obe1
-
Posts
79 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by obe1
-
-
And they would be responsible for implementing a licence scheme, god help us
Joe
-
Well 'm not getting into any of the arguments, there's already been too many of them over the licence, I'm just enjoying the victory, for the time being anyway.
I will say this though, steve Coppolo is right, we still face all sorts of rubbish and make no mistake the licence will be back. I don't believe for one second that Martin Salter is backing Jonathan Shaw because he wanted this licence so badly, it will be back so lets be ready for it but for now let's just spend some quality time enjoying some peaceful, free fishing and a big congrats and an even bigger thank you from me to every one who contacted MPs, signed petitions, responded to the consultations and generally made a noise.
WOOHOO
Joe
-
But at least the NRA licence fee pays towards the upkeep of the waters and stocking plans, not all anglers see this but it does goes on.
Not all anglers see it because not all anglers get it, the EA licence money gets spent on less than half of all inland waters in England and Wales, a large proportion of waters have never seen any money or have been visited by the EA, ever.
Joe
-
Smelt the coffee, but sadly he woke up at mid day and he was meant to be at work for 8am. The coffee's gone stale.
Spot on Glenn
Joe
-
Nothing to do with post offices closing then.
Joe
-
I hope she had all the relevant paperwork to release the fish
Joe
-
The marine bill is comming and its only right that us anglers have our say.
However the NFSA chairman thought it would be good to ask for a sea angling stratergey to be included in this bill. He then consulted groups like SACN &BASS to contribute.
I feel the NFSA chairmans timing was very bad, he should of been arguing for inshore restrictions on commercial effort instead of turning on what are meant to be his fellow sea anglers.
I have no faith in the NFSA and am gutted they didnt go bust! The NFSA can and probably will do more damage to the RSA industry than commercial fishing ever has.
I surgest we all get our responses to the RSA stratergey in before the dead line and let the powers that be know what we really think.
S.C
Trouble is they are more likely to listen to the NFSA, firstly because they are a "recognized body" and secondly because it's nearer what they want to hear.
NFSA - national federation of stuffing anglers.
Joe
-
So it doesn't matter what each regional division thinks, they are supposed to follow no mater what. Well I would of thought that each individual region would have it's own views and concerns of the RSA strategy depending on their own situations, after all each region has different problems, so surely it would be far fairer and give a better picture of what is or isn't needed if each reagion could give it's own response.
I'm not sure what the NFSA's stance on the strategy is because it seems to have changed over the last 12 months (I only say seems because I only have press releases to go on) but it seems now that some of it's members aren't allowed to have a say (or even allowed to know what is going on) and that's definitely not right.
What ever happened to the freedom of speech.
Joe
-
That's a joke right? surely they can't get away with doing that.
Joe
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
This is not a fact but fear -which I share. But a license might be the smallest of worries for angling everything considered. Access to fishstocks and fishing areas (MPAs) are tomorrows fight. And a range of stakeholders' interests are involved, oil industry, windmills, shipping, commercial and recreational fishing, birds, green NGOs etc. Is angling ready for that to come? Hardly more than partly.
But it is a fact, it is impossible to create bigger and better fish stocks unless we control our own fisheries, that is fact, and a licence will give us no more say than we have now, that is also fact.
Here is one more fact for you, New Zealand, Norway and Iceland have some of the best sea fishing in the world but is that because they have a rod licence - no because they don't, it is because they have control of their own fisheries and that is what creates a better marine environment and not a rod licence - FACT.
Yes there are many more things that affect sea anglers but a rod licence is in my opinion near the top of the list because allowing the introduction of a licence will leave anglers open to untold amounts of legislation, that is also a fact, just look at America.
Joe
-
Hello planet earth.
The license issue normally splits any angling community no matter in which part of the planet this discussion takes place. However, here is a spot where the majority of anglers see no other way forward than via a license:
In 1999, SARDI aquatic sciences conducted an attitudinal survey among South Australian recreational anglers and found the majority supported the introduction of a fishing licence. <LI>August 2002 omnibus survey indicated that 71% of the population would support such a proposal, with 12% unsure.
To my knowledge those fighting against this license most severely are commercial fishermen, which might have something to do with issues on the anglers wish list like this: 'Opportunity to voluntarily buy-out commercial licences and reduce increasing pressure on south australian fisheries, particularly in areas of high conflict, bays and estuaries and recognised spawning and nursery areas.'
