EFTTA - Sea Fishing Licence

[obe1]

OK now I'm getting a little confused!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

New Zealand, Norway and Iceland have authorities and politicians who put the fish first, who dare stand up against the presure from their commercial sector. I don't see anything like it in the UK meaning that you can put up a 400 mile zone for UK and it would still be overfished.

 

Er that's what I've been saying, so a licence won't make any difference.

 

 

By the way Norway in 2007 experienced the lowest amount of wild salmon caught by anglers. So it is not everything up there which is rosy.

 

What's that got to do with a sea licence? and anyway all fish suffer a decline at some point, saltwater or freshwater, licenced or not.

 

 

I am sure you'll like the Government's positive attitude towards recreational fishing in New Zealand but I am also sure you wouldn't like everything from the New Zealand management scheme to be introduced in UK:

 

http://www.fish.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/AB60A...StateofFish.pdf

"We have a growing population, which means more pressure on this valuable resource. Recreational fishing has become increasingly important in some regions. The role of tangata whenua in managing fisheries has increased. And we see changes in the commercial market values for some species.In popular fisheries, where demand outpaces supply, the government must decide how to share the fish between our non-commercial and commercial fishers. Where does the best value for the country lie? This is a public policy issue the Ministry of Fisheries is working to resolve."

 

.........

Restoring Rapaki Bay fisheries

 

"Included in this are new regulations to control fishing in the reserve. The guardians have stopped all customary and commercial fishing in the area, and are now monitoring the catches of recreational fishers." (but only monitoring not banning recreational fishing!) Any recreational fisher in the reserve must now report their catch to the Tangata Tiaki, telling them how many fish were caught and when."

---------

World class and growing

New Zealand’s recreational fisheries are world class. Within minutes of our major cities, people can go and gather a feed of shellfi sh, or catch rock lobster (crayfi sh), snapper or blue cod. This is part of our New Zealand heritage.

 

'But improving the state of our important inshore fisheries remains a challenge for fisheries managers. Recreational catches are managed by a range of rules. Some set out how many fish a person can take each day. Others set minimum size limits, or limit the fishing methods that can be used. The rules help make sure there are enough fish to go around. They are made to be simple, and usually apply to a wide geographic area.'

 

I don't see anything wrong with that, in fact it just goes to prove that proper fisheries management such as minimum landing sizes, bag limits etc. can be implemented without a rod licence.

 

So again, the licence is a tax, it will give no benefit to RSA's environmentaly, politically or financially. Anything that Defra says the licence will help to deliver can only be achieved by proper fisheries management and not the introduction of a rod licence. Being as most of our fisheries policies are decided in Brussels and the government is about to give away any remaining say we have left then a better marine environment, and better and bigger fish stocks can not be created by the UK government, therefore a licence will not produce the benefits the government say it will, therefore it is just a way of collecting more money, therefore it is just a tax.

 

Joe

[H.A.]

Do you think RSA is better of in the game with or without a tax?

 

It won't make one wurzel of a difference.

 

Anglers will almost certainly be 'taxed to fish' in the near future, but anyone who things that will make any difference to any species stock in the UK is sectionable.

 

I just hope some of you commercial boys have less competition in the future when they rake in (or up) your licensing and tighten commercial fishing regulations still further.

 

[wurzel]

And CEFAS would know that the socio-economic value is 20-100 times bigger for a recreational caught cod than a netted one. Makes the job easy for the minister to decide who should have the cod access, eh

 

That’s debatable, how ever green groups and ICES don't consider that when they recommend zero catches.

[obe1]

Yes, you are right all these things can be done without a sea angling license if the political will and courage is there. Problem is politics is not that logical. I would love if you could change the rules of the game. Call it a tax if you like, oppose it and hope the best and/or try convince the Govt and EU that they can and should provide some proper fisheries management as they have been told for a couple of decades by now. Things are improving but slowly. The situation here is heading the same way as in New Zealand where the minister said (see above): '..the government must decide how to share the fish between our non-commercial and commercial fishers.' It's all about politics. Do you think RSA is better of in the game with or without a tax?

