JeffB

Yep, £24.00 to most people (and I know there are exceptions) is nothing but a night on the beer or a curry and a DVD. However, the collated ammount of money could see the changes that we all long to see...

I agree with you on this one Stavey, the main and probably only reason for the decline of the sand eel is going to be over fishing. If it is proved that the commercial fishing methods have wiped out these fish stocks then the environmentalists would have reason to request a hault on those certain commercial methods, however the industry big-wigs won't let that happen. In respect of this I feel that any other reason that arrises for this decline will have undoubtably come from the spin-doctors within the industry itself so to protect themselves and their methods in the future and go on and exhust other species without the finger being pointed... [ 23. June 2005, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: JeffB ]

I have only joined the forum in recent weeks so please excuse me for being unaware of previous debates. To address your question, I feel it could be very realistic for there to be areas which are protected from commercial fishing but that allow recreational, low-impact fishing by us anglers to continue... Why not? There is a stark difference between the angler and the commercial fishing vessle. If all commercial fishing was banned today and only angling with rod and line were to continue fish stocks would again flurish and the marine world would restabilise... Now I am not proposing that all commercial fishing should stop but firstly that we ditch the EU ideals and again set up realistic fishing territory around Britain for our commercial anglers to maintain. In the mean time I see no reason as to why areas of the sea cannot be sectioned off the allow fish stocks to regenerate, then in time these zones move so to restabilise area after area... If our government were to more conciously protect the waters around Britain and scrap the 6 mile exclusion zone for a greater scape then this would be a good start. Following on from that our commercial fishermen would then have a realistic area to SUSTAIN, instead of having to fight over scraps with the Spanish and the rest of them... Oh, and I see you have failed to respond to my asking you as to whether £24.00 a year is still unrerasonable in respect of the positive impact that the revenue gained could have? [ 23. June 2005, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: JeffB ]

Benifits such as cleaner beaches, protected areas for fish to live and breed away from the nets, a loud, clear voice to be heard in all the right places, is that enough benefits for you? There is a fine line between realism and surrealism and I would rather spend my time debating in the real world. There is really no point suggesting off-the-cuff ideas if they make no real sense which I why I would always choose to go over past and proven ground instead of after wild geese. I appreciate and respect your views but with regards to the sea fishing licence I see no substance to your stance against it other than that you feel there is no value for money. If fishing to you is only about catching fish then I may be forced to draw a comparison between yourself and the commercial boys??? Fishing is more than just skin deep as you have suggested. We anglers spend more time by the water than any other public group and it is therefore our duty and in our best interests to sustain and better the environments we so much enjoy, above and bellow the water line. £24.00 per angler per year could sustain our sealife for years and years to come, for our children and theirs to enjoy, is this still really too much to ask of you? [ 23. June 2005, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: JeffB ]

Yep, my local river is in a better condition than I can ever remember and many of the waterways are turned into protected fishable nature reserves etc... All with the help of the EA rod licence money...

Do tell...?

OK, you don't like my proposal and say that I am silly to compare different types of angling. However, there is one important thing your message lacks... any other possible options! It's all well and good of you to say all your NO NO NO's but where is you method of resolution??? You are not being constructive at all... Oh I forgot, you want to frighten everybody into boycotting fish which is NEVER going to happen.... Enough said there I think. [ 23. June 2005, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: JeffB ]

musket, Welcome mate and great story, I wish I had regular access to some decent rocky coast... Jeff

jaffa, I'm playing devils advocate here, but surely you will never find evidence that is not meant to be found...?

Moving away from the 'years ban' idea, I actually think that a sea fishing licence could be a good idea. For consider, as has already been said, the revenue gained by the government would result in them HAVING to listen to the voice of us sea angler, esspecially at times such as these regarding the Tope for example. I participate in all types of angling and with my Coarse and Game angling I obviously need a licence. This cost £63.75 if you wish to fish for mogratory fish such as Salmon. There are some 4 million registered and licenced coarse/game anglers, all paying for the right to fish, but it doesn't stop there. For firstly these anglers have the massive backing of the EA who provide them with their licence. And second of all, they have huge organisations and angling local MPs who clearly make the voice of angling heard in parliment. I suppose what I am getting at is that everything has a price, and if the cost of the sea angler having his voice heard is £24.00 a year then wouldn't you go for it? It is very difficult to actively campaign with financial backing. I understand there is somewhere in the region of 10 million sea anglers. Well, if each of us buys a licence, at the cost of £24.00 for exmple, then we will instantly have £240 million pounds worth of clout... OK, I know it's not anywhere near as simple as that. But the fact that the government would take a large slice of that revenue would mean that they would have to listen to us. In resepct of this we would have the financial means to form a massive sea angling governing body which would be able to represent us all....? I can't fully get what is in my head onto this thread, but I'm sure you see what I am getting at... :confused: Cheers, jeff [ 23. June 2005, 10:10 AM: Message edited by: JeffB ]

As common sense suggests, this is not the way forward, however something has to be done but I fear that it will always be out of the hands of us mere mortals...

