Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

EFTTA - Sea Fishing Licence


  • Please log in to reply
102 replies to this topic

#21 wurzel

wurzel

    Member

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

Posted 02 February 2008 - 08:39 PM

Like to see some cod in the top end of the channel as opposed to codling.


And I suppose you think DEFRA could produce them.
I fish to live and live to fish.

#22 barry luxton

barry luxton

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,321 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 02 February 2008 - 08:49 PM

Hello barryI'm not aware of any changes not to bring in this charge to commercial fishermen, we've had more pressing things to worry about so the subject has not been at the forefront of our discussions with DEFRA.

Evening Wurzel, it was in the marine bill consultation that was a while ago now. They stated that it would be unfair competition for the uk fleet regarding the rest of the eu fleet, but is it's ok for the rsa to pay for a licence. That is one of the items on the rsa list to discuss with defra along with more and bigger fish. :D

And I suppose you think DEFRA could produce them.

All i know is that there did used to be some before they came along. B)

 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.. 


#23 wurzel

wurzel

    Member

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

Posted 02 February 2008 - 08:53 PM

The Sea Fisheries Committees (soon to be replaced by “Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities” when/if the Marine Bill goes through) are meant to be the body which looks after inshore fisheries and at least they do have some semblance of representation by stakeholders other than commercial fishermen.

Now you would have thought that control over how much fish could be removed from the fishery would play an important part in the management of the inshore fishery wouldn't you.

After all, the more fish taken out by commercial fishing, the less available to the recreational fishery with a direct consequential impact on the quality of the recreational fishery.

It might be that anglers representatives might get voted down on every occasion, but at least they would have a say, and perhaps could embarass the process as fundamentally unfair.

But it seems that the idea of any such semblance of democracy and fairness to all stakeholders has been abandoned, and instead a cosy arrangement btween the MFA and local commercial fishermen will in future determine how much fish can be removed from the fishery.

http://www.defra.gov.../fishfocus9.pdf
So, as well as SFCs, we will now have local quota management groups, determining the quality of our inshore fisheries.

Only these will not have any representation other than from the Fishing Industry.

Should the SFC's now abandon any pretence that they are able to manage the inshore fisheries and shut up shop now, or simply wait until their power to manage the fisheries are whittled away totally?


Where does it say there will be more fish taken by commercial fishing?

It's just a case of management re managing the managers of what little fish we are allowed to catch there will never be a cosy arrangement with the MFA to determine how much fish can be caught.
I fish to live and live to fish.

#24 barry luxton

barry luxton

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,321 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 02 February 2008 - 09:00 PM

Where does it say there will be more fish taken by commercial fishing?

It's just a case of management re managing the managers of what little fish we are allowed to catch there will never be a cosy arrangement with the MFA to determine how much fish can be caught.



It will be more cosy if the rsa was to have a say in the management of the fishery as well. I see commercial interests are having a say in the rsa consultation so it would be like for like i suppose.

 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.. 


#25 Leon Roskilly

Leon Roskilly

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,436 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rainham, Kent
  • Interests:Fishing (Coarse, Sea & Game), Conservation & Cycling

Posted 02 February 2008 - 09:28 PM

I'm not aware of any changes not to bring in this charge to commercial fishermen, we've had more pressing things to worry about so the subject has not been at the forefront of our discussions with DEFRA.


Charging fishing vessels does not require additional legislation, but charging sea anglers does.

Both are covered within the Marine Bill White paper

(Note: The Marine Bill is about giving the government the powers to do what it might want to do in future, once the powers have been attained, there will almost certainly be be further consultations before the government of the day decides if and how it will use those powers. It is likely that a draft bill will go before parliament in the next few months, with the bill itself going before parliament in 2009)

http://www.defra.gov...-whitepaper.pdf

In the white paper, the proposal to charge the fishing industry is addressed thus:

Charging the fishing industry

Introduction

7.149 The 2004 Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit report ‘Net Benefits’2 proposed that cost recovery be introduced for fisheries management and enforcement.

In their joint response to the report, ‘Securing the Benefits’13, the UK fisheries administrations undertook to consider this issue, taking into account questions such as the possible impact on the international competitiveness of the fleet, the variable costs of managing different parts of the UK fleet and the need for equitable treatment across fishing sub-sectors.

7.150 ‘Net Benefits’2 estimated that the total cost of fisheries management is in the order of £100m per annum.

Having carefully considered the recovery of these costs, we have concluded that, at this time, it would not be possible to recover a significant proportion of these costs without introducing significant cross-subsidies that could distort the operation of the market or make the UK fleet less competitive in international markets.