 

Yes I do call it a tax and yes I do oppose it because the licence wil make absolutely no difference to the marine environment or fish stocks, the two things it is supposed to influence.

Things here are definitely not heading the same way as they are in New Zealand because the New Zealand government decides the fate of their fish stocks but the government here does not and that is the reason that a licence will never benefit anglers in this country.

Yes RSA's should be involved but we shouldn't have to pay for a right to be involved in something that affects all of us, we have something called the freedom of speech and it is one of our fundemental human rights to voice an opinion and have that opinion heard, if we are to deny people the right to have a say because thay do not contribute towards something then should we not deny the unemployed the right to vote.

Let's get one thing straight, the word stakeholder has been used a lot recently to describe anglers but the whole point of this bill is to create a better marine environment, a marine environment that affects every man, woman and child in the UK, we are all stakeholders because our marine environment affects each and every one of us in some way or another. Yes we benefit from it more than some but so do boat owners, jet skiers, divers, holiday makers and anybody who eats commercially caught fish, yet it is RSA's that are being singled out to cough up more money to try to compensate for an inadequate fisheries policy. Until that policy is sorted out then it doesn't matter how much money you throw at the problem it will still be there, even if the licence was £200 it wouldn't make any difference to fish stocks because the ONLY thing that will increase fish stocks is a decent fisheries policy and that is something we have no control over, licenced or not.

 

Joe

[steve good]

Yes I do call it a tax and yes I do oppose it because the licence wil make absolutely no difference to the marine environment or fish stocks, the two things it is supposed to influence.

Things here are definitely not heading the same way as they are in New Zealand because the New Zealand government decides the fate of their fish stocks but the government here does not and that is the reason that a licence will never benefit anglers in this country.

Yes RSA's should be involved but we shouldn't have to pay for a right to be involved in something that affects all of us, we have something called the freedom of speech and it is one of our fundemental human rights to voice an opinion and have that opinion heard, if we are to deny people the right to have a say because thay do not contribute towards something then should we not deny the unemployed the right to vote.

Let's get one thing straight, the word stakeholder has been used a lot recently to describe anglers but the whole point of this bill is to create a better marine environment, a marine environment that affects every man, woman and child in the UK, we are all stakeholders because our marine environment affects each and every one of us in some way or another. Yes we benefit from it more than some but so do boat owners, jet skiers, divers, holiday makers and anybody who eats commercially caught fish, yet it is RSA's that are being singled out to cough up more money to try to compensate for an inadequate fisheries policy. Until that policy is sorted out then it doesn't matter how much money you throw at the problem it will still be there, even if the licence was £200 it wouldn't make any difference to fish stocks because the ONLY thing that will increase fish stocks is a decent fisheries policy and that is something we have no control over, licenced or not.

 

Joe

 

Hi obe1

 

Maybe DEFRA want to have licences for anglers so that they will have some sort of control of them when they introduce the Marine Bill and no take zones

 

Maybe DEFRA have learned a lesson from the NewZealanders

 

"Given the success of Goat Island, one might assume that the rollout of further marine reserves would have been rapid and decisive. It wasn't. For the next three decades Ballantine would square off against stubborn anglers, reluctant bureaucrats, and fence-sitting scientists".

 

"Ballantine calls the grand compromise, in which commercial fishing was banned but recreational fishing for the most popular species was permitted"

 

"To Ballantine it was a travesty. The act of parliament that sanctified ordinary Goat Island now denied the iconic Poor Knights its chance for ecological redemption. Seventeen years of jousting would elapse before the recreational-fishing provision was moved and full protection was conferred on the beleaguered Knights"

 

 

"To be fair, few realized the extent to which recreational fishing can damage marine ecosystems. Commercial fishing, with its capacity to scoop up whole schools in a single trawl, or deploy thousands of hooks in a night, was perceived to be the enemy, not a bunch of weekend anglers trying to catch a feed. Only later, as fish numbers dwindled and some species became rare, was the scale of the problem realized".

 

"Marine reserves, like libraries on land, they should be regarded as essential public amenities. And, as the Poor Knights experience shows, they must be fully protected. Allowing fishing in a marine reserve makes as much sense as allowing the most popular books in the library to be borrowed and never returned."