[/color] http://www.fishsa.com/SARFAC-ProposedFishingLicence.phpSARFAC
Proposed All Waters Recreational Fishing Licence
Introduction
-
Recreational fishing is one of south australia?s largest industries with over 450 000 residents over the age of 5 years fishing at least once every year with an annual recurrent expenditure of $ 350m ( 1977 survey ), to the states economy.
-
Given the importance of recreational fishing to the state there is a need for adequate financial resources to be directed towards management and development of the recreational fishery. this will ensure firstly, that the impact of recreational fishing on fish stocks does not exceed sustainable limits and secondly, that potential social and economic benefits are maximised for the community.
-
The magnitude and importance of the industry demands careful planning and responsible development, as most fish stocks are fully exploited and must be fished sustainably into the future.
Future management of the recreational fishery,/font
-
Planning began in 1997 with a review of recreational fishing in south australia, commissioned by the minister for fisheries, in which sarfac took the lead role. a five year management strategy for sustainable development was subsequently published in april 2001, which included a five year strategic action plan.
-
This strategic action plan recognised the need to foster economic and social benefits from recreational fishing through targeted development programs.
-
Unfortunately, such initiatives remain unfunded and will simply not happen without one key plan - recreational fishing licences
Conditional Support
-
SARFAC strongly supports the introduction of a licence on the condition that all funds are received into a dedicated trust fund established under legislation to be spent for the benefit of recreational fishing, research into those fisheries and ecosystems that sustain them.
-
Those in the community holding current pensioner entitlement and children under 16, and indigenous people fishing in areas subject to native title claims or indigenous land use agreements should be exempted.
NSW example of how licence funds can be used
-
$19 million is being spent to buy out commercial fishers from the 30 recreational fishing havens. angler?s fees from recreational fishing licence sales are funding this buy-out.
-
The average agreed buy-out amount is $76,000 with a further payment available of up to $20,000 for relocation, retraining and depreciation. the buy- out cost of a commercial fisher is based on their catch history.
Recent public opinion studies
-
In 1999, SARDI aquatic sciences conducted an attitudinal survey among South Australian recreational anglers and found the majority supported the introduction of a fishing licence.
-
August 2002 omnibus survey indicated that 71% of the population would support such a proposal, with 12% unsure.
How can licence funding be applied ?
SARFAC has a strong focus and high priority towards the introduction of a general angling licence to enable funding of the recommendations of the recreational fishing review committee?s report and in particular the delivery of the following benefits and recommendations for all south australians:
-
Opportunity to voluntarily buy-out commercial licences and reduce increasing pressure on south australian fisheries, particularly in areas of high conflict, bays and estuaries and recognised spawning and nursery areas?.
-
Develop increased participation and enhancement of the social benefits and flow-on for all members of the community.
-
Funding for recreational research that will provide much needed data to support decision making processes. (this benefit was supported by the marine scalefish fishery management committee at its last meeting in June 2002, along with the notion of a recreational angling licence.)
-
Support funding for recreational only compliance officers.
-
Development of recreational only fishing havens.
-
Optimise the economic and social benefits of recreational fishing in south australia.
-
Development of high volume put and take fisheries in freshwater impoundments to reduce angling pressure on some of the sensitive fish stocks in estuaries.
-
Recognition by government of a community group ( licence payers ), which affords the opportunity to have a say as a stakeholder.
-
Provide the capacity to influence economic and competitive development of fisheries resources.
-
Development of community educational programs to encourage adoption of sustainable fishing practices and improve the understanding of fishery management principles.
-
Provide special project grants to recreational fishing clubs and associations.
-
Development of regional recreational fishing infrastructure plans.
-
Promotion of state tourism initiatives that benefit regional recreational fishing tourism and achievement of a world class recreational fishery in South Australia.
Summary
A recreational licence will enable the recreational fishing industry to progress its strategies and focus on Future development. without the economic benefits that would flow from licencing, it is likely that our objectives will not be achieved and development will continue to lag behind other states.
Around the world recreational fishing industries are continuing to expand and require adaptive management to demonstrate the effectiveness of community based strategies for recreational fisheries. community values continue to transcend both science and regulation toward a level of stewardship beyond the capacity of governments.
We invite you to review developments highlighted and ask for your support for the introduction of a general recreational fishing licence for the benefit of all South Australians.