7.151 There may be benefit in recovering some of the costs of fisheries management however, in a way that helps to meet wider social and environmental goals.

For example, a charge that was related to the environmental costs of certain fishing methods could help to provide incentives to select less damaging fishing gear.

This implies a modest, targeted charging scheme might be appropriate.

Such a scheme could be delivered though the use of our existing powers to charge for fishing vessel licences"


So although a general charge on fishing boats isn't on the cards for now, it is still on the table to introduced at a later date (probably when the remaining fleet is considered to be operating profitably).

In the meantime, a charge for some commercial sectors considered to be less than whiter than white from an environmental perspective does seem to be still very much on the cards.

As far as angling is concerned, Jonathan Shaw has recently written:

Before any licensing scheme is introduced, we are clear that we need to demostrate to sea anglers that it can provide real benefits to the sector


So, again the Marine Bill will introduce the powers, but whether a licence will follow depends.......


One thing that I've learned is that civil servants and politicians are adept at creating a scare over one issue, so that everyone concentrates on making a noise over that, whilst they quietly get on with their real agenda without anyone noticing the red herrings until it's too late.

Whilst Recreational Sea Angling is up in arms about the licence, it would be wise for some to keep an eye on other issues that might turn out to be much more important in the long run.

Similarly whilst commercials are being teased over quotas, someone needs to spot what is quietly being slipped past them.

Or am I just being far too cynical?

Edited by Leon Roskilly, 02 February 2008 - 09:37 PM.

RNLI Shoreline Member

Member of the Angling Trust


#26 Leon Roskilly

Leon Roskilly

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,436 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rainham, Kent
  • Interests:Fishing (Coarse, Sea & Game), Conservation & Cycling

Posted 02 February 2008 - 09:49 PM

Where does it say there will be more fish taken by commercial fishing?

It's just a case of management re managing the managers of what little fish we are allowed to catch there will never be a cosy arrangement with the MFA to determine how much fish can be caught.



Leaving aside how thames estuary fishermen were excused from the EU 5% bycatch limitation on roke.

Or given extra sole quota to tide them over.


We recently had this announced:

http://www.mfa.gov.u...news/080111.htm


“Fisheries Administrations have considered requests from inshore fishermen in the Eastern Channel to review the current monthly catch limit of 100 kgs per vessel per month set for Area VIID cod.

The MFA are therefore increasing the catch limit to 1 tonne per vessel per month.”


Now I have no problem with additional quota being found for the inshore fleet when this has no real implications for the recreational sea fishery, or the marine environment, but removal of more fish from inshore waters must mean less fish available in the recreational sea fishery.

But I don't remember any consultation about the effects of these additional quotas on other stakeholders, despite the fact that in discussing this issue recently DEFRA responded and minuted

Defra acknowledged concerns and took on board comments about consultation on quota issues.


Unless I have misunderstood the meaning of 'taking on board'.

RNLI Shoreline Member

Member of the Angling Trust


#27 glennk

glennk

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,237 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 February 2008 - 10:29 PM

How many do you represent Glennk. Show us what is reality.



I represent Me mate no one else I have never asked anyone to represent me nor do I claim to represent anyone else. Sadly I have to come on sites like this and defend my position because the likes of Leon keep going into parliament and claiming to represent me. Ive had to join his organisation and the NFSA just so I can get some info on what they are up to and it aint pretty.

One simple FACT is the inshore fisheries working group have brought us to a position where we are about to be charged to fish in the sea, to have bag limits introduced, no take zones are on the way and bait digging restrictions will follow and we (you included0 will get nothing in return. Should I be greatful to the Inshore fisheries working group for that ? All the anglers who took part should have turned around and walk away from it along time ago. Thankfully one of the members recently spoke out against it. The rest should hang their heads in shame.

#28 wurzel

wurzel

    Member

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

Posted 02 February 2008 - 10:37 PM

Leaving aside how thames estuary fishermen were excused from the EU 5% bycatch limitation on roke.

Or given extra sole quota to tide them over.
We recently had this announced:

http://www.mfa.gov.u...news/080111.htm
Now I have no problem with additional quota being found for the inshore fleet when this has no real implications for the recreational sea fishery, or the marine environment, but removal of more fish from inshore waters must mean less fish available in the recreational sea fishery.

But I don't remember any consultation about the effects of these additional quotas on other stakeholders, despite the fact that in discussing this issue recently DEFRA responded and minuted
Unless I have misunderstood the meaning of 'taking on board'.