 

"Yet this brand new library of the sea is only half its intended size. The application sought protection for three sites, but only two were approved. The site most popular with anglers—the largest of the three—was removed from consideration at the 11th hour by conservation officials with no stomach for a fight.

 

What is RSA licencing all about, most anglers feel that it is just another form of tax collection. That veiw is completly wrong.

 

RSA licencing is all about control, angling licences will come with the normal reems of conditions attached to it, and punishments for non-compliance

 

If RSA licencing and/or bag limits are introduced it will be for a logical reason, only time will tell or prove what the driver or motevation behind it is

 

steve

[steve good]

And CEFAS would know that the socio-economic value is 20-100 times bigger for a recreational caught cod than a netted one. Makes the job easy for the minister to decide who should have the cod access, eh

 

Hi FishingsFine

 

CEFAS,DEFRA and the Goverment all know the true picture-----

 

"Since joining the Common Market 30 years ago, the British fishing fleet has been reduced to less than half its size and is still in decline"

 

"Brussels now has control of how and when we fish and how much fish we can catch. The UK provides the EU with 70% of its fishing but we are only allowed 13% by value of the quota species. (confirmed by Frans Fischler, fisheries commissioner 2002). This 13% equates to about 20% of the total catch in British waters and is stilll worth £500 million a year, which means that we are giving away to EU interests about £2 billion a year in fish plus the value added costs of boat building and repair, fish processing, employment and ancillary services, in total about £2.5 billion.(DEFRA UK Sea Fisheries Statistics)"

 

"Due to EU quota system imposed by Brussels, the EU's own estimate is that 40% of all fish caught are dumped as discards. This discard policy contravenes the UN Convention on Law of the Sea with regard to dumping. (UNCLOS sect 5 art 210)"

 

Allowing for discards the British fishermen are losing about £3 billion a year by our membership of the EU, that is our socio-economic LOSE,

 

QUOTE / Makes the job easy for the minister to decide who should have the cod access, eh The Minister is aware of the above, so how does your statement make it easy for the Minister to decide cod access, thats decided at Brussels

 

steve

Edited February 7, 2008 by steve good

[obe1]

Sweden thinks otherwise. A sea angling license is high on the political agenda in that country (but you are right. They don't have to ask a sea angling license to fix the problems but the political reality tends to make the case - 'tit for tat' thinking I guess)

 

http://sr.se/cgi-bin/international/nyhetss...Artikel=1860700

Government Announces New Fishing Policy

29 January 2008 The Swedish government have presented a new fishing policy in order to attempt to save fish stocks in Swedish seas.

 

More than 31 million US dollars over a six year period has been assigned to the plans to work towards sustainable fishing in Sweden.

 

Around 30 percent of the Swedish fishing fleet will be scrapped and fishermen who lose their jobs will be viable for redundancy payment.

 

For those who continue to fish commercially, laws will become stricter. The Swedish Board of Fisheries will impose fines on those who over-fish while severe breaches of the law will result in fishing licences being confiscated.

 

The Board welcomed the Government's plans and called for national rulings in order to save fish stocks after EU fishing policies failed. Talks included making laws to ban fishing during the breeding season.

 

In 2006 nearly 2,000 people had fishing licences in Sweden and more than 1,500 vessels had permission to fish commercially.

 

---------------------

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/press_corner...com08_06_en.htm

 

Brussels, 11 January 2008

Operational Programme for the Swedish Fisheries Sector for the period 2007-2013

(...)

Priority 4: Sustainable development of fisheries areas

This axis aims at facilitating the sustainable development of fisheries areas and at creating new jobs through initiatives by local fisheries groups. To achieve these objectives, support will be given in the framework of local development strategies for the diversification of activities, the development of fishing tourism and recreational fishing, increasing value added to fisheries products, the dissemination of innovation, promoting the quality of the coastal environment, protecting natural and architectural heritage and values, as well as training for employees in the fisheries sector.

 

 

Well it looks like the Swedish government is fanally waking up to the fact that things can't go on as they are and are prepared to do something about it

---------------

Priority 1: Adaptation of the EU fishing fleet

 

This priority axis aims at adjusting the Swedish fishing fleet to the situation of the fish stocks, as well as improving the profitability of fishing companies.

