Defra meet - Buckfastleigh, 25th February, 2008

[glennk]

We were hoping for a new structure like this one

 

[barry luxton]

Just by reading the draft document i have great fear that it is going to be too overwhelming for most rsa's, to even understand the contents, let alone reply.

 

I'm not afraid to say that it will be very difficult for me to reply in a way that will be acceptable.

 

Some of the paragraphs, and i'm not taking the 'p' how do the rsa respond to it when we already know that it is not in defra's control to do anything about it in any event.

 

One of the main objectives to the strategy is; 'to provide more and bigger fish within a healthy and sustainable ecosystem and environment. How do the rsa respond to that as defra certainly ain't in a position to deliver.

 

 

 

4.7 'there are a range of management tools that would promote fish production. The concept of a minimum landing size (mls) that is above the size at first maturity for each specis is broadly promoted.'

 

We all know that this is not happening and certainly will be resisted in any event. How do we respond to it any suggestions would be welcome.

[glennk]

I raised this point with Nicola Clarke at an RSA - DEFRA meeting in June of last year. I also wrote about it in my response to the marine Bill. The ability to communicate with the average angler is poor (maybe by design) and therefore DEFRA can be pretty certain that a lot of people wont reply to their strategy consulatation because they havent a clue what its all about.

 

You cant just blaim DEFRA though Barry. They formed the Inshore Fisheries Working group RSA sub committee to make sure anglers were communicated with effectively. A Couple of items might be of interest Barry. In failing to communicate with the average sea angler, the inshore fisheries working group have failed on these items.

 

13. It was agreed that the RSA group must be representative of the vast majority of stakeholders, including individuals, representative groups, tackle dealers and charter operators.

 

14. Channels for communicating with RSA stakeholders were discussed, including regional and angling press and Fishing Focus. It was noted that Sea Angling News it not widely available, and Sea Angler is more widely read by ‘new’ anglers. Richard Ferre offered space in the NFSA newsletter for any Defra announcements relevant to his members. Reel Life, the Environment Agency (EA) newsletter for anglers could also be used.

 

from

 

http://yalasa.proboards107.com/index.cgi?b...y&thread=61

 

also some info here

 

http://yalasa.proboards107.com/index.cgi?board=articles

Edited March 3, 2008 by glennk

[barry luxton]

I raised this point with Nicola Clarke at an RSA - DEFRA meeting in June of last year. I also wrote about it in my response to the marine Bill. The ability to communicate with the average angler is poor (maybe by design) and therefore DEFRA can be pretty certain that a lot of people wont reply to their strategy consulatation because they havent a clue what its all about.

 

You cant just blaim DEFRA though Barry. They formed the Inshore Fisheries Working group RSA sub committee to make sure anglers were communicated with effectively. A Couple of items might be of interest Barry. In failing to communicate with the average sea angler, the inshore fisheries working group have failed on these items.

from

 

http://yalasa.proboards107.com/index.cgi?b...y&thread=61

 

also some info here

 

http://yalasa.proboards107.com/index.cgi?board=articles

Thanks Glennk, i havent had chance to see your links yet, however on another thread i mentioned that the inshore working group is heavily outnumbered 18 others, commercial, sfc, etc with thier own interests and 4 rsa reps. I further understand that the sfc want some of the spoils off the rsa, what chance have the rsa in that context.

[Leon Roskilly]

There's another write-up of the Buckfastleigh meeting at:

 

http://www.reelfoto.com/2008blog.htm