Steve Coppolo

Barry Asking them to produce evidence that angling causes damage plays right into their hands. That's what reference areas are for. If the truth was known, they have been given enough information by the unwary to spin in their favour, already. As for the angling trust defending sea anglers, I think you'll find that most of them are in favour of MCZ's. They've been campaigning for them for years under the guises of the NFSA, SACN, BASS and the NMC. The useless angling trust actually encouraged their members to use the MCS website to vote for MCZ's! Sorry, Barry, but you and Bob are going to have to come up with something better than that. As the MCZ project groups don't appear to be taking sea anglers seriously and won't tell anyone what is really going on, the consultation is the only way that we are going to be able to object.

Come on then, Bob, let's have the benefit of your 40 years experience. What do you suggest sea anglers do with regard the the MCZ projects? Serious question.

Bob, as seafoods has already said, halving the number of operatives will have a serious effect on front line services when the **** hits the fan. Do you have any idea of the number of emergency calls a simple house fire attracts, for example? Or the amount of conflicting information given by the scores of callers? Or the true value of local knowledge when sorting the crap from useful information, before bombarding front line crews with all the info they might need? And all this when minutes, sometimes seconds, make the difference between life and death? You haven't got a clue, Bob, and are just blustering and bull5hitting your way through a subject you know absolutely nothing about. Sea anglers should be concerned that you want to represent them. As for regional control centers, not regionalized fire stations like you say, FFS, it didn't come to anything because they couldn't make the software work - among a few other things. As you are obviously someone who puts saving a pound note before saving a life, I can't take anything you say seriously.

The supposed dwindling sea stocks have been blamed, but is that the reason why they are now seen more inland than they used to be? I find it hard to believe that with the unprecedented numbers of school bass in our inshore waters and estuaries, plus the massive herring and sprat shoals, not to mention juvenile mullet and other sea fish, that the cormorants have come inland because they can't find anything to eat in the sea. You don't suppose it has anything to do with the ever increasing number of commercial waters providing easy picking, encouraging them inland in the first instance?

Don't get me started on regionalised control centres. Do you know why that little venture didn't work out and how much it cost the tax payer? Never mind, I don't even want to go there. One thing I will say, though, Bob obviously forgets that the times when you want as many people manning the phones and radios as possible, is during the most severe emergencies which present the biggest risk to life. Good examples are the London bombings and the Fasnet race. Perhaps he thinks it is acceptable for distress calls to go ignored at times like this, just to save a few quid when things are more quiet?

To be honest, I was just wondering whether he had any experience that might give his views on emergency responses some validity.

No, Bob, I'm really struggling with your cryptic clues. What's wrong with a straight answer? What did you do before you retired? And, I'm not really interested but if you think it's important, what did you do in your spare time?

The title was, for the first time ever, actually edited. It should have read, 'You're on your own', and was reference to the fact that sea anglers don't have anyone prepared to defend them against proposed regulations and restrictions. Anyway, regardless of any editing, it would appear that the point of it was completely lost on you. As for anyone being, 'The Man', what sort of childish rubbish is that? I don't know who 'The Man' is, but I sure as hell know it isn't, nor will ever be, you. You have repeatedly shown that you have little or no understanding of what you are supposed to be doing and have to resort to silly questions on internet forums to give you half an idea. Sorry, Bob, I did have a degree of admiration for you for rolling your sleeves up and having a go, but you have become a laughing stock. EDIT: Try finding out just what effect to stakeholder groups are having on the process so far, Bob. Then speak to a few of them to find out what there concerns are about the way things are being done. Then look at what representatives on other stakeholder groups think about the same. Maybe, just maybe, then you might get the gist of the article that I wrote. As a so called sea angling representative, you should know all this stuff already.

Well, we will just have to disagree, then. Your analogy is way, way off the mark. Perhaps you should think what would happen if you put one of the designers behind the wheel? You never told me what it was you did before you retired.

The title of this thread was a timely reminder for me. I must get that cocktail cabinet that got broken last time we were out on my boat, fixed.

The coastguard, just like every other emergency service, is an insurance policy. The best and cheapest insurance policy that the tax payer will ever have. Their job is to respond when someone is in distress and to save lives. The more of them there are, the quicker they can respond and the more lives they are able to save. What people have to realise is, arriving too late is no better than not arriving at all when there is a life risk. Personally, I couldn't care less what the coastguards do for most of their time, as long as they can respond effectively when they are needed. Emergency services should never be run like businesses. As for suggestions that management know better than the troops at the sharp end, utter garbage.