Top idea that as well Leon, but it's as much that I like to be tight and not buy my bait if I can help it! ;0)

I know, it's another of those vicious circles (just tell me when you get fed up with me using that sentence ha, ha!) I just feel that we should have the right to put a 10 or 15 mile perimiter around Britain and tell the rest of Europe to keep out as much as we would not be able to enter their waters. In doing so it would then be ours and theirs resposibility to maintain the fish stocks within ones boundaries with an "if you exhaust you stocks, tough luck!" policy... Still that will never happen like you say...

I know this is a greatly extravagant suggestion but I feel that there should be a bigger boarder around the british coast and a non-british boat ban should be imposed... 6 miles is nothing, we all know that from our charter trips. The bigger shoals of fish in the open water are like sitting ducks at this time with the current structure... [ 22. June 2005, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: JeffB ]

Stavey, I think we all want to see fish stocks sustained and saved but I just don't see that 'bad-mouthing' them will have the impact that we all want... As Ken pointed out, continues advertising about the dangers of smoking doesn't stop the majority from reaching for the packet. As I said myself, people buy poor quality, ill-treated meat and poultry even though there is better to be had elsewhere... This suggests that the general public are happy to live in ignorance of many things while it suits them. With this in mind I feel that telling them that cod have worms and bass have lice will change not change their mind... I just don't see it having a noticable impact myself, but that doesn't mean we don't care... [ 22. June 2005, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: JeffB ]

That as well... I think the first thing the government COULD and SHOULD do however is at least put a ban on non-british boats fishing our shores for we don't get any revenue from the sale of those fish....

True, and I'm sure we'll all agree this is only a light-hearted suggestion... I hope...?

Stavey, We both just hit the same point there buddy, Greed... But not only greed but ignorance! It really is one great big vicious circle, the commercial fishermen will plunder the seas knowing damn well they they have a good head of IGNORANT customers waiting for whatever fish they can throw at them... If the greedy commercial boys won't address the need of sustainability then the government should impose it upon them. But will they, hell will they, there's too much tax money to be had from the sale of the seafood! They're greedy too.... [ 22. June 2005, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: JeffB ]

At this moment in time there is no real demand for Tope meat in this country. However give it a few years on the fish counter and a hype-up from some ****-faced celebrity chef and it will become popular, 'ala' Swordfish, monkfish etc... The above mentioned fish only became popular when they seriously hit the fish counter and became (dare I say it) fashionable. You could tell a person that they were just about to buy on of the last 100 monkfish and they'd probably say "oh well, there's plenty more fish in the sea"!!! Unfortunatly, shoudl the Tope get an extended stay in the shops then it will follow suit... For this reason, as I keep saying, the suppliers are the ones who need a kick up the gready backsides!!!

Stavey, I can see some sense in this whether you really meant it or not... I feel that our lack of presence would make no difference at all to the power people and would only mean that a few more fish would end up in the nets of the trawlers, this isn't good... However, what they would very much notice is that the tackle and bait industry would come to a grinding hault and the financial losses would be massivly substaintial.... Yeah, the government would notice that lack of revenue for sure! [ 22. June 2005, 03:16 PM: Message edited by: JeffB ]

Anyhow, back to the current debate, I agree with Ken that scaremongering is not the way forward as it has no real impact upon those whom do not wish to listen... I feel it is the responsibility of the providers of seafood. They are the ones who should be educated to protect their investment instead of bringing it to it's knees!!! If they can be convinced that conservation and sustainability is the ONLY WAY forward for them then they 'may' retrain their thoughts and address their methods... [ 22. June 2005, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: JeffB ]

Sorry Ken, I obviously wasn't suggesting that you were a fool... But as you have said, there are rules for keeping animals in this country, but what of ALL of the meats and poultry that we import from abroad... Can you be sure that they all adhere to those rules...? I am a member of several ethical food groups and I know that the turning of the old blind eye is all too common...

Regarding the chickens - Then more fool you if you believe that Ken... You need to look under the carpet to see the true expent of what goes on. You believe what the industry wants you to believe so they win this one... [ 22. June 2005, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: JeffB ]

As you have said Ken, the dangers of smoking are printed on every box of fags, so many times you see a pregnant lady with a Benson in hand as the "smoking will kill your unborn baby" sticker plastered on the box is obviously, knowingly ignored.... This again leads me to think that scaring the public is a non-starter as they rarely 'WANT' to listen.

Hello mate, I hear what your saying but I believe people know all to well as to how badly run the major meat, poultry and seafood producing outfits are. Like you say, there is not enough 'IN YOUR FACE' advertising regarding any of the highlighted causes but for the simple reason that the industries and government won't let it happen due to the probable massive revenue losses... Smoking is on it's way out, or at least a dying trend (no pun intended) whereas food is a necessity and the majority of people live by the "Don't ask no questions, you'll hear no lies" policy.... [ 22. June 2005, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: JeffB ]