Unless I misunderstand thank goodness you have no control over my livelihood.
For a start DEFRA have not produced more cod for area VIID instead of allowing 100 kg of cod a month for 12 months they say the fishermen can take up to I tonne a month for as long as takes for the over all quota to be caught then the fishery will be closed for the rest of the year, I expect the fishery will be closed with in a month or so with no hope of finding any more for the Autumn cod fishery.

Any extra quota e.g. sole quota for under tens area IV is from the over all quota allocated for that species agreed by ICES and the EU it's not just magiced up by DEFRA.

The Thornback quota was a fine example of ICES producing very shaky science and having to back track when proved wrong, still say WWF or Green peace had a hand in that some how.

Perhaps we should start working out the difference between the cod catch of NE charter boats and the under ten fleet in that area if you want to discuss amounts of fish taken from a fishery.
I fish to live and live to fish.

#29 H.A.

H.A.

    Member

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

Posted 03 February 2008 - 12:26 AM

Perhaps we should start working out the difference between the cod catch of NE charter boats and the under ten fleet in that area if you want to discuss amounts of fish taken from a fishery.



I guess this is something each party needs to pay attention to in that area.

There are, indeed, other areas where the story is far different. And thank the Lord quotas were met early in the English Channel areas (and soon will be again). And I thank him too that the RSAs I fish with and meet on charter angling boats put back anything up to 90% of what they catch ... alive, not dead; not tonnes of obscene discards!


One freak population of 1/2 year old codling doth not a healthy fishery make.

You commercial fellahs are full of bull and hanging on to your 'right to destroy' fisheries wherever you throw your nets. Blame the Greens , blame the RSAs, blame committees, blame MEPs, blame MPs, blame Defra, blame your local Council ... blame every bass turd you can name but don't blame the greedy netsmen who have decimated UK stocks of plaice and cod and are working hard (local to me) on doing the same to soles; and sure, I include French, Belgian, Spanish and Scandinavian boats too! They're all greedy, short-sighted fools!

I spent the lunch hour with a Dungie trawler/dredger skipper today; a very realistic man who will diversify his target dependent on the time of year and minute changes in the state of 'his' fishery.
He blames only two things for the fact that he has to really pull out the stops to make a living - foreign vessels over 10 metre vessels 'beaming' up to 3 miles out and wait for it .. the GREENS!
When I pushed him about who he meant, he said everyone who wants to stop him fishing.
He had no idea who the GREENS actually were. Come to think of it, nor do I; but they do sound impressive when you are looking for public sympathy for the poor, down-trodden fisherfolks of England, eh?

I suppose I will be called a shade of green now; very pale green I can assure you. What many of us share on this forum and others is a desire to fish; not to empty a fishery of fish; just to enjoy the remaining natural marine resource.

Not decimate it.

:fish:

#30 wurzel

wurzel

    Member

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

Posted 03 February 2008 - 05:56 AM

I guess this is something each party needs to pay attention to in that area.

There are, indeed, other areas where the story is far different. And thank the Lord quotas were met early in the English Channel areas (and soon will be again). And I thank him too that the RSAs I fish with and meet on charter angling boats put back anything up to 90% of what they catch ... alive, not dead; not tonnes of obscene discards!
One freak population of 1/2 year old codling doth not a healthy fishery make.

You commercial fellahs are full of bull and hanging on to your 'right to destroy' fisheries wherever you throw your nets. Blame the Greens , blame the RSAs, blame committees, blame MEPs, blame MPs, blame Defra, blame your local Council ... blame every bass turd you can name but don't blame the greedy netsmen who have decimated UK stocks of plaice and cod and are working hard (local to me) on doing the same to soles; and sure, I include French, Belgian, Spanish and Scandinavian boats too! They're all greedy, short-sighted fools!

I spent the lunch hour with a Dungie trawler/dredger skipper today; a very realistic man who will diversify his target dependent on the time of year and minute changes in the state of 'his' fishery.
He blames only two things for the fact that he has to really pull out the stops to make a living - foreign vessels over 10 metre vessels 'beaming' up to 3 miles out and wait for it .. the GREENS!
When I pushed him about who he meant, he said everyone who wants to stop him fishing.
He had no idea who the GREENS actually were. Come to think of it, nor do I; but they do sound impressive when you are looking for public sympathy for the poor, down-trodden fisherfolks of England, eh?

I suppose I will be called a shade of green now; very pale green I can assure you. What many of us share on this forum and others is a desire to fish; not to empty a fishery of fish; just to enjoy the remaining natural marine resource.

Not decimate it.

:fish:


No HA I don't think you are a shade of green, brown is more appropriate.
I fish to live and live to fish.