The doctor

A good question Glenn that sadly many people will refrain from posting on due to the malevolent undertones espoused by some people, especially towards those with a differing view. However, at the risk of upsetting anyone!!!! The whole question on whether its failed, failing or not, depends on which side of the various fences you are sitting. There are those who take the view that because the North Sea hasn't filled up with cod due to the reduction of the fleet, then Cod recovery is not working, it won't work because the species decline and subsequent lack of recovery is directly linked to global warming which is not going to improve, therefore, the recovery plan should be scrapped. There are those who believe that cod recovery is a blight on the fishing industry, and that left to its own natural vitality the cod will bounce back unhindered when conditions are right and if not then we should not worry about it as the preoccupation with cod is costing jobs and money. Then there are the scientists who believe that cod recovery is attainable provided a spawning stock biomass is allowed to reproduce to its highest potential. In order to do this the present SSB will need to increase significantly, and if allowed to do so (with little or no mortality) then the target SSB can be attained very quickly. Upon which, sensible limits to fishing mortality will provide for a sustainable fishery. The scientific view is that this can only be achieved over a short timescale with a zero TAC, the greater the TAC, the longer the period of recovery will take. Either a short sharp shock or a longer drawn out slow strangulation. In the far left there are those who take a more cynical view and see the review of the cod recovery plan as a means of holding off further cuts in the TAC and or DAS, by wrapping the commission up in prolonged discussion as to the effectiveness of cod recovery. Everyone has (and is entitled to) a view; anglers in the main perceive fishing effort to be still too high (depending on where they live) other anglers see an increase in cod and believe that the crisis is over (if it ever existed). The fishing industry is still perceived to be the root cause of the problem and as with other declining industries should not be treat as a special case. So as with many fisheries issues, there is a diverse range of views, all with different agendas, and it is this that may ultimately bring the downfall of the cod; our own inability to act accordingly when needed within the timescales required to achieve success, because all the while cod is a valued commodity it is not going to be surrendered without a fight. The problem is that during the fighting the only loser is the cod. From a personal point of view; I think cod is recoverable, I doubt we'll ever get it to the levels of the gadoid outburst, that almost certainly is unattainable, but I don't think anyone is suggesting it is. Is it the wrong time to assess it so far? Well, I guess a review is due at some time, but as stated above if you do things by halves, then it takes that much longer to achieve your goals. With a zero TAC now for the next 2 years, recovery could be attained by 2010, based on present TACs it 2015 before any sign, on that basis yes it is too early, but if the review polarises minds and the short sharp shock is accepted then maybe the review was worthwhile.

Confuscious he say "He who fishes in other man's well often catches crabs."

Again No, for reasons stated on that thread at that time. Its up to Elton, does he believe he will lose more members by marginalising those with an interest in conservation and or sea angling politics. Or will those who don't like to see such threads on a sea angling forum and therefore never post on conservation threads stop visiting the site if such threads are allowed to continue.

Would you like a separate forum for conservation & politics discussions? Yes [ 68 ] [56.67%] No [ 52 ] [43.33%] Total Votes: 120 Only just finish the topic, make of it what you will Doc.

Just one quick question Challenge, where do the ICES scientists get the data from in order to make their estimations? Doc.

They still aren't able to do anything about the 32,500 tons of haddock discarded last year or was that this year (Wurzel will remember), thats from a TAC of 55,000 tons.

Didn't think you could weigh them in, just imagine; 1st P Kilpatrick 8lb 4oz (2,250 yellowtails, 500 blacks & 1,150 blow lug)

Well done fella, we'll be tapping you up for a few pointers in the not too distant future. See Pauls slipping down the field, he'll have to pull his finger out, pink shads not working so well now!!!

When the document is finalised, the membership will be asked to give their opinion, this will form the basis of how the various bodies proceed, irrespective of how the reps feel, it is the members who will determine whether the recommendations are acceptable or not. Why is it laughable, if there are those with alternative views then they should make themselves known, beating any group with a big stick that may not share your views is repression, not progression. I would welcome others entering the arena, sea angling is a diverse sport with many diverse views. the problem is that many are asked but very few are prepared to put themselves out, it is afterall easier to sit at a computer and criticise. I think after all the s***e that has been aimed at the present sea angling reps, a small amount of jollity is acceptable, unless of course you happen to believe that some people are of such importance that they can throw it, but not receive it. I will however, take you to task for your generalisations on how I allegedly always show contempt for anyone with alternative views (please show examples to support your accusations). I have to say that whilst your views are your own, and you are free to make them, the snidey little remarks with which you try to make your point probably show your true colours (you accuse me of risible comments, of disdain, being patronising, subservient and biased all in a few sentences). Yet your whole post is quite obviously a veiled attack on someone who has a different perspective. If you knew me you would know that I am neither a supporter of the labour party or the Conservatives, or anyone else to that end, I choose not to vote, not because I don't like any particular party, but because my local candidates are not to my liking (my local MP is John Prescott). When I have a local candidate that I feel I would like to vote for I will. I vote for a candidate, not a party, if thats not being apolitical then I don't know what is. You don't know me so I suggest you save your personal attacks for someone you do know if thats what 'turns you on'. I would suggest you find the Tory manidfest yourself. Doc.

