Trubshaw

A group of friends of mine from another place, are organising a beach clean up and pairs competition afterwards at Orford Ness on the 15th/16th September. The volunteer cleaners are going over at 8am and returning at 2.30pm. Then the friendly pairs comp starts at 5pm. Anyone wishing to attend either or both, see below. Penn Tackle are offering prizes for the comp, as are other anglers taking part. The National Trust, Suffolk County Council and Sea Angler Magazine are all assisting as well with publicity, free trip across in the morning and gloves, bin liners and picker-up whatsits. Any one interested please feel free to visit http://www.sea-fishing.org/ftopicp-29270.html#29270 or send me a PM. Henry. I am known as Edgey on that site, but don't ask why! LOL.

Aaghhhh Sole! These are Sole aren't they or are Sole larger?

Hi Barry, Been busy, and fishing. What make do you suggest? Not money no object, but would no mind paying to get a v good one.

I am looking for a Floatation Suit, called so I presume so that if you fall in you will float. However some manufacturers claim to make ones that breath. Do they really work as a Floatie? Looking for one best for both Boat and Shore. Also what would the assembled experts suggest as a reasonable size 1.5 man Bivvy for spending a Winter Night or two at Orford cod fishing? Need something that will fit a 17st 6.0" biggy in comfort, but doesn't weigh a ton, is easy to put up and won't blow away in a gale when pouring with rain.

Much better thanks Barry. Not running but walking. Mind you the surgeon said I would never run again anyway. I said I hadn't run anywhere for at least 10 years and was not intending to start now. LOL

Steve, How did you find out about the site? Was it advertised in Sea Angler Magazine? Total Sea Fishing? Sea Angling Websites? Anglers Times, Trade Press, Tackle Shop Press? Do please tell?

Just got my bi-focal polarising glasses. As I can't see long distance, old fart now, and cannot see to bait up or thread a hook length when wearing long distance glasses, nor can read anyway without reading specs, also old fart's problem, and using my ordinary ones to fish with and being dazzled in the sun, these are great. Not only that they were half the price of my clear ones. So whoever criticised without even trying them, I say balderdash!!!! And I look so much cooler in them as well. Leastways I think I do, the boss still says I look like an old fart, but that is her problem.

I did do so and was advised if I wanted to take matters further, to instruct a lawyer. There was no point, it would only have wasted my time and tax-payers money. In reality the place was worse, blood on the walls, sh1t on the floors, it was filthy. Blair is wholly to blame, as he did not instruct his Ministers and their Civil Servants to do something about the problem. I was always taught that it was the Captain of the ship who was responsible for everything happening under their command, not the junior officers and ratings. The point is that it is no good throwing money at a problem, unless first of all a strategy to make it effective is first put in place. Because Blair and his cronies only want to be popular, with the exception of the Iraq War, which was another prime example of ill thought out and ill considered policies, as opposed to actually sitting down and thinking, what is going to happen if we do this? How are we going to best manage the situation, what if this, what if that etc, he has wasted billions of taxpayers money on knee-jerk policies, introduced without thought and purely for sake of making him look good. The only thing he sorted out was Ulster, but even then it took him 10 years, when all the ground work had been done for him by his predecessors. I give him credit for nothing. He has committed criminal offences with his Peerages for Cash policy, he has got us involved in a war we cannot get out of now, because no exit strategy was considered, just so that he could strut on the world stage, he has made a total mess of domestic policy, NHS, Crime and Education, and has had the gross temerity to say ten years ago he was going to cut crime, the causes of it, enhance education, sort out the NHS and stop sleaze. He has done precisely the opposite. Good riddance to him and the rest of his cronies with him.

As an individual who contracted MRSA following an operation to repair my ankle, and nearly had to have my leg amputated because of it, and DESPITE not being an MRSA carrier, I hold Blair and his cohorts wholly responsible. They pumped money into the NHS, but did not ensure that the people spending it knew what they were doing. When I came round from the OP, the bottom of my bed was soaked in blood, I called for the Nurse, no one turned up for four hours, I was left lying with blood-soaked wet bandages for 12 hours, until the surgeon came to see me the next day, and he created merry hell, only to be told they were short staffed the previous night. As a result 3 weeks later I was re-admitted with what was subsequently diagnosed as MRSA, I was unable to be isolated for two days, and had to spend the 48 hours in a mixed ward, I was often left with the dressings removed and exposed to all and sundry, visitors coming across to have a gawp, an unfortunate senile old woman coming across and breathing all over my wounds, I was unable to move, attached to a drip. I complained to the staff to at least cover the wounds pending the Dr's visit and draw the curtains. Nothing was done. I ended up spending 3 weeks in Hospital eventually in an insolation ward in severe pain, and being told due to a shortage of Dr's at night there was no-one available to prescribe me morphine until the morning. Sorry get Real. NHS 2004. Spend up 35% or whatever claimed. Result effing useless. The sooner he and his corrupt cronies get sent to jail the better, except they won't be as there is no room there either.