 

Measures foreseen include support for the permanent and temporary cessation of fishing activities, and investments in modernisation on board vessels, including engine replacement to improve energy efficiency and introduce more selective fishing methods. Socio-economic measures will facilitate the entry of young fishers into the sector and will provide compensation for loss of jobs due to the permanent cessation of fishing activities of the fishing vessels concerned. Measures to improve training for fishermen and diversification into other areas than fisheries are also envisaged.

 

---------------

 

Can't see anything actualy saying a licence is on the cards in priority 4 although maybe there is a hint in there but at least if it is introduced the Swedes will see something in return because they are willing to improve commercial fishing for the better whereas our government seems to be unwilling to do so. Let's hope they wake up soon and start to look at other countries to see what can be achieved, sadly I can't see that happening anytime in the near future

 

Good link by the way

 

Joe

Edited February 5, 2008 by obe1

[obe1]

Hi obe1

 

What is RSA licencing all about, most anglers feel that it is just another form of tax collection. That veiw is completly wrong.

 

RSA licencing is all about control, angling licences will come with the normal reems of conditions attached to it, and punishments for non-compliance

 

If RSA licencing and/or bag limits are introduced it will be for a logical reason, only time will tell or prove what the driver or motevation behind it is

 

steve

 

Sorry mate but that view is completely correct, the government can quite easily introduce restrictions on RSA's such as NTZ's, MLS's and bag limits, etc through bylaws, a licence is not needed for that and never has been.

The licence is a source of income to pay for the administration of new bodies, the policing of new regulations (some of which do not affect us directly) and for subsidising local councils for the extra work needed for improving toilets, carparks and for when these new regulations come into force i.e new signs etc. All admitted to in the marine bill if you read it properly.

 

Joe

[Guest challenge]

That isn't factually correct

GlenK

 

What would your thoughts (or anybody else come to that) be on a permit scheme where as recreational fishermen you would have a limited angling permit (Free of charge) to fish in the north eastern sea fisheries district. Anybody could apply for a said permit a bit like the limited shellfish permit. http://erycdata.eastriding.gov.uk/pls/port...FORMATION_0.DOC

How would you feel in being restricted to a daily catch limit in accordance with the said By-Law that would be put in place as requirements for issue and use of such a permit?

A scheme like this would help the local SFC, s in the accountability of recreational angling and (like the limited shellfish permit) help in the evaluation (in regards of numbers of participants) and the accountability in regard the amount of fish taken by anglers.

I believe that the next stage of the restricted shellfish licence will be the introduction of some kind of log book as to what each individual permit holder catches per week or days come to that.

These hobby fishermen in our district have now become accountable to the powers that be and I report that there has been an overwhelming support among the hobby fishermen to this scheme.

Of course the proof of the pudding will come this summer when these fishermen will be policed in the same way as our fulltime commercial fishermen.

Regards.

[barry luxton]

GlenK

 

What would your thoughts (or anybody else come to that) be on a permit scheme where as recreational fishermen you would have a limited angling permit (Free of charge) to fish in the north eastern sea fisheries district. Anybody could apply for a said permit a bit like the limited shellfish permit. http://erycdata.eastriding.gov.uk/pls/port...FORMATION_0.DOC

How would you feel in being restricted to a daily catch limit in accordance with the said By-Law that would be put in place as requirements for issue and use of such a permit?

A scheme like this would help the local SFC, s in the accountability of recreational angling and (like the limited shellfish permit) help in the evaluation (in regards of numbers of participants) and the accountability in regard the amount of fish taken by anglers.

I believe that the next stage of the restricted shellfish licence will be the introduction of some kind of log book as to what each individual permit holder catches per week or days come to that.

These hobby fishermen in our district have now become accountable to the powers that be and I report that there has been an overwhelming support among the hobby fishermen to this scheme.

Of course the proof of the pudding will come this summer when these fishermen will be policed in the same way as our fulltime commercial fishermen.

Regards.

 

Where is the need to regulate the rsa. why should they be regulated. Who should pay. Jobs for the boys.