Do Bass Nursery Areas Benefit Anyone ?

[Sharkbyte]

The one sent to you on the 3rd October.

 

The one, to the best of my knowledge, that you have not consulted the SACN membership over.

 

The one, to the best of my knowledge, that has not been disseminated widely and discussed amongst 99.9% of the 'one million sea anglers' that are claimed as being represented at the various meetings held in private, but not reported on.

[Leon Roskilly]

The one sent to you on the 3rd October.

 

The one, to the best of my knowledge, that you have not consulted the SACN membership over.

 

The one, to the best of my knowledge, that has not been disseminated widely and discussed amongst 99.9% of the 'one million sea anglers' that are claimed as being represented at the various meetings held in private, but not reported on.

 

 

I guess that it never arrived

 

Or perhaps you are referring to the questionnaire regarding bass nursery area legislation and effectiveness that DEFRA sent out to enforcement agencies seeking their input?

 

The RSA Strategy Group did have some input about the information to be collected from the Enforcement Agencies, as documented at: http://www.sacn.org.uk/Conservation-and-Po...Sub_090812.html

 

But as far as I am aware, no RSA organisation was asked to respond to the questionnaire, it was seeking information from the various enforcement angencies only.

Edited November 16, 2008 by Leon Roskilly

[Sharkbyte]

I guess that it never arrived

 

I think we both know that it did......you go on to refer to it. Of course this might just be a big, and genuine, misunderstanding if you have received more than one questionnaire relating to the BNA review, in the last six weeks.

 

 

Or perhaps you are referring to the questionnaire regarding bass nursery area legislation and effectiveness that DEFRA sent out to enforcement agencies seeking their input?

 

That's the one. Strangely though, you fail to mention that it was also sent out to the various RSA representative bodies. I assume this was to gain their input, at some stage? Most likely at the November meeting?

 

To be fair, I know that BASS have consulted their membership over this issue, and to their credit, over a fairly sustained period of time. Input has been forthcoming, the debate lively at times, yet ultimately successful in gathering a range of opinions.

 

Whether the NFSA has done the same I do not know.

 

 

The RSA Strategy Group did have some input about the information to be collected from the Enforcement Agencies, as documented at: http://www.sacn.org.uk/Conservation-and-Po...Sub_090812.html

 

Do you sit on the RSA Strategy Group, Leon?

 

Thanks for the link to August's minutes. I guess you have to throw the rabble a bone, every now and then.

 

The trouble is that, and I'll quote you on this (http://www.anglersnet.co.uk/forums/15th-nov-defra-meeting-t79821.html&hl=minutes)

 

DEFRA will publish the (sanitized?) minutes.

 

Do we not deserve the full, and presumably, unedited version.

 

 

 

But as far as I am aware, no RSA organisation was asked to respond to the questionnaire, it was seeking information from the various enforcement angencies only.

 

Hmmm. So from what I can gather, RSA's representative bodies have each been furnished with a copy, they have been asked to provide input, as regards the information to be collected, and it'll more than likely be discussed at the November meeting.

 

Do you think at least a proportion of the 1 million sea anglers out there, supposedly represented, deserve the right to air their views on this issue. After all, many of them are uniquely qualified to comment. Collectively, it must run to thousands upon thousands of hours spent on or next to the water, every week, witnessing current lack of enforcement, the sizes and numbers of fish available in BNA's (shore fishing legal) / outside of them, whether they are working in their present form, or not................or even if they wish us to be dealing with these people anymore?

 

What if the enforcement agencies respond to the questionaire with dubious suggestions for future expansion / restrictions that only suit the Mullet angler? Do you agree with them, or do you disgree with them?

 

 

 

 

I think it's about time anglers had a say.

 

They did just that over the RSA Strategy. The roadshows were well attended and views expressed, in no uncertain terms! The summary of responses, in my opinion, provided a true and fair view of the general feeling..........since then.........it's gone back underground. Disgraceful.

Edited November 18, 2008 by Sharkbyte

[Leon Roskilly]

I think it's about time anglers had a say.

 

My understanding is that once DEFRA have completed the groundwork and gathered in all the information that they are seekingn at this stage, they will put together some proposals.

 

That will go out for general consultation when anyone with an interest will be able to give their views, opinions and any relevant additional information.

 

Just as they did with the RSA Strategy.

Edited November 18, 2008 by Leon Roskilly

[Steve Coppolo]

My understanding is that once DEFRA have completed the groundwork and gathered in all the information that they are seekingn at this stage, they will put together some proposals.

