Article 47

[barry luxton]

Snippit from my mate Bob Shotters web site, i'm sure he won't mind me knicking it. Just puts into perspective the uslessness the eu proposels are going to acheive regarding fish stocks and the amount of work that they need to do to put their house in order. So again eu s@d off come back when you are fit to manage.

 

Quote:

 

The likely scenario is that Charter Boats are most at risk of inclusion..................

 

Now lets be clear about a few things firstly the over fishing that has brought about the need for quota is not the fault of RSA or the charter boats that serve those anglers. RSA is proven to be sustainable and on its own has no impact on fish stocks. The daily discard made by the larger trawlers is a far greater problem than the impact of the One Million anglers.

 

It is estimated that the RSA catch is just 2% of the annual amount of fish landed in the UK where as the discard mentioned is more than 50% of what is landed.

 

If the EU were to sort this out then along with the quota system our fish stock could recover in five to ten years

Edited April 5, 2009 by barry luxton

[barry luxton]

The proposals that I have made would (in my opinion) course as little harm (or change) to recreational angling as we know it today through change.

It might not be acceptable to you Steve. But it just could be to the change makers.

Regards.

 

You are correct Challenge, those little changes you mention will be ideal for the change makers. It will give them an initial inroad into the rsa boat anglers scene. Once in, there will be more and more to come, all will end up paying for thier wages and expences and pensions and policing and and an and.

[Guest challenge]

Barry SFC in this part of the world have been here since the 1800,s they have managed to pay wages and provide pensions so am sure they could carry on without anglers.

In our SFC area we have 237 licensed commercial vessels operating from 7 harbours including Sunderland, Hartlepool, Whitby, Scarborough, Bridlington, hull and Grimsby and 22 landing sites, spread over two operational areas, targeting shellfish, whitefish and migratory species.

the fleet structure (2007) comprised of 53 demersal trawlers, 184 static gear vessels working up to 90,000 pots per annum and 28 salmon licence holders targeting migratory species between march and august. We also have up to 107 active unlicensed vessels working a maximum of 1070 pots and 10700 meters of net.

The following areas also fall under NESFC jurisdiction.

Humber estuary European marine site -= 36,657.15 hectares. Flamborough head European marine site 6,314.96 hectares and tees mouth& Cleveland coast Ramsar & SPA 124.31 hectares.

There’s plenty there to keep us busy without having to run around chasing anglers. So let’s just kick this myth of jobs for the boys into touch shall we,

Regards.

[Steve Coppolo]

Barry SFC in this part of the world have been here since the 1800,s they have managed to pay wages and provide pensions so am sure they could carry on without anglers.

In our SFC area we have 237 licensed commercial vessels operating from 7 harbours including Sunderland, Hartlepool, Whitby, Scarborough, Bridlington, hull and Grimsby and 22 landing sites, spread over two operational areas, targeting shellfish, whitefish and migratory species.

the fleet structure (2007) comprised of 53 demersal trawlers, 184 static gear vessels working up to 90,000 pots per annum and 28 salmon licence holders targeting migratory species between march and august. We also have up to 107 active unlicensed vessels working a maximum of 1070 pots and 10700 meters of net.

The following areas also fall under NESFC jurisdiction.

Humber estuary European marine site -= 36,657.15 hectares. Flamborough head European marine site 6,314.96 hectares and tees mouth& Cleveland coast Ramsar & SPA 124.31 hectares.

There’s plenty there to keep us busy without having to run around chasing anglers. So let’s just kick this myth of jobs for the boys into touch shall we,

Regards.

 

Challenge, with respect, the two SFC's that cover my local area produce similar figures each year. The thing is, no one knows where all these boats are. Some of them are part time now, some have jacked it in altogether and some are laying rotting on saltmarshes, etc. One thing is for sure, we don't see many of them at sea nowdays.

 

Anyway, back to the previous post about changes being inevitable. I disagree. Who says things are going to have to change? One or two eccentric RSA 'reps'? They have no right to demand changes. Sea angling isn't theirs to negotiate with. They aren't qualified, or elected, to negotiate on anyone else's behalf except their own, so the future of sea angling has got sod all to do with them. A fisheries officer, or two? Frtom the conversations I've had with the one's I know, I think they would much prefer it if sea anglers just disappeared overnight and didn't bother them again, (especially as they are already worked off their feet, eh?). A man in a suit who doesn't know which end of a fishing rod to hold? Given that they don't know anything about sea angling, other than what they been mislead to believe, how on earth can they propose changes? They don't know what it is now, so how can they know what it can or can't be changed into?

 

No, I'm sorry mate, I don't accept that change for changes sake is inevitable. Any change is going to have to come with the blessing of the anglers it's going to affect, not a few eccentric fish fanciers, jobs worths, or inflated suits. And that ain't going to happen.

[Sharkbyte]

Leon, I see that you're having a nosy.

 

Any chance of some answers regarding the Kent and Essex SFC's suggestion of bag limits, instead of angler quotas???

[H.A.]

Just makes me see red when I read posts like those above, where people seem to think we must be 'managed' and telling us that we can either accept what they have planned for us or face a worse fate in the shape of proposals from our so called reps. It's like we're being held to ransom.

 

Has it ever occurred to you, Steve, that you are the 'so few' who are running scared and trying in a simple way to cause panic amongst 'sloths'?

 

You need to stand back a bit and re-group and come out with better policies than 'Leon screwed up' and 'WE DON'T NEED NO EDUCATION' ....