Fragmented, institutionalised, apathetic, selfish, objective, subjective, concerned, aware, unaware, caring, uncaring, responsive, unresponsive, Laboured, conservative, liberal... In other words representative of the whole spectrum of society, which may be the reason we cannot unite, too many different agendas, outlooks, reasons for fishing, levels of expenditure, levels of experience, forms of sea angling etc etc etc....

But what would they lose, experience from the introduction of a FW rod license showed no significant reduction in participation levels and over time the number of anglers fishing increased. You have to consider that the government (DEFRA) are aware of this, and if they get just 50% compliance its a measure well worth them introducing from a financial point of view. I doubt very much whether there would be a wholesale national target of enforcement, I think they would target certain popular areas and use the impacts of that to filter through the ranks. They wouldn't have to go sneaking around remote venues in the wee small hours, thats not cost effective and unlikely to generate much revenue or enforcement. Lets face it if you are a keen angler with top of the range gear worth £400 - £500 are you going to risk losing it for the sake of a £22 rod licence, whether you agree with the principal or not.

The 'unelected' representatives are members of the NFSA, BASS, SACN, YALASA, NMC, etc., these are the bodies the government has chosen to deal with as they are the only bodies which have some angling representation. Perhaps you should form the Anti Representative Seaanglers Institute (LOL), representing sea anglers who either don't want to be represented or take an opposing view to the traditional bodies. All of these groups have asked their membership for a greater level of participation, individual members have asked on this forum for anglers to help out by attending meetings, there have been one or two who have offered and then when away from the limelight of the forum, quietly declined. You can only ask, if none stand forward what do these representative orgs. do. Perhaps we should just give up and accept that anglers don't want to be represented, and whilst there are undoubtedly those that do, thats just hard luck because there are a number that don't. I would suggest that those who take a differing or opposing view write to DEFRA stating that is the case and that they wish to be included in the process due to their conflicting views and their wishing these conflicting views to be heard. I'm sorry Cranfield, you do that when you are negotiating from a position of power (like the government). DEFRA, through the government do not need to offer RSA anything, do you consider it likely that the government will offer RSA anything if we persistently say no to anything and everything. What has been said thus far is that we are opposed, but are prepared to negotiate in the event that there is no option. We negotiate from a reasonably strong position as opposed to here it is take it or leave it. I think personally that is what your own comments amount to. I admire your optimism, where the coal miners, steel workers, fishing industry, car manufacturers and all other industries have failed, you believe that sea anglers will win. With 1.45m voters I still don't think we would be able to shift this government, anglers are spread across the country, and to be honest from what I've seen of the tory manifest wrt sea angling, god help us if they get in. Doc.

And therein lies the problem Challenge, there are probably quite a few others like yourself, a number have made that clear on AN. I would take issue with the perception that that is the majority position however. But the crux of the problem is that those who don't want to be represented are the most critical of those representing anglers that do want representation, who do want a voice at the table. If you are not interested in sea anglers having a voice, then why criticise, just ignore it, it doesn't affect you does it. It may be possible to produce a list of those who have opted out and have no clear position on the future of RSA, in other words your happy to maintain the status qou. Any future response to consultation packages could contain a list of such people/organisations in order to ensure that there are those in RSA circles who have no position and as such it could be argued hold a counter position to that being provided. That way all feelings are being portrayed, a minority position if you like (assuming it is a minority who feel that way). I feel another poll coming on LOL.