 

That will go out for general consultation when anyone with an interest will be able to give their views, opinions and any relevant additional information.

 

Just as they did with the RSA Strategy.

 

Come on Leon, all this nonsense is wearing very thin now. Please don't add insult to injury by pretending to keep sea anglers, who you claim to represent, fully informed when you know damn well that you aren't telling us a fraction of the story. If you are as open and honest as you lead people to believe, what about some answers to the questions you ducked in this thread?

 

http://www.anglersnet.co.uk/forums/Septemb...ra-t733979.html

 

We shouldn't have to wait for Defra to release their very selective minutes to meetings involving sea angling if there were people there who claim to represent us. You know what went on at these meetings. You claim to represent sea anglers. You should be keeping sea anglers informed.

 

You mention the RSA strategy to try to dig yourself out of this particular hole. Lessons should have been learnt from the strategy debacle, but you don't appear to have learnt anything at all. Either that or your arrogance in thinking you know best has reached a new level. The views of grass roots sea anglers were considered unimportant as the "team" pressed on with their plans for the strategy. Is there any wonder the strategy was rejected wholesale by sea anglers who didn't share your vision of the future? The RSA strategy was written up by the same few people who are now deciding what sea anglers want from a review of bass nursery areas which could see more restrictions placed upon anglers for nothing in return. And still anglers are being kept in the dark. As someone who claims to represent the countries sea anglers you should be consulting them before opening your mouth at important meetings, not waiting until the deed is done and leaving the consultation to Defra.

 

Personally, I believe that we aren't being told what's going on because a few people are afraid that the views of grass roots sea anglers might throw a spanner in the works with regard to their own agenda.

 

As Sharkbyte says, it's nothing short of a disgrace.

[glennk]

Do you think at least a proportion of the 1 million sea anglers out there, supposedly represented, deserve the right to air their views on this issue.

 

 

The very fact that DEFRA even allow SACN to sit at the table tells its own story. The organisation represents so few its irrelevent in terms of representativeness. They dont care how many people are consulted so long as they appear to have done some consulting. NFSA SACN and BASS come in useful for keeping up those appearances.

 

We all know DEFRA have an agenda. The sad thing is Leon has the same agenda. Whats his gain ? I really cant figure that out. Is it status related ? Its certainly not angling related.

 

Heres my last 2 fish.

 

[steve pitts]

The topic title says it all. Do Bass Nursery Areas Benefit Anyone ?

 

Hi Glenn

 

There is some good background information on why and how the Bass Nursery Areas were introduced in the book Sea Bass by Pickett and Pawson. See pages 292 onwards at http://tinyurl.com/686aol

 

It was estimated at the time that in some esturaries 50% of juvenile bass were subject to mortality by netting and it's been said that trawling within a few of the larger South coast estuaries was responsible for 90% of the catch.

 

Just how successful BNAs have been (compared to if they hadn't been introduced) over the past 20 years is probably impossible to quantify.

 

Assuming though, that if mortality on juvenile bass was reduced, and more juvenlie bass recruited to the adult stock as a result, then BNAs would have benefitted anglers and the commercial sector to varying degrees.

 

As Steve says, there can be no question that BNAs have unfortunately benefitted the offshore pair trawl fishery too, which is almost certainly having a detremental effect on bass stocks as a whole. But it isn't just those few boats who reap the benefits. They certainly get more than their fair share though.

 

If a proportion of small bass, which are protected by the BNAs as juveniles, mature and contribute to the breeding stock, or even grow to be big bass ( a 10lb bass will almost certainly have spent its first few years within a BNA) and I catch a few, then I'll be very satisfied and consider that they are working.

 

Cheers

Steve

[Steve Coppolo]

Hi Glenn

 

There is some good background information on why and how the Bass Nursery Areas were introduced in the book Sea Bass by Pickett and Pawson. See pages 292 onwards at http://tinyurl.com/686aol

 

It was estimated at the time that in some esturaries 50% of juvenile bass were subject to mortality by netting and it's been said that trawling within a few of the larger South coast estuaries was responsible for 90% of the catch.

 

Just how successful BNAs have been (compared to if they hadn't been introduced) over the past 20 years is probably impossible to quantify.

 

Assuming though, that if mortality on juvenile bass was reduced, and more juvenlie bass recruited to the adult stock as a result, then BNAs would have benefitted anglers and the commercial sector to varying degrees.

 

As Steve says, there can be no question that BNAs have unfortunately benefitted the offshore pair trawl fishery too, which is almost certainly having a detremental effect on bass stocks as a whole. But it isn't just those few boats who reap the benefits. They certainly get more than their fair share though.

