A national sea licence. would it be unfair?

[JeffB]

So many of you have said that you wouldn't be prepared to pay for a licence to fish for fish that aren't there but the money raised from your licence might just put fish there, OK, it will take time of course but this funding could start to make a change.....

[spanner]

... and supposedly, according to the figures given to the Drew report, we spend millions every year on our beloved sport and yet aren't prepared to pay a few quid for a licence......

 

We loose a lot of credability in those figures if we aren't prepared to pay for a licence.

[Leon Roskilly]

The trouble is that everyone has a view on whether or not a sea angling licence would be a good or bad thing.

 

But there are no detailed proposals on the table yet, to have a view upon!!!

 

So everyone participating in this debate invents their own package which they then assume is what is going to be, then argues from that point of view.

 

And people are arguing about different things, which they each refer to as a 'Licence'.

 

It's only a tax, It will solve all our problems, It won't make a difference, It will give us a say, It will be unenforceble, It will assure us of decent fish stocks ................

 

 

It's a bit like asking if you want to be kissed.

 

It all depends upon who is going to be doing the kissing!

 

A young sex hungry, beautiful/handsome goddess/god or a dried up and diseased old withered crone/git.

 

Until we learn what the details of any proposals are it's pretty pointless defending any particular view!

 

Wait and see until there is something substantial on the table before making your mind up one way or the other!

 

But there is value in discussing what we want.

 

But remember, a licence won't go anywhere near solving all problems.

 

It won't fund sea angling organisations.

 

But it may be one more block in a whole range of proposals that are the blocks that will legitimise our right to preferential access to marine resources.

 

What we have to make sure is that as the proposal for a licence is being developed that it is being steered toward becoming the 'young sex hungry, beautiful/handsome goddess/god' proposal that we would want, rather than a less unsatisfactory alternative that might be imposed upon us.

 

And for that to happen, it again comes down to ensuring that our representative organisations have the backing and finance to do a good job when they meet and discuss with government.

 

Tight Lines - leon

[maidstonemike]

JeffB, what do you mean ' nice'.

You seem to unable to debate without getting nasty.

I have never suggested doing nothing. Look at my first post. What I am saying, is a paltry amount raised from licenses will not make a scrap of diffrence to fish stocks. They are knackered by commercial overfishing. Please explain to me simply, as I am a bit thick, how a few quid will reverse the severe damage trawlers have caused over the last thirty years? It's a simple question.

I have yet to see an answer that will hold water.

Will the government stop all trawling now?

Answer is no. So will fish stocks recover just because you pay a few quid for a licence.

Answer is no.

So, why pay? It would be better if the 1.5 million sea anglers all wrote to their MP every week, demanding that trawling be stopped.

Unfortunately, 1.5 million might sound a lot, but to government, it's small beer.

The government know full well the dire situation the oceans are in. Greenpeace make sure of that.

Has it made any difference?

Answer no.

 

[ 28. June 2005, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: Manofkent ]

[JeffB]

I see what you're getting at Leon and I suppose I am basing my ideals of the licence around the facts of the coarse/game licence... I feel that it is not entirely impossible to transfer some of the good things done in that corner of the angling qorld to this...

 

There will of course be much difference in the needs of the sea environment but the principles of sustain, regain and replenish are still the same no matter what the type of angling, all be it on a much greater scale....

 

I'll ask this to those of you that are against: what other method, that is currently in opporation, can make a real difference?

[maidstonemike]

I'm not kissing JeffB leon!

[JeffB]

Oi, I'm not bad you know, but even if I was a ragin bandit I'd still have good taste so you're alright

[maidstonemike]

Thanks Jeff!

Seriously, we all want things to improve, the only way is together. But it will be a long haul.

 

[ 28. June 2005, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: Manofkent ]

[Leon Roskilly]

No, having a licence won't stop trawling.

 

But recognition that angling is both socially and economically important, and that anglers are people who need to be catered for will mean that there is every chance that the management regime for some species, for some areas may be changed.

 

Look at the Bass Management Plan which is being looked at sympathetically.

 

Increasing the MLS, banning netting within one mile of the coast, the legislation for these and measures is being prepared now, aimed at ensuring more and bigger bass are there for anglers to catch.

 

Those legislative proposals, will be ready for consultation in the Autumn.

 

Already there are headlines appearing in the commercial fishing newspapers

 

'Defra's bass plans slammed'

 

'...... it was totally bizarre that DEFRA planned to exclude fishermen who made a living from the fishery in favour of anglers who just fished it for a hobby - a view echoed by several delegates'

 

That gives some idea of what we face during the consultation period (to which every angler should respond and god give the representative organisations the skill and resources to handle that, because too few anglers will be providing those).

 

Wouldn't it be nice to say 'There are over 1 million anglers, each paying a hefty licence for access to those stocks, who have as much right to fish for them as any commercial fishermen, and in fishing for them provide a far greater social and economic value to UK PLC, than do the netsmen'?

 

If we are paying the government for access to decent fishing, that's what we demand the government deliver!

 

And it may just be co-incidence that the greater opposition to the idea that anglers be licenced comes directly from commercial fishing interests and those that service the commercial industry, but I doubt it.

 

The very idea terrifies them! (which is probably why it will never get off the ground!)

 

Tight Lines - leon

 

[ 28. June 2005, 05:00 PM: Message edited by: Leon Roskilly ]

[Ken Davison South Wales]

Hi Manofkent,

 

Your right it will not rebuild fish stocks and trawling will not stop.

 

It will however give us the right to have better recognition and hopefully we should be able to protect inshore fisheries.

 

As Leon has stated organisations which represent us need funding and the vast majority fail in this aspect.

 

The government has taken notice not only of Greenpeace but a large number of organisations hence the report.

 

I would have liked to have seen a ten commandments within its' covers, definite items to be targeted. There was only one and that did not encompass all netters.

 

It did state there should be licences for purchasers of wholesale fish and some form of tracking into the retail and commercial markets but nothing firm.

 

By the way I would not say no to that paltry sum

 

[ 28. June 2005, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: Ken Davison South Wales ]