Challenge, I’m not sure I understand your point about RSA reps taking away your choice, what choices are we attempting to take away. I can only assume you are talking about rod licences, bag limits etc., although where this has been literally stated as the case I’m not quite sure, I certainly have never offered those rights, and can’t think of any others who have. I admit some of these issues have tentatively been discussed, but the same line has been taken throughout, a strong opposition without clear benefits to RSA, and even then any acceptance would have to have widespread endorsement from the RSA sector as a whole. If reluctantly discussing these issues is considered to be a weakness on the part of RSA representatives, then by the same standard refusing to enter into dialogue would be classed as incompetence. I guess at the end of the day I would rather be seen as weak than incompetent, because either way there will be those pushing for the implementation of these measures, if we are unwilling or unable to respond then the measures will be pushed through, if we argue our points to the best of our ability, then perhaps we could derive some benefit from a bad situation. With all the power, resources and support the NFFO and SFF have, they were still unable to prevent the days at sea restrictions despite national campaigns. By entering into dialogue, they were able to mitigate the effects to some extent. Would they have gained any ground by refusing to discuss or accept the DAS restrictions? We have to be realistic and accept that if restrictions on RSA activity are on the table, we have to fight our corner, address the issue, oppose unilateral implementation and get the best deal available. After all if government see fit to pursue this, they will, however much we tub thump and scream and shout. I think you may have misinterpreted or misunderstood my comments wrt dialogue with the commercial sector, it may surprise you to learn that such dialogue has been undertaken. There is at the moment, under the auspices of DEFRA a sea angling strategy being developed, such a strategy has to be accepted by all other stakeholders, prior to consultation, including the commercial sector (in this instance the NFFO). Sadly the NFFO have strongly intimated that much (practically everything that would benefit and secure the future of RSA) within the proposal is unacceptable. Personally I think we’ve reached an impasse with regards to this and at this moment see no future for the recreational sea angling sub group of the Inshore waters working group. Similarly, I (personally) am uncomfortable with the notion, that we (RSA) have to acquire acceptance from the commercial sector prior to any future benefits being levied. We are a large enough stakeholder (both socially and economically) to be able to stand on our own feet, we are not asked to rubber stamp any issues concerning commercial fishing, and rightly so, why should others have to endorse issues that may impact RSA. In addition, we approached the NFFO chief executive at a meeting in Stockholm some time ago, to enquire whether a meeting between the two sectors would be beneficial to see where there may be common ground. I was told politely and rather condescendingly, that it may be possible in the future, but that there were much more important things they had to deal with, sea anglers were not one of them. I felt like a little schoolboy being sent to the corner to play with my rod, such attitude does nothing for relations. You make a valid point (in my mind) with regard to improving relations with the commercial sector, however, you maintain that RSA has to reflect the majority view, not the minority view that RSA reps currently take. I wonder how many on AN endorse working closely with the commercial sector, the topic discussed on AN recently wrt this question showed that there is no majority view to this question. Therefore, which line should anglers take, either way you seriously **** off one section. Anglers on internet fora do bemoan the actions of the commercial fishermen, they take the blame for all the ills of poor fish stocks, poor access, gill nets etc., some of this criticism is justified, some of it isn’t. However, I have yet to see anything emanating from RSA in the public domain that compares with the vitriolic and hysterical attacks by the commercial sector (Fishing News, NFFO and some PO’s). The bass campaign is but one instance. We continuously read that anglers have too much influence, campaigning for the demise of the fishing industry, too big for their boots, shouldn’t be involved in fisheries management, aren’t worth what they say they are, should stick to playing with their rods, etc. I see no willingness to participate in dialogue on the behalf of the commercial sector; in fact the opposite is the case. Sea angling and sea anglers are an evil that must be exorcised was one recent comment, and that was the point to which I referred, i.e. “The commercials have drawn a line in the sand”. Like it not, agree with the sentiment or not, we are on our own, the options are simple and straight forward, we either stand as one and fight our own corner for the best possible outcome, or we give up, accept rod licenses and bag limits without a fight and preside over the demise of sea angling and the resultant loss of the charter fleet, sea angling jobs and fish. I wonder in years to come what the legacy will be if we decide on the latter option, as I said previously, its not about conservation its about the preservation of sea angling and sea angling jobs, why those who currently work in the sector are unable to grasp this is beyond me. Doc.

Whats this conservation lobby, if you call fighting for the future of angling then you are confusing the real issue. I may be conservation orientated, in that I don't kill everything I catch. But let me assure you I take fish when I or a family member wants it, I have no reservations about that and that includes cod, bass, haddock, ling, brill, lobsters, crabs whatever I get my hands on. But conservation of fish and the preservation of sea angling as we know it are two completely different things. So stoaty you would rather have no representation, if thats the case then fine, but what about those who do want someone to represent them, and what about those who feel that their sport is worth fighting for and are not prepared to sit around and give it up. Yes I agree its very hard on those who don't want to read about conservation and be kept abreast of whats happening with the sport. I suggest you DON'T F******* READ THE POSTS, even better turn any posters like myself or any other concerned anglers off, its a simple matter of a button. If you didn't want to read about it you wouldn't, neither would you post any responses to it. Lets put this into perspective, there are those who don't eat fish, there are those who won't kill fish, there are those who kill everything, but I'm more concerned with whether we are able to go out and catch fish in the future. The issue of whether to kill or release is a personal issue which at the present is not on the governments agenda, sea angling rod licences, bag limits and closed MPA's are, don't confuse the two.