I'm sorry, Bob, but the more of your posts I read, the more scary the thought of you representing sea anglers becomes. Just what was it you did before you retired?

There are enough out there to keep everyone happy. The trouble is, there are people who can't keep their noses out of everyone elses fishing, trying to reinvent the wheel, when they should be minding their own business. If anyone finds sea angling too much of a challenge, perhaps they should try out a few commercial carp fisheries?

No, Davey, it would have been totally undemocratic. Since when should the vast minority be allowed to decide what's best for the vast majority? Can someone tell me what the current AT membership is and how many of them are sea anglers?

No, you'll be on the same list as me, Ron. Soon as the water warms up a few degrees and some fish turn up, we'll have to have a day out mate - for my sanity if nothing else.

Unless you are a member of the Mafia, Bob, it's probably best to refrain from using quotes from the Godfather. Do you actually want people to take you seriously, or view you as a joker?

Bob, you've just read Wurzels comment that every method is effective sometimes but no method is good all the time, yet you still seem to want to put things in little boxes. Why? What is your objective, Bob? What are you trying to achieve? Are you looking for a crusade to join, or start? If you want to represent sea anglers by defending us against Eco mentalists and busy bodies, fine, but if you're trying to interfere with or 'improve' (ruin) sea angling, go and get a place on the angling trust conservation mob and save yourself a lot of trouble. Sea anglers have enough problems on the horizon, without someone trying to create more.

Top post, Wurzel. Good question about the Spurs, too. Far too often people think if they can't see the fish, there aren't any.

I suspect the same, Brian, although the WSF character denied this. If it isn't the same person using two different names, given the similarities and the uncanny timing, it would appear to be a coordinated effort from the National Mullet Club, or something like it.

Fair enough. You're not claiming to represent me, or doing anything that might mess with my fishing, so I'm more than happy to accept your views as your own.

I'm not arguing just for the sake of it, but that still contains a lot of assumption. It is more than reasonable to assume a trawler would always catch far more fish than a charter boat, but it isn't always the case. It depends on the conditions, the species and size of fish that are there, horsepower of the trawler, and any number of other variations. Maybe inshore netting does account for more fish than beach angling, but does beach netting? I doubt it. And does inshore netting account for more fish than inshore boat angling? Again, I doubt it. We've got to be very careful with these assumptions. Because of the wild and weird figures that are often quoted by sea angling misrepresentatives, it has become a game of numbers. (I see the latest figure from the Angling Trust is 6.4 million sea anglers in England and Wales!!). It would take a lot of under 10m commercial boats to compete with actual anglers when it comes to fish numbers. The exaggerated claims just give them more ammunition to fire back at anyone who goes armed with nothing more than assumption and personal perception based on myth, hearsay and imagination.

It doesn't matter how weak it is, Bob, when you find yourself up against those who do know the facts, they will exploit any inaccuracies and make you look very silly indeed. Getting caught out romancing once, discredits everything you say - even the things you may get right.

Not having a pop, Cranfield, but is that based on what you've experienced, or what you've read, heard or imagined? Quite often, depending on conditions, gill nets will be out fished by long lines and, occasionally, rod and line. Gill nets can be incredibly selective and the amount of undersized fish caught is minimal. A lot of fish caught in nets come to the boat alive and kicking and those that are released swim away. Mullet can be notoriously hard to catch in nets. Their torpedo shape and strength, plus their wariness, make them difficult to catch. ( bass, on the other hand, are perfectly designed to be caught In Gill nets). Shoals of mullet will often jump over ring nets to escape. Bob was saying that nets will ALWAYS out fish line fishing, which simply isn't true.

What do you expect from Leon Roskilly's mailing list, Bob? They are all hand picked party faithful and not representative of the country's grass roots sea anglers, by any means.

Sorry, Bob, but you've just responded with more of the same. Only this time you threw in a large chunk of assumption, too. And what have spurdog got to do with mullet? All I'm saying is, if you don't know what the facts are, don't quote all the rubbish you've heard or read as fact. Someone, somewhere, will ways be in possession of the facts and will blow your rumour, hearsay and myth out of the water. Usually in front of an audience, which will make you look very silly and discredit the anglers you want to represent.