Update on Angling Trust

[Bob Bradford]

Dave , angling has suffered from bad representation for a very long time, if that were not the case, the need for the new Angling Trust would not exist and Article 47 would have been dispatched accordingly.

 

If Angling Trust fails we are all in the doo doo, they are our best chance of fighting issues like Article 47, going it alone or moaning on here is not going to make the slightest difference, why anglers cannot see that is beyond me, I know they are not perfect, along way off perfect for that matter, but I would rather support through £20 membership and have the Trust in place gathering momentum, than have NOTHING, I really cannot see the logic in trying to destroy a fledgling organisation trying to help anglers, just because others have failed us miserably.

[Elton]

I'm still trying to figure out who Steve Coppolo's friends are (note, plural). I've rung around loads of people over the weekend and nobody will admit to it

[glennk]

I dont know what the answer is but the AT will just inherit all the crap that was attached to the NFSA, they will fail in the long run just the same if they don't take a look at themselves. The main problem as I see it is they appoint "noboddys and wannabes" to run the show.

 

We are constantly told we need people who can speak to politicians, people with negotiation skills, people with qualifications. But what use are they if they haven't any clue about sea fishing. I know theres a lot of rhumours about the new leader flying about behind the scenes. What this organisation needs is someone people will believe in, someone who knows sea fishing, preferably someone who has done it most of his life and knows the score. How about Dave B ??

[Steve Coppolo]

I'm still trying to figure out who Steve Coppolo's friends are (note, plural). I've rung around loads of people over the weekend and nobody will admit to it

 

Edited February 9, 2009 by Steve Coppolo

[H.A.]

Elton @ Feb 9 2009, 12:37 PM)

 

I'm still trying to figure out who Steve Coppolo's friends are (note, plural). I've rung around loads of people over the weekend and nobody will admit to it.

 

 

I knew Steve's last friend ...

 

but I'm afraid he's gone.

 

(But there are some clones about)

[Steve Coppolo]

Elton @ Feb 9 2009, 12:37 PM)

 

 

 

 

I knew Steve's last friend ...

 

but I'm afraid he's gone.

 

(But there are some clones about)

 

That's a lie! I've never had any friends.

 

 

 

Bloody cheek. They'll be saying I've got a sense of humour next.

[big_cod]

We need to get moveing fast or as dave b said as article 47 is looming we could up to our neck in it very shortly we now need a very strong voice in the sea angling community our sport is under threat by some idiots from brussels and on the quite there is a few in defra who see all this as a golden oportunity a bit less of the coffee and buiscuts and some hard talking is needed rapid i think we have been let down very badly by some of our so called reps we need the national press behind us we need a stronge voice fish stocks werent brought to the position they are now by anglers anybody with the slightest knowledge of the sea knows that unfortunatly its the other idiots who seem to be makeing the decisions on fate on sea angling one examample which clearly comes to mind is the grand banks was it anglers who brought it to its knees no lets hope the AT gets it act together fast charterboats could disapeare very fast it would be a very sad day and for what nothing.

 

paul.

Edited February 10, 2009 by big_cod

[Leon Roskilly]

We need to get moveing fast or as dave b said as article 47 is looming

 

The problems that we have coming, and which has led to article 47, are because Recreational Sea Angling is included in the EU term 'Recreational Fishing'.

 

This term includes so called 'Recreational Fishers' who use pots, nets and trawls, often taking substantial catches compared to anglers which, although supposedly targeted to feed their families, often produce a surplus catch which is then traded or sold within their own communities, and wider afield.

 

The EU likes to introduce measures on a broad-brush basis, and so as it introduces regulation with the principle intention of curtailing percieved problems in such different fisheries to RSA, the regulation is automatically applied to all in the EU who it considers to be a 'recreational fisher', including sea anglers in the UK.

 

It can be expected that 'article 47' is just the first instance of such broad-brush regulation, and as the EU moves to sort out other problems with other 'recreational fishers' in other parts of the EU, we anglers will increasingly be caught in the cross-fire that was never primarily aimed at us, leaving us to attempt to fight off inappropriate regulation, and not always succeeding.

 

The real battle is to separate Recreational Sea Angling from other forms of recreational fishing within the EU, on the basis that RSA has a very different social, economic, participation, and environmental impact to other forms of 'recreational fishing' and that such broad-brush regulation will often be entirely inappropriate when applied to the RSA sector.

 

If that doesn't happen, article 47 will be but the first of many such inappropriate regulations heading in our direction.

 

And yes we are going to need strong representation in future, a well supported organisation able to keep abreast of what is happening day by day within Brussels, with the political clout to resist the beauracrats, and with the funds and willingness to mount expensive legal challenges when they insist in trying to impose inappropriate regulation on sea anglers.

[Steve Coppolo]

The problems that we have coming, and which has led to article 47, are because Recreational Sea Angling is included in the EU term 'Recreational Fishing'.

 

This term includes so called 'Recreational Fishers' who use pots, nets and trawls, often taking substantial catches compared to anglers which, although supposedly targeted to feed their families, often produce a surplus catch which is then traded or sold within their own communities, and wider afield.

 

From what you've written there, I assume that it's O.K if Article 47 applies to hobby potters and netters in the UK?

If so, on what grounds? You mention that these hobby fishers aften take substantial catches. Well, I'd like to know what you mean by often and substantial. On what, exactly, are your findings based? Hearsay, myth, rumour? All of those things? Or is there a set of figures, somewhere, for these landings? If not, then your willingness to heap Article 47 on hobby netters and potters, with no evidence to suggest that it's necessary, is no better than someone else wanting to heap it upon us.

 

Whilst on the subject; maybe this makes it a bit clearer, for those still in denial, that the data gathering excercises being carried out at the moment will provide the 'evidence' needed to impose those restrictions on sea anglers. Are Cefas or Nasty Nature carrying out a data gathering excercise on hobby netters and potters? I can't imagine that they are, because hobby netters and potters don't have a misrepresentative body selling them down the river by co-operating with any such scheme.

Edited February 10, 2009 by Steve Coppolo

[big_cod]

From what you've written there, I assume that it's O.K if Article 47 applies to hobby potters and netters in the UK?

If so, on what grounds? You mention that these hobby fishers aften take substantial catches. Well, I'd like to know what you mean by often and substantial. On what, exactly, are your findings based? Hearsay, myth, rumour? All of those things? Or is there a set of figures, somewhere, for these landings? If not, then your willingness to heap Article 47 on hobby netters and potters, with no evidence to suggest that it's necessary, is no better than someone else wanting to heap it upon us.

 

Whilst on the subject; maybe this makes it a bit clearer, for those still in denial, that the data gathering excercises being carried out at the moment will provide the 'evidence' needed to impose those restrictions on sea anglers. Are Cefas or Nasty Nature carrying out a data gathering excercise on hobby netters and potters? I can't imagine that they are, because hobby netters and potters don't have a misrepresentative body selling them down the river by co-operating with any such scheme.

 

Its funny steve a friend of mine who used to look after the hounds for the local hunt in our area i was speaking to him yesterday he lost his job and now does gardening to scratch a liveing he also loves his fishing what he did mention was the quetionaire which nasty nature has been circleing he exact words were we had the same thing done to us a qestionaire on hunting then the bullet they are gathering imformation on you to use it against you mark my words a wolf in sheeps clothing they are unbeleivable.

 

paul.

Edited February 10, 2009 by big_cod