I do when work allows, but being at sea as much as I am doesn't mean I get to fish as much as I'd like and Yes (obviously) I don't know, but to my mind better to have tried than not at all Because all the while there is the will and the opportunity to at least gain some balance and hope for the future its worth while trying. If we took your point of view there would be a ban on the collecting of green crab in the NE, there would no ban on the landing of tope in the NE, little and often, make the effort and sometimes it works. I wasn't aware I was having a go at anglers, you'll have to explain that one to me. So your not actually a cheap mobile phone then!!!!!!!!!!!! and no

Sorry if I've read it wrongly but I think what Carol was saying that you cannot get away from the principles of conservation, to do so would be like sticking your head in the sand. If RSA is to make allys outside then it has to have an acceptance of conservation principles, be seen to practice conservation and be much more open minded about the marine environment and the potential effect of its activities. As you say you have no interest in conservation matters and would rather just go fishing, I don't see any sympathetic consideration of that ethic in Carols post. So which part do you agree with because its not that clear from your post.

Que???????????????????

I’m really looking forward to future meetings with DEFRA, of course the Environmental NGO’s (EN, WWF & WLT’s) and commercial sector (NFFO, reps from the SFC’s) will be there, each to support their own uniform ideals and targeted ends, each singing from their respective hymn sheets. I can imagine the questions now; (DEFRA etc.) What is the angling perspective on a sea angling rod license? (Angling Reps) “Well anglers are vehemently opposed to a sea angling rod license, full stop”. (DEFRA etc.) But we’ve had acknowledgement from a number of anglers that they may be willing to pay for a sea angling rod licence (Angling Reps) “Yes but that is a minority position and even that belief is only as long as benefits accrue to the sea angling sector.” (DEFRA etc.) So in other words you can’t make your minds up!! (NGO’s) We believe that a rod license for anglers would be of great benefit to the marine environment, revenue generated could be used to support infrastructure to manage and monitor marine protected areas with anglers getting buy in to the principals of marine conservation. (NFFO etc) We agree, the recreational sector should be licensed, they take many millions of fish each year without having to pay anything towards the management or enforcement of their activities. Commercial fishermen are regulated to the hilt, they have significant costs to pay, not just before they go to sea, but also to enable them to catch a reasonable amount of fish in order to make a living. Anglers are just playing at it, if they can afford to buy fishing gear they can afford to buy a license. Outcome; Implementation of a sea angling rod licence without any benefits accruing to sea anglers and RSA as a whole. Anglers response; Our representatives sold us down the river!!! Part 2 (DEFRA etc.) What is the angling perspective on Bag Limits? (Angling Reps) “Well anglers are vehemently opposed to a bag limits, we can see no reason presently to restrict the angling of marine fin fish as its insignificant in comparison to the commercial take”. (DEFRA etc.) But once again, we’ve had acknowledgement from a number of anglers that they may be willing to accept bag limits for sea fish (Angling Reps) “We would accept that bag limits may be applicable if a particular species was under significant threat or in severe decline under threat of collapse, and similar restrictions were placed on the commercial sector.” But as with the issue of sea angling rod licenses, only as long as benefits accrue to the sea angling sector. In addition, those who are in favour of such restrictions are in the minority. Such a move would significantly impact both anglers and the economics of sea angling. We would vehemently oppose a broadscale implementation of bag limits on all species irrespective of status. (DEFRA etc.) So in other words once again you can’t make your minds up!! We have been monitoring sea angling fora, and the general consensus is that marine fish are in significant decline, there are very few fish to catch, and the number of large adult fish are few and far between. What anglers at grass roots are saying is that sea angling experience is poor, but we have to be allowed to continue taking as much as we can as and when we want irrespective of the impact of our activities. (NGO’s) We would welcome bag limits for anglers, especially in marine protected areas. It makes sense to impose restrictions on anglers when there is no information on the level of angler take, this is especially important when there are so many unknowns in general related to fin fish populations. We consider that such a move would be of great benefit to the marine environment, and would propose that bag limits are implemented not just in marine protected areas, but in all sites of scientific interest and with buffer zones around MPA’s to not only encourage enforcement but also to ensure that fin fish have space to migrate out of and into MPA’s. Anglers would benefit in the longer term by having access to larger fish. (NFFO etc) We agree, the recreational sector take of marine fin fish is an unknown metric, and whilst there are significant restrictions on the commercial sector, unknown exploitation levels should be minimised. If there are as has been suggested 1.45 million anglers