There were two young ladies from Birmingham And I know a story concerning 'em The remainder was removed. [admin note - sorry. Funny stuff but a little big much for an open 'kid friendly' forum. Newt]

Interesting point Wurzel, it would appear to me that if it was the case that the system would be b******d before it started.

The devil with politicians is as usual in the detail. 1. Primary case for RSA Licences is that we should pay for our voice. Answer: We have been through the nose since 1970. 2 Bradshaw mentions that some measures must be taken before hand. Question? What measures? 3. Salter says RSA support this. Answer: The majority don't. Point is that my letter, albeit tongue in cheek, awaits an answer from Bradshaw. I will if I ever receive one, post it up here. I would think I would need give their snail like civil servicants a month to weigh up whether I am a complete lunatic, or someone who is fed up with their orwellian double speak ways and realise that it does need a reply.

Could someone for the sake of good order confirm or provide evidence to the contrary that Arnold Locker mentioned here who is President of the NFFO is one and the same person who has been convicted along with his company of black fish landings. I think the public shoud be aware of the truth one way or the other Can any of the commercial subscribers confirm this?

Why thank you Wurzel, I am glad to see you think I have done the right thing.

I realise that this has about as much chance as there being tits on a bull, but what the hell, if you don't ask you don't get and as it is my birthday, I thought that maybe the Blair Godfather's Mafia might just have to grant it. Mr Ben Bradshaw MP DEFRA By e-mail: 26th April 2007. Dear Mr Bradshaw, I have been reading with increasing disquiet the proposal to make Recreational Sea Anglers (RSA) buy a licence. What benefit may I ask will they obtain from such a requirement? Answer: None. Reasons: 1. You will not restrict commercial fisherman from netting or trawling in British Territorial Waters (BTW), to the extent necessary to preserve and allow the recovery of fish stocks. 2. You will not ban all foreign, or other EU state commercials from fishing in BTW. 3. You have backed down on the MLS limit for Bass, despite all scientific advice to the contrary. 4. You have resolutely and manifestly refused to accept independently qualified and quantified scientific research that overall fish-stocks in BTW are on the point of collapse due to commercial over-fishing and the idiotic discard and quota policies of the last 30 years. 5. Why should RSA pay a licence fee to, as Defra have put it, have their experience enhanced, when it will never be so due to the above reasons? 6. Why should RSA pay for the construction of facilities, car parks, toilets, disabled access etc that will be used by all people as well as RSA? Therefore I have come up with a fairer proposal: 1. Every member of the UK and NI population should be required to purchase a Recreational Sea Users Licence. (RSUL) 2. The cost should be £10 per annum. This will generate £600 million in revenue and cover the costs of the facilities mentioned in point 6 above, without discrimination. 3. Any one found within 400 yards of the upper tidal flows of any river or the coast line, as defined by the mean high-water mark, who does not possess an RSUL, will be subject to a fine of £500 or 3 months imprisonment. After all, what is the point of having a system like this if it is not properly enforced. 4. All RSA wishing to fish will have to buy an RSA endorsement for £20 pa. 5. In return, the Government will close BTW to all commercial boats except those registered and based in UK Ports. No fish will be allowed to be landed here by any other boats. 6. The MLS for all species of fish caught commercially will be raised to a size where they are big enough to have spawned at least twice. 7. All UK registered boats, will have a Total Allowable Catch (TACs), of any species, each year, which will be agreed after consultation with the ICES and the TAC will be restricted to their recommendations. The TAC will include undersize fish which will be landed and where a boat lands more than 10% of its TAC in undersize fish, they will then be disbarred from going out again for 3 months. 8. No discards will be allowed. 9. All commercial fishing boats will pay a licence of £1000 per annum, there are I believe some 3000 such boats, to cover the cost of enforcement of TACs and discards. All offenders will be subject to fines of £50,000 and or imprisonment. 10. The number of Commercial Licences issued in any 12 month period will be the lesser of the current UK based only boats or the amount which ICEs recommend that will allow for stocks to be maintained or recover. 11. All known areas of the sea where fish collect to spawn will be closed to commercial boats for the spawning season concerned. You will see from this excellent proposal that it benefits and penalises all on a strictly fair basis. It is self-financing, easy to police and maintain, it allows for the continued survival of the UK fish stocks and UK commercial fleet. It also ensures that the RSA community are not discriminated against and have their experience enhanced as set out in your white paper. These are the only fair terms under which RSA could be licenced. Any other proposals to make RSA pay a licence fee would be an infringement of their human rights. Henry Wodehouse