 

it amazes me that you already have a party of six or so ....

 

you're obviously a born leader and rep.

 

Good on yer.

 

 

PS

 

"Any change is going to have to come with the blessing of the anglers it's going to affect.."

 

Poor misguided booger!

Edited April 5, 2009 by H.A.

[big_cod]

That sounds a lot like the 'party line' you're quoting there, challenge. Why the bloody hell should we be licenced and have to fill in log books? Is it because we pose such a serious threat to fish stocks that we need to be mis-anaged, in the same way as the commercials have been? The answer to that has to be no, so maybe it's to keep fisheries managers and officers in a job? Much more likely. You can take you're proposed management measures and your log books and stuff them right up your 4rse. And the same thing goes for any other stupid and invasive proposals that our mad RSA reps come up with. They are not necessary, not wanted, and not needed. You're all like pigs around a trough.

 

Steve these are the words that the majority of commercila fishemen say to me for gods sake dont get a log book or licence because if you you do you will bo doomed and they are right we will be doomed these people burbleing on about anglers need regulating how been fed lies upon lies about anglers and dont know the difference between the tip of a rod to the butt some people in the high and mighty in the fishing industry were lobbying to get us regulated and then when it was mentioned we might end with slice of there quota they started screaming like a rabbid dog as charterboats if we do end up going down that road god forbid because if we all went bust tommorow it wouldnt make a **** of difference to any stock but if we do end up licecened a quota would be better than bag limits bag limits would automaticly create discards in RSA but steve you have to remember the powers that be in brussels have been fed lies about anglers which unfortunaltly have come from powerefull members inside the commercial fishng industry the whole thing is joke and after what has gone on in the last 30 years to hear them complain about anglers is enough to make your blood boil.

 

paul.

Edited April 6, 2009 by big_cod

[barry luxton]

Barry SFC in this part of the world have been here since the 1800,s they have managed to pay wages and provide pensions so am sure they could carry on without anglers.

In our SFC area we have 237 licensed commercial vessels operating from 7 harbours including Sunderland, Hartlepool, Whitby, Scarborough, Bridlington, hull and Grimsby and 22 landing sites, spread over two operational areas, targeting shellfish, whitefish and migratory species.

the fleet structure (2007) comprised of 53 demersal trawlers, 184 static gear vessels working up to 90,000 pots per annum and 28 salmon licence holders targeting migratory species between march and august. We also have up to 107 active unlicensed vessels working a maximum of 1070 pots and 10700 meters of net.

The following areas also fall under NESFC jurisdiction.

Humber estuary European marine site -= 36,657.15 hectares. Flamborough head European marine site 6,314.96 hectares and tees mouth& Cleveland coast Ramsar & SPA 124.31 hectares.

There’s plenty there to keep us busy without having to run around chasing anglers. So let’s just kick this myth of jobs for the boys into touch shall we,

Regards.

 

I apologise for being mis-leading Challenge i certainly wasn't talking about sfc's, expenditure, that's a minor part of the grand scheme, i was referring to the eu black hole and defra's one bill a year spent on a failed fishery. I know i keep carping on about that cost however it is a significant part of the uk budjet now that brown and co have given away the annual rebate that we will never see again, that is my reason why the money aspect should not be forgotten, so i can't let go of that one. In particular again if the eu get their hooks in to the rsa as they are trying, more expence for the uk taxpayers and for what, are you ok with that.

 

H A 's Quote "Any change is going to have to come with the blessing of the anglers it's going to affect.."

end quote.

 

Perhaps you can find us some boat anglers and skippers who are happy with 47 then H A, can you, or is that a personal view and you don't know of any anglers or skippers who have complained about this eu debarcle then.

 

and Quote Big Cod.

 

steve you have to remember the powers that be in brussels have been fed lies about anglers which unfortunaltly have come from powerefull members inside the commercial fishng industry the whole thing is joke and after what has gone on in the last 30 years to hear them complain about anglers is enough to make your blood boil.

 

end Quote:

 

perhaps you can enlighten us with some of the quotes, looking forward to hearing the rsa being slagged off for doing nothing wrong. This could be interesting to say the least.

Edited April 6, 2009 by barry luxton

[H.A.]

H A 's Quote

"Any change is going to have to come with the blessing of the anglers it's going to affect.."

 

You missed the point, Barry!

 

It was the very naivety of the statement, not the content referred to!

 

[Guest challenge]

Quote Steve.

Challenge, with respect, the two SFC's that cover my local area produce similar figures each year. The thing is, no one knows where all these boats are. Some of them are part time now, some have jacked it in altogether and some are laying rotting on salt marshes, etc. One thing is for sure, we don't see many of them at sea now days.

 

Steve Please feel free to come and have a trip with us anytime, which goes for anybody who would like to question our figures.

quote steve

No, I'm sorry mate; I don't accept that change for changes sake is inevitable. Any change is going to have to come with the blessing of the anglers it's going to affect, not a few eccentric fish fanciers, jobs worth’s, or inflated suits. And that isn’t going to happen.

 

I assure you that much stronger statements where made than that by much stronger lobbying bodies prior to the introduction of licenses for course fishermen.

But if that’s what you believe then so be it, I won’t try and make anymore suggestions.

But I will tell you that changes are going to be made.

 

Big cod

So anglers have never criticized the commercial industry then?

 

Barry.

Totally agree and I would (personally) not agree with more expense for the British taxpayer simply because I am one myself.

Edited April 6, 2009 by challenge