in England and Wales, if each catches just 1 cod, 1 bass and 5 whiting per year that equates to 1.5m cod, 1.5m bass and 7.5m whiting. Anglers are taking commercial magnitudes of fish without restriction or consideration. Bag limits are the only feasible way ahead and all species should be assigned a daily limit. Outcome; Implementation of a bag limits without any benefits accruing to sea anglers and RSA as a whole. Anglers response; Our representatives sold us down the river!!! And so it goes on, the discussions on this forum have shown that there are many diverse points of view, there are those who have some foresight, there are those who have none, there are those who should know better but play to the audience, and there are those who are prepared to stand up for what they believe. Either way, and what ever your perspective, it’s a fight to the end, there was a time when alliances could have been forged, however, it’s a case now of anglers against the rest. The commercials have drawn a line in the sand, as have the NGO’s, unfortunately anglers are still arguing whether the tide is in, out or too rough to test the water, that indecision will probably cost us dearly. There are anglers who consider their own activities to be outstanding, fish a plentiful, there are those who’s local angling is dire, there are those who live inland and travel to the most prolific areas and as a consequence don’t really see the state of some coastal areas. I think it time that those lucky enough to have decent fishing on their doorsteps to stop deriding those less fortunate and put down their rose tinted glasses for just an evening to appreciate what some anglers are faced with. As fish don’t respect regional boundaries, neither should those who have currently good fishing, anglers are cut from the same cloth, and in the same way that commercial fishermen support others that may be out of area, anglers should for once consider others less fortunate. After all what goes around comes around, your fishing may be excellent at the moment, but who’s to say in a few years that the roles will not be reversed. At this moment in time we need to consolidate, not disintegrate. The extremely vocal anglers who are hypercritical of those that represent them, should take time out to consider, these representatives are unpaid, largely unskilled (in terms of dealing with government) and extremely under funded in comparison to those who sit opposite. These representatives have frequently requested assistance, they’ve asked for better funding, they’ve asked anglers to attend meetings, the response from the angling fraternity has been conspicuous by its absence. There are those on here (not mentioning any names, they know who they are) who have stated that they would attend meetings, would represent RSA, would travel to London to meet with DEFRA and other officials, and……………. always pulled out at the last minute. I find it strange that these people then see fit to beat RSA representatives with a big stick, the words either put up or shut up spring to mind!!!!!!!!!!! The point that the representatives often visit AN and should have a good idea of angling attitudes is well made, in fact the indecision and conflicting views only compound the problem, or are these hypercritical posters suggesting that their own point of view take president. If that was the case no consensus would ever be reached. Well here’s the rub guys. I’d far rather be fishing than sat up at 02:00am in the morning writing responses to DEFRA consultations, SFC proposed byelaws etc. The persistent vitriol from some members of this forum who seem to have a singular belief that they are right and are more than willing to dismiss out of hand any opposing view, has become tiresome. The offer has not changed, if certain people who are sure they can do better would like to step forward, then please do so.

But if you go shore fishing thats all that may be available at certain times of the year and in certain areas. I'm sure that there aren't toooo many pouting well off.

Thats fine, but sarcasm can be often conscrued as a poor attempt at wit or a personal attack. Not being over-sensitive here, BUT as Carol58 only has 3 posts behind her (he!!!) its fairly reasonable to assume they are reasonably new to AN, and to be faced with sarcasm straight away is likely to deter them from posting in the future. Are we trying to make this a selective club!!!!!!

Mmmmmmmmmmmm isn't that what internet fora are about, diverse discussion on subjects that people have differing views on. Maybe we should all just backslap each on the 8oz bleg that won last nights match LOL

Does it matter, Carol has a point of view, the last time I look freedom of speech was still legal in the UK

Given that many on here have no interest in securing a positive future for sea angling, or consider those representing our sport unworthy of their consideration and that they are doing such a poor job, what do you all think the way ahead should be. Maybe its time for those representing RSA to step down and let others who can do a much better job in. I'm sure Leon et al would much prefer to be fishing. There are those who have been extrenmely critical of the way these representatives have taken forward the angling view, are they prepared to step up to the metal. Doc.

So in other words its easier to do nothing and sit on an internet forum and beat those with a big stick who are at least prepared to continuously put themselves out. Thats real big of you, and makes me feel pleased to know you are on our side!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Doc.