :
“ We should be able to catch any fish which are available inshore in order to make a living”

Anybody would think that they own the fish and have exclusive rights to catch them to the point of near extinction of the fish and inevitably themselves too!

You might think that too and hundreds of thousands of us will disagree and will urge governments everywhere to restrict the greed and plundering which is no longer acceptable.

Hopefully the restrictions on 'days at sea', quotas and NTZs will convince the merchants that their pillaging of an international resource is no longer worthwhile or desirable.

<_<

#293 barry luxton

barry luxton

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,512 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 12 March 2008 - 06:31 AM

If you were me would you Barry?


Hi Wurzel,

ERRRRRRRRRRRR, no. Seams a bit ripe though that every one who has a finger in the pie can say that a licence will be a good thing for the rsa and it will happen.

 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.. 


#294 wurzel

wurzel

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,730 posts
  • Interests:fishing and more fishing

Posted 12 March 2008 - 10:10 AM

Of course conflict arises!
You appear to be part of and supportive of the the commercial fishermen which together form the industry. An industry which has decimated stocks of fish all around the world, although most of us here are concerned about the rare occurence of quality fish for anglers in UK waters.

In this weeks 'Fishing News' the new under 10m inshore commercial association are whingeing and whining yet again about the lack of quota issue.

One of the comments was something along the lines of :
“ We should be able to catch any fish which are available inshore in order to make a living”

Anybody would think that they own the fish and have exclusive rights to catch them to the point of near extinction of the fish and inevitably themselves too!

You might think that too and hundreds of thousands of us will disagree and will urge governments everywhere to restrict the greed and plundering which is no longer acceptable.

Hopefully the restrictions on 'days at sea', quotas and NTZs will convince the merchants that their pillaging of an international resource is no longer worthwhile or desirable.

<_<



You have no right to tar me with the same brush as shall we say some of the less savoury aspects of commercial fishing, you know nothing or wish to know any thing about me.

Just to put you right on one point, which I seem to have to do on a regular basis and one reason I post on this forum.

Quote
One of the comments was something along the lines of :
“ We should be able to catch any fish which are available inshore in order to make a living”

It should say "catch any species which are available inshore" which has a totally different meaning.

Which would be better management, allowing a few inshore boats to fish for enough to earn a living on cod using large mesh nets with no discard and no catch of small one or two year old fish or force them to scratch around for sole that are out of season using small mesh nets with plenty of discard due to the amount of cod still on the grounds.?
I know what the better option is for the stock as well as the fishermen.
I suppose you just don't want to see a commercial fisherman full stop, giving you exclusive rights, any one would think you own the fish.

Quote
and will urge governments everywhere to restrict the greed and plundering which is no longer acceptable.

If you could show me where all this greed and plundering is going on I might be of a mind to agree with you or perhaps you think I'm being greedy and doing the plundering ? If so please inform me of the error of my ways, Ho! I forgot you just want me off the water altogether.
I fish to live and live to fish.

#295 barry luxton

barry luxton

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,512 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 13 March 2008 - 07:58 AM

You have no right to tar me with the same brush as shall we say some of the less savoury aspects of commercial fishing,



If you could show me where all this greed and plundering is going on I might be of a mind to agree with you



Quite right to Wurzel. It's this type of 'fisherman' that gives the industry a bad name. After so many convictions the licence should be taken away for the benifit of all.

http://www.thisissou...;pNodeId=134831

 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.. 


#296 Elton

Elton

    Site Owner

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

Posted 18 December 2009 - 09:05 AM

Just thought I'd give this thread a 'bump' for Christmas...

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


#297 Worms

Worms

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,104 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Herefordshire
  • Interests:Coarse sea and game angling, mainly with vintage tackle, wildlife, especially otters, Vintage motorcycles, eating wild caught fish......the list goes on

Posted 18 December 2009 - 09:38 AM

Just thought I'd give this thread a 'bump' for Christmas...

I must admit I've only read about the first three pages but most of the relevant comments seem to have been made.

I for one don't believe that an affordable licence would provide improved sea fishing, it would cost far too much to implement and police.

Holiday anglers after a bit of mackerel bashing round the harbour? I doubt if having to purchase a licence beforehand for Joe Bloggs, his three kids and one of their mates would be very popular (or affordable). On another note would it see fewer fish chucked in the litter bins?

Going out on a charter boat would be a no-no without one. I'm sure the skippers wouldn't want to be charged as "accessories" because some bloke on his first trip hadn't shelled out in case he didn't like it/was sea-sick.

Running the risk of shore fishing without a licence would largely be down to the area you fish I suppose, visible pier or middle of nowhere? :unsure:

Would I buy one?
Well as a born-again (charter) boat angler I suppose I'd have to. I can't see the possibility of officialdom letting charter skippers take out anglers with the possibility of some anglers not having a licence without some kind of punishment. Instant 'cheap' policing!

Would it help anglers?
Well that would depend on the cost of the licence and how much money was ploughed back into the fish. How would they improve (or police) wreck fishing 50 miles out? Realistically I can't see how it could work. After all it seems that they can't police the freshwater licence without penalising the angler.

I don't object to the general notion of a licence IF it provided benefits to those paying for the licence and gave them precedence over any sea-users who didn't pay for a licence for their hobby/sport/living.

See, I told you it wouldn't work B)
Eating wild caught fish is good for my health, reduces food miles and keeps me fit trying to catch them........it's my choice to do it, not yours to stop me!