EFTTA - Sea Fishing Licence

[wurzel]

[quote name='FishingsFine' date='Feb 3 2008, 12:49 AM' post='8054

 

- and then this one from wurzel:

'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.'

 

Believe me this is what will happen if not already done. As from last year cod is included the EU's data collection scheme. UK has to deliver catch data for recreational fishing now. When these figures are available do you think they will not be looked at and used by wurzel and his colleges?

 

And when you get RSA reps makeing statments like:

 

Quote

 

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

 

 

The inshore commercial lobby will be keen to make best use of those figures.

[Leon Roskilly]

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.

 

Ah! but that sole quota was originally available to EU boats fishing other waters Wurzel, and it's removal wouldn't have affected the UK's inshore recreational fishery.

 

But then DEFRA swapped some Scottish nephrops for the additional sole quota, and gave it to the Thames fishermen so that they could remove more fish from the inshore waters of the Thames Estuary.

 

So it is 'our' stocks that take the hit.

 

Now I'm not saying that is wrong (although it could be).

 

But what IS wrong is that no one considers what effect these decisions are likely to have on the recreational fishery, and whereas commercial fishermen and fishing organisations are involved as 'stakeholders' whenever RSA issues such as licenses and bag limits are being considered, when it comes to fundamental issues that will affect the recreational fishery such as the divvying up of the fish out there, Recreational Sea Angling considerations and representation is kept out of the discussions.

 

Though I can see why you wouldn't like that to change.

Edited February 3, 2008 by Leon Roskilly

[Leon Roskilly]

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.

 

 

Look at it another way Glenn.

 

With or without anglers at the table, the DEFRA Marine Fisheries Stakeholders Group exists, and so does the sub-group, the Inshore Fisheries Working Group.

 

Comprised of commercial fishing organisations, fisheries scientists, Sea Fisheries Committeess, DEFRA people and environmental NGOs (who strongly support licensing and bag limits).

 

It was DEFRA who decided that the Recreational Sea Angling strategy should be put before the Inshore Working Group, it was the last thing that angling representatives wanted.

 

And it was DEFRA who decided that as the existing DEFRA strategy already encompassed Licences and bag limits, that they should be included in the consultation.

 

The way that 'decisions' are arrived at is by general (but not unanimous) agreement around the table.

 

So it was the job of representatives from each group to persuade enough representatives from the other groups to a particular point of view.

 

There was at times some pretty hot moments, as issues were thrashed out in a limited amount of time.

 

The sea angling representatives present fought hard to keep some issues in, to have others taken out, and where it was obvious that there wasn't a cat in hell's chance of getting exactly what we wanted, to at least get the best possible outcome.

 

You can bet your life that however much you don't like some of the things in the eventual document, without those RSA reps in there fighting the RSA corner, you would have disliked it even more.

 

Much more!

 

But that's history, now it's your turn.

 

The consultation has gone out to the wider public.

 

You can now give your views on what you like, what you don't like, what you think is missing and what you think needs to be changed.

 

And as the reps at the meetings found, so can the commercial fishing organisations, the sea fisheries committees, the environmental groups and anyone else who cares to have an input, so your arguments need to be well put and pursuasive.

 

For if not enough anglers and angling organisations fight effectively for what they want to see, then other's views will prevail.

 

What I would counsel though, is that rather than allowing the red mist to come down and to react to only what is percieved as threats, remember too that this is an opportunity to shape the future and to build a much better and more secure recreational fishery.

 

The danger is that once more everyone falls for the old trick of fighting so hard against what they could do to us, they forget to fight for the things that they could do for us, and once more we will have been stuffed.

 

Merely squashing the licence proposal will be a major defeat for RSA, when there is so much more that could be attained if anglers and RSA has the vision to see that.

Edited February 3, 2008 by Leon Roskilly

[Leon Roskilly]

Not popular I know but I have to ask: Do you see sea anglers and the charter boating having the same interests to fight for at all times?

 

Why should Whitby charter boat skippers worry about the stocks of flounders in an estuary, or the number of bass being caught by anglers from Southern beaches?

 

What their customers are interested in is cod, plain and simple.

 

And yet there customers come from far and wide to experience some of the last decent cod fishing in the UK.

 

But where did those customers start?

 

As kids catching flounder in an estuary?

 

What kept their interest in angling as they learned to cast further from the beach, had enough money to try some charter fishing locally?

 

If the kids in the estuaries are no longer catching flounder, if southern beach anglers give up because they hardly ever catch anything decent, if anglers try charter fishing locally and fail to catch anything that makes the cost of a trip worthwhile, the number of anglers coming to Whitby will start to dry up, no matter how many pictures of big cod are posted up.

[barry luxton]

Merely squashing the licence proposal will be a major defeat for RSA, when there is so much more that could be attained if anglers and RSA has the vision to see that.

 

 

So in reality, the rsa have very little to look forward to. Defra are in effect holding a gun to the rsa heads, 'you accept a licence and what is proposed or you get what we give you'.