Dear All, Set out below are questions being asked by Defra as part of their consultation for Sea Fishing's Future policy: I have attached my answers to them and sent them to Defra, please attach your own answers and do the same by 26th April. You don't get much opportunity to influence policy, but this is a chance even if it is ignored. You do not need to be a member of the SACN to reply. PLEASE BE CIVIL AND POLITE WITH YOUR ANSWERS, HOWEVER IRRITATING SOME OF THE QUESTIONS MAYBE. Send your replies to the questions to: http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/co...2027/index.htm I have received the following questions you have raised from Leon Roskilly of the SACN. I am also a member of the SACN. I have been an RSA for the last 25 years and the drop in quality and quantity of catches in that time has been in the order of 90%. I hope that there might be a remote possibility that DEFRA might this time react with something more than platitudes and inaction. • What is an acceptable level of environmental impact for different parts of the supply chain e.g. different types of fishing gear; Minimum mesh sizes must be made much larger than at present. discards; Discards can never be acceptable and are a result of the idiotic quota system. If they were banned entirely and used as quota, then all fish stocks would benefit. As once quotas include what is now discarded, all of which die anyway, are caught, the true situation can be ascertained. aquaculture; Only to be allowed whereby sea-water used is treated and re-used, this provides an incredibly rich source of fertiliser and stops environmental and genetic pollution. Feed-stocks could also be grown this way thus preventing the collapse of the food chain caused by industrial fishing. There are already purpose built inland seawater farms doing this. transport of fish from overseas? From a disease risk and the obvious environmental impacts, as much as possible should be done to reduce this. • How much access to fisheries should be available to coastal communities through Government intervention rather than leaving the market to operate (with the likely result of the most economically efficient operators gaining all of the resource)? A great deal more than happens currently. • How much access to fisheries should be available for recreational angling? All of it of course, except where it is shown that RSA would have major impact on stocks. Unlikely they ever would do so to my mind, but I stand to be corrected. • What information do consumers need to be able to make sustainable choices? A traffic light system. Green for sustainable, red for all at risk species. • Does it matter how much of the fish we eat is from aquaculture? Not if is done as set out above. • Is this a vision that you would endorse? Why? Why not? If all of the above were granted, yes. • Is the balance right between economic, social and environmental aspects? If not, how would you like it changed? As set out above • What, if anything, is missing? Set aside NTZ’s for commercials, no netting inside 1 mile from the coast. • Have we got the roles and responsibilities right? Nice to see some effort being made, but too little too late I fear. • Have we identified the costs and benefits correctly? Don’t know what they are. Have almost certainly failed to recognise the benefits of RSA. In Scotland the C & R policy (voluntary), re-stocking by riparian owners etc, buying out the estuary nets, banning drift nets in Ireland, has had huge impacts on the Scottish rural economy as the salmon fishing has improved. The same has to apply to RSA, common senses shows it will. • For the comprehensive package we need for marine fisheries, which bits do you agree with or disagree with? Why? I would agree if all of the above suggestions were adopted and rigorously enforced. __________________

Afternon Barry and a happy easter, Yes I did vote in the poll. Only problem was I had to vote for something which is not my favourite fish to eat, which is Dover Sole, got any spare Wurz?

Since coming back to sea-fishing after 18 years and discovering the Web-sites that discuss it, what I have noticed is that it is nigh on impossible for RSA to agree anything, whether it is how to spell, as in good or bad, favourite fish (trying to keep on topic here) - conservation, and even would you believe it, organising a get together, not necessarily on this site for the last one but certainly on others. Is this a symptom of either the disparate nature of the individual RSA, despite all enjoying the same hobby, or just a reflection of society in general. Yes I know I have now wandered seriously off-topic so apologise.

Barry, "area closures and obligations to switch fishing grounds when there are aggregations of young fish, for example." Perhaps someone in the EU read about my petition

Surprising as it may seem, the perception I am anti-commercial is perhaps mis-read. I am concerned about stock levels for all taxpayers, I refuse to use the word stake-holders as that is Blair spin for tax-payers. If discards could be counted towards overall tonnage quotas, the fish could be sold, benefit to the commercials, actual catches could be better monitored and increasing sizes could be indications of more or higher quotas to be allowed. In return, spawning areas could be closed to commercials, reducing catch areas the same, hence we come back to the start of the roundabout!!!!

If all catches had to be landed, whatever their size and species, once a certain tonnage had been caught and being maintained or if tonnages were dropping, we would have a better idea of how well or badly the stocks were doing. Naturally if tonnages were increasing quotas could be increased as well. It would require proper policing, but would at least tell all the real truth about how well catches were and were not getting on.

Does no one on this site have an opinion, other than Barry, about this fact?

Interesting to read that in the Discards Thread, there is a report from the Economic Aspects of Discards that shows that an average of 63% of commercial fisherman support the idea of fixed closed areas and 56% the idea of moveable closed areas. Is it not the case perhaps that my Petition makes a bit more sense than some subscribers to this topic realise? I suppose I could always start a petition to ban discards altogether and make them count as part of the quota;that would be quite an effective way of finding out how many fish are left in the sea, would it not?

Wurz, I can't for the life of me think why?

Simple Answer: Yes. Simple attitude: I don't agree with it.