You are comparing Southern Australia to England and Wales
firstly the licences are completely different - The Australian one will have a larger number of exemptions, will have the option of having a joint freshwater and saltwater licence and will benefit RSA's because all the money will be used to try to buy out commercials(as already happens in Australia), pay for scientific data collecting, icreasing RSA activity, etc, etc, etc. In England and Wales there will be far fewer exemptions, it will be a seperate licence therefore some anglers will have to pay twice and the majority of the money will be spent on the overhaul of SFC's, the setting up of new bodies, general administration and policing, and of course new carparks and toilets.
Secondly Australia controls it's own sea fisheries and we do not so any benefit that they will see, we will not.
You can not compare two countries that have totally different policies therefore having totally different outcomes, Defra itself stated last year that it was important to observe the models of other countries but it could be dangerous to make comparisons as different factors influence different policies around the world.
So just to recap a licence = no extra or bigger fish, no extra voice, infact no extra anything. It is a tax, nothing more, nothing less.
Joe
-
Recreational fishing is one of south australia?s largest industries with over 450 000 residents over the age of 5 years fishing at least once every year with an annual recurrent expenditure of $ 350m ( 1977 survey ), to the states economy.
-
The state of fisheries affairs ain't pretty and you can't blame NFSA or the inshore fisheries working group for that. So what is the solution? Keep the head down and hope things manage themselves to the better? Why do you think that the commercials are so keen on angling NOT beeing better organised? Why do they support no angling license and all the rest, which could give sea angling more political clout?
Sorry mate but what planet do come from again, here in the UK on Earth we have
over 1.4 million licenced anglers - political clout = nothing
over 20 million TV licence holders - political clout = nothing
over 40 million licenced drivers - political clout = nothing
don’t know how it works on your planet but back here on Earth a licence = jack sh1t.
Joe
-
I'm speechless on both counts. All this corruption and our government thinks a rod licence will cure fish stocks, sounds about right really.
Joe
-
Another concern is within the doc: licences, bag limits, if the reply from an rsa is: i.e. 'yes but i want to see bla bla bla first', would defra count that towards a positive responce for the same? So when they do the tally up the answer is:- most of the rsa are in favour.
That would be no surprise.I'd put money on that Barry.
Joe
-
Anybody Know how the meeting went?
Joe
-
I'm going to keep an eye on this thread, I don't own a decent centrepin and I've been looking at getting one so it would be cool to own an Anglers Net one.
Joe
-
Best of luck with the meeting big_cod you could mention that the Angling Trade Association don't see any benefits to the licence either, I've got a copy of a letter they sent out to members they are trying to formulate a strong and united response to the Marine Bill, may add a bit of weight.
Joe
-
You are so wrong, if you really are a angler you should realise that your comment is naive to say the least. Fish care is paramount to all good anglers and I afraid livebaiting is nothing to do with fish care. Still it is your opinion but lets keep the two issues apart and not justify livebaiting because we catch and release with extreme care. what's the point, we are not on about fish care we are on about wether people care if live baits are used or not that's why I used the word BOTHERED when I was explaining, please read the thread properly.
Joe
-
We anglers take EXTREME care with our fish, something people call us eccentric for!
We don't think they are "horrible, slimey things!"
A lot of us anglers don't eat fish!
No matter how timid, we anglers will tackle anyone who is abusing "our" fish!
A lot of us will medicate fish that we see need it!
Anglers are at the forefront of any anti-polution drive!
Hopefully, a lot of us anglers who see the younger generation trying to fish in a manner that could harm the fish, we will step in and educate them!
Well said
although I do eat fish but I agree with everything else.Joe
-
Iffy territory here methinks...
I would hope that most anglers care very much about the fish they catch, what condition it is in, allowing it recovery time when returning it etc.
Caringshould be strong point in the sport...not regarded as a weakness (i.e if you care so much...don't go fishing!")
Just a thought!!!!
I only said if they care "that" much meaning if they're bothered about someone hooking a fish and dangling it in the water then they themselves shouldn't hook a fish, drag it through the water, lift it out, etc, etc. Double standards in my opinion but there again it is only an opinion.
Joe
Someone doesn't like fishing!
in Conservation & Politics
Posted
"Nobody wants to see this grotesque sight on a fun day out. It's bad enough that we have to see fishing from the sea front every time there's a high tide".
And nobody wants to see grotesque overweight semi-naked holiday makers invading the beach every time there is a low tide but we have to.
Joe