 

Your para Leon is clear, you are in effect resigned to the fact that the rsa will get a licence in any event, any less will be a disaster, is that correct. If so i feel sorry for the rsa who only want to go fishing just like the inshore ten commercials but are not allowed to. I can also see Wurzels point of little or no quota, unfortunatly the industry took care of that by allowing the big boys to take all and leave the scraps for the under tens and the rsa. If the rsa are taken on board, then log books appear on the horizon to check what is being caught and landed. They, that includes governments and the eu can't even reconcile what commercially is landed with all the rules and regs inplace as the cfp rules are being bent to suit inany event. Does the rsa really need to be part of that corrupt ideal.

 

What can the rsa attain along with carparks, slipways, toilet blocks, conflict with inshore commercials fighting for the limited stock, if what defra is stating commercial meeting and advising on stock issues without any rsa input. The rsa are stuffed in any event. And they will have to pay for the priviledge as well. The way forward stinks.

 

Or as Glennk suggests, tell them to poke it as i'm off fishing.

Edited February 4, 2008 by barry luxton

[Leon Roskilly]

Your para Leon is clear, you are in effect resigned to the fact that the rsa will get a licence in any event, any less will be a disaster, is that correct.

 

Not at all Barry.

 

We don't need a licence, we already contribute enough through the stimulation of the economy, and into the government coffers via VAT.

 

The licence issue is totally beside the point.

 

But whilst everyone is totally focussed on that one issue, DEFRA can (and will) comfortably forget about doing anything of real benefit for Recreational Sea Anglers.

 

As well as opposing the licence (and other proposed restrictions), we also need to keep reminding them what they can do FOR us, having a licence is not a pre-condition for that.

 

Ultimately it's down to whether the politicians believe that RSA is important to them.

 

If they think it is, they will tell the minister to tell DEFRA to get their fingers out.

 

So, as well as responding to both the bad and good bits within the RSA strategy, you need to get you own MP on side.

 

You can do that easily via http://www.theyworkforyou.com

Edited February 3, 2008 by Leon Roskilly

[Leon Roskilly]

The way forward stinks.

 

Or as Glennk suggests, tell them to poke it as i'm off fishing.

 

 

 

‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’

[steve good]

Hi All

 

Just a small point,

 

Anglers say no to licences unless DEFRA provide more and larger fish, how can DEFRA possibly do that.

 

Most fish spend some of the year in inshores water and the rest of the year offshore

 

All EU commercial fishermen catch these fish at some time of year

 

Most of these fisheries are managed by the EU commission

 

Unless DEFRA manage all EU commercial fishermen it will not be possible for them to provide anglers with more and larger fish

 

When the Lisbon Treaty is ratified the situation will get worst because that Treaty confers the right to manage UK fisheries on the EU Commission and DEFRA will have no say whatsoever on how our (UK) fsheries are managed

 

It is not possible for DEFRA to provide more or larger fish

 

I think Leon rights watch out for the red herring

 

steve

[glennk]

Sorry Leon, Over the years of reading this forum I have come to understand that you are in all senses just a politicean like those you choose to hang out with at parliament. You try to point the finger away from yourself by suggesting things like The Bradley report brought about the RSA strategy.For that reason I dont read the 5000 word essays you put on here.

 

I can figure out what your trying to say from the opening lines so no need for pages of links and surveys. I get the idea you are trying to say that without you the deal would have been much worse.

 

Looking at it from a different perspective I fail to see how. The inshore fisheries group have delivered nothing. You should be honest and just admit that the inshore fisheries working group has failed in all its objectives. The most important one being to engage the countries sea anglers.

 

Maybe the without sea anglers at the table the thing would have progressed without out us, but I doubt that. The fact that SACN and NFSA were at the table allows DEFRA to tell us they consulted anglers and they agree. Without anglers there to give them their rubber stamp all they could say is The RSA strategy was drafted by commercial fishermen. Your attendance has rubber stamped the rubbish we are now faced with and DEFRA say as much in the consultation. How would this read if it said drawn up by the commercial fishing industry

 

Drawn up with the help of anglers’ groups including the National Federation of Sea Anglers, Bass Anglers Sportfishing Society and the Sea Anglers Conservation Network as well as commercial fishermen, the draft Recreational Sea Angling Strategy aims to boost the sport’s numbers while helping to improve fish stocks and the marine environment.

 

And this

 

It has been produced in collaboration with national angling organisations (NFSA, BASS and SACN), representatives from Sea Fisheries Committees, Cefas and the NFFO.

Edited February 3, 2008 by glennk

[barry luxton]

As well as opposing the licence (and other proposed restrictions), we also need to keep reminding them what they can do FOR us, having a licence is not a pre-condition for that.

 

Ultimately it's down to whether the politicians believe that RSA is important to them.

 

If they think it is, they will tell the minister to tell DEFRA to get their fingers out.

 

So, as well as responding to both the bad and good bits within the RSA strategy, you need to get you own MP on side.

 

You can do that easily via http://www.theyworkforyou.com

 

I'm not sure exactly what the benifits or what can defra do that is good for the rsa, can you name any? If they left the rsa alone, they, defra would be doing them, rsa a favour. As said previous, it aint broke, why fix it. Defra have demonstrated to date absolutly nothing that they can give the rsa, or am i missing something.

 

Can't be bothered to write to my mp, as he can't be bothered to reply to emails. Plus, marshall andrews is in his twilight years, months hopefully of his mp career, new broom sweeps clean and all that, hopefully, who knows.

Edited February 3, 2008 by barry luxton