 

If a proportion of small bass, which are protected by the BNAs as juveniles, mature and contribute to the breeding stock, or even grow to be big bass ( a 10lb bass will almost certainly have spent its first few years within a BNA) and I catch a few, then I'll be very satisfied and consider that they are working.

 

Cheers

Steve

 

Hello Steve

It's almost certain that a percentage of the bass that spend time in a BNA in their early years will grow to be doubles, and a few of us may be lucky enbougn to catch one or two of them. The question that none of us can answer is, how do those percentages compare with the numbers of juvenile bass that grow to be doubles, that spent their early years in areas that were not designated BNA's? (Every area that holds large numbers of juvenile bass is a biological BNA, even if it hasn't been designated as such by "yumans").

 

The problem, or threat, (which ever way you see it), we face at the moment is that the review could lead to more BNA's and more restrictions for no benefit. I outlined my own theories with regard to the effectiveness of designated BNA's in my opening post on this thread. I haven't seen anything since that might make me re-think but, as always, I have an open mind.

 

No doubt some people see the review as an opportunity rather than a threat. I just hope that we don't end up with more of what we've already had, i.e, more years of scientific studies that only benefit those taking part. To quote Wayne once again, I'm also still waiting for the much talked about more and bigger fish. The difference is, I've already resigned myself to the fact that it was just another soundbyte designed to capture the imaginations, and gain the support, of the country's sea anglers. It is innevitable that after so many failures to deliver, the wheels were going to come off at some stage.

 

In my opinion, instead of coming up for every carrot dangled in front of us, RSA should be on the back foot defending what we already have right now. As they say, you never know what you've got until it's gone.

Edited November 18, 2008 by Steve Coppolo

[H.A.]

You fellahs talk so much krap!

 

Are you able (Steve?) to consult the apparent 280 000 or 2 000 000 anglers who are entitled to have a say in matters?

 

It's a bit like the Labour Party being re-elected on 10 million votes when the electoral turn out is a fraction of the 'stakeholders'. 70 millions?

 

Steve ... you were highly motivated and attended meetings at Defra like me.

We were disillusioned ... blah, blah ..

 

if truth be told, it's the blokes who had the staying power (like Leon) who had a say.

 

Like me, he wasn't having a rant on behalf of 1 000 000 who go fishing; he was actually representing his views about the future (some of us have 10 years more or so, I'm told).

 

If you anin't innit, you can't winnit!

 

Sorry, me boy; we've often agreed.

And I won't step aside for the principles I believe in (not that anyone takes any notice!)

 

[Steve Coppolo]

You fellahs talk so much krap!

 

Are you able (Steve?) to consult the apparent 280 000 or 2 000 000 anglers who are entitled to have a say in matters?

 

It's a bit like the Labour Party being re-elected on 10 million votes when the electoral turn out is a fraction of the 'stakeholders'. 70 millions?

 

Steve ... you were highly motivated and attended meetings at Defra like me.

We were disillusioned ... blah, blah ..

 

if truth be told, it's the blokes who had the staying power (like Leon) who had a say.

 

Like me, he wasn't having a rant on behalf of 1 000 000 who go fishing; he was actually representing his views about the future (some of us have 10 years more or so, I'm told).

 

If you anin't innit, you can't winnit!

 

Sorry, me boy; we've often agreed.

And I won't step aside for the principles I believe in (not that anyone takes any notice!)

 

 

It's not krap, Ada. Of course I can't consult the 280 000 or 2 000 000 sea anglers who deserve to have a say. But then again, I don't claim to represent them.

 

To be fair, no one could ever fully consult the whole sea angling population. Who ever said they could? But, keeping as many as possible informed is very easy to do. We are using an internet forum that has been used, for years, to punt the RSA "campaign, (for want of a better word), so why can't the same forum be used to keep us informed of what's going on?

 

Defra have proved several times now that they aren't capable, or prepared, to deliver what RSA's require, (and what they've been promised by the "reps", ie, more and bigger fish); so I want to know, first of all, why our mob are still talking with them, and second, what their motives are for doing so. I also want to know what they are saying. As a sea angler who these peopole claim to represent, I think I have the right to ask. The fact that they choose not to answer just confirms what I already suspect. That is, they aren't interested in what sea anglers want, and don't want to hear their views in case it jeopordises their own, (misguided?), plans for the future of RSA. They want it to be sea angling their way, whether we like it or not.

Edited November 18, 2008 by Steve Coppolo