WE WILL GET OUR VOICE ACROSS

[big_cod]

We will be getting our voice across on national televison very shortly country file want to do a peice on artickle 47 they were on the phone today lets get the record straight.

 

paul.

[jaffa6938]

We will be getting our voice across on national televison very shortly country file want to do a peice on artickle 47 they were on the phone today lets get the record straight.

 

paul.

 

Someone needs to publicise the petition nationaly and using the media could this be an opportunity?

 

The need to spell out that this will cause the downfall of the uk charter fishing as well as lost jobs for the tackle trade

and the loss of enjoyment of all pleasure anglers

 

I have been fishing for over forty years and i for one can assure you if this becomes law i will not bother and flog my tackle

[Steve Coppolo]

We will be getting our voice across on national televison very shortly country file want to do a peice on artickle 47 they were on the phone today lets get the record straight.

 

paul.

 

Paul, could you please tell them that the people speaking to Defra on behalf of the sea angling poulation, don't know their arse from their elbow?

[Deepseacodmaster]

We will be getting our voice across on national televison very shortly country file want to do a peice on artickle 47 they were on the phone today lets get the record straight.

 

paul.

 

Go for it Paul!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[big_cod]

Someone needs to publicise the petition nationaly and using the media could this be an opportunity?

 

The need to spell out that this will cause the downfall of the uk charter fishing as well as lost jobs for the tackle trade

and the loss of enjoyment of all pleasure anglers

 

I have been fishing for over forty years and i for one can assure you if this becomes law i will not bother and flog my tackle

 

Jaffa i have been fishing from the age of 5 born and bred here in whitby going back to the 70ss when i first started fishing on whitby beach unbelievable i had cod over 20lb form the shore here ,the 80ss still the fishing was out of this world the 90ss it very slowly started to go down hill and here we are in my job you have to work your nutts for the lads every day not that it bothers me i love it or i wouldnt do it but the point what all these idiots who think bag limits licences on anglers it wont make a **** of difference its all been diverted away form the real issue as to why stocks are like they are now and one thing for sure it aint anglers who put where we are now the whole thing makes my blood bloody boil when i here people pointing the finger at anglers.

 

paul.

Edited January 21, 2009 by big_cod

[Elton]

Paul,

 

Excuse my ignorance here - do charter skippers have a federation that they can join these days?

[Sharkbyte]

Best of British, Paul!

[glennk]

Best of British, Paul!

 

The arse from the elbow comment is very significant Paul. I would think very hard about what message you are going to put across on national TV. Remember that even if you overcome article 47 there will be many more battles ahead. The next ones are MPAs, and bag limits. The SACN are assisting CEFAS to collect the data to make it all happen. I fully expect that its already been planned out and its just a matter of collecting the right data to back up the argument that anglers catch too many fish. DEFRA will get their evidence by hook or by crook because they want to bring us all under their managment and create jobs for the boys. Please use the opportunity to let anglers know that thier biggest enemy is hiding within their own ranks. People need to know that the SACN and are the biggest threat to the long term enjoyment of UK sea angling ever seen.

[barry luxton]

The arse from the elbow comment is very significant Paul.

 

Please use the opportunity to let anglers know that thier biggest enemy is hiding within their own ranks. People need to know that the SACN and are the biggest threat to the long term enjoyment of UK sea angling ever seen.

 

Who do i believe. The above or is an answer within the mixture of emails floating around today Detailed below. Biggest threat, hummmmmmmmmmmmm.

 

 

 

No longer a member of the SACN Executive Group, now as an ordinary member of SACN, I would urge the SACN Exec to support the SSACN position.

 

 

 

Regards, Leon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In a message dated 22/01/2009 10:50:02 GMT Standard Time, xxxxxxx writes:

 

SSACN and SOS has resigned from the Shark Alliance because of Pews position. (They fund the alliance) to article 47. The arrogant email from UTA Bellion Pew EU director can be seen below.

 

 

 

SACN are also members so their position needs considering

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Uta

 

 

 

Without Malice

 

 

 

Your email has both surprised and angered me. One thing I have learnt from the Alliance and Ali from Shark Trust is that you must have the scientific data before you can prepare a management plan.

 

 

 

I am afraid your email shows you have as little knowledge about UK recreational sea angling (RSA) as the people who wrote article 47.

 

 

 

How can an organisation such as Pew comment on a set of proposals without having any data to support their argument? The reason why you haven’t any data is because there isn’t any. The proposals where written ad-hoc without any consultation with people in the Industry and have made the grave error of linking all recreational fisheries together. The artisanal recreational fisheries of the smaller countries of Europe shouldn’t be compared with recreational sea angling which offers the best value from a resource with a very small mortality of the stocks.

 

 

 

You wrote I appreciate your concern, particularly since you may be one of the few actually releasing live fish back into the environment and collecting valuable data.

 

 

 

Yes me and probably over 300,000 others. The majority of RSA in Scotland and the west and south coast of England is catch and release not just on the sharks but on species like bass, rays and pollack

 

 

 

You wrote I expect conservation groups in general to be supportive of this move. After all, the Commission is talking limits connected to bloated TACs, not blanket bans.

 

RSA conservation groups are supportive of conservation moves that allow species and habitats to recover which is why we are fully supportive and encouraging MPA’s. RSA is just being made to pay for the gross discard situation that the cfp has caused. I would be surprised if RSA caught equivalent to 0.1 per cent of the 2 Billion discards never mind the landed fish.

 

 

 

.You wrote However, as to Article 47 I think you will appreciate that our job is to ensure overfishing ends, independent on who does

 

it.

 

You’re lucky to have a job. If the proposals go through they are likely to be responsible for 20,000 jobs disappearing in the UK. Have you thought for one minute about the socio economic disaster these proposals will cause to coastal rural communities for a comparatively tiny benefit to stocks? This isn’t a scaremongering response; when they introduced a “sea angling license” in Portugal, RSA activity reduced by 50% and many RSA businesses went under. Introducing quotas, log books, license schemes etc. will have a much greater effect.

 

 

 

You wrote There are definitely cases elsewhere where recreational fishing has been a major cause for fish declines (including shark fishing in the US right after "jaws").

 

You’re quite right but what has this got to do with the UK? Did you read the SSACN response? Our whole objection is based on the lack of evidence. RSA organizations are supportive of data gathering exercises, which when collated could be used to show the way forward for an EU RSA management plan.

 

 

 

Show me any evidence that RSA is responsible for overfishing and I to will speak out for article 47. Until such times that evidence is available it is pure lunacy to suggest RSA has a significant effect on fish mortality.

 

 

 

Because of the Pew response, I am unable to attend the forthcoming members meeting and please will you remove SOS from the Alliance members list.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kind regards

 

 

 

Ian Burrett

 

 

 

www.ssacn.org

 

www.save-our-sharks.org

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

From: Uta Bellion [mailto:xxxxxx]

Sent: 21 January 2009 11:17

To: Ian Burrett

Cc: xxxx; Ali Hood

Subject: Article 47

 

 

 

Dear Ian,

 

 

 

Many thanks for bringing this issue to my attention. I also saw Struan Stevenson’s press work on this.

 

 

 

I appreciate your concern, particularly since you may be one of the few actually releasing live fish back into the environment and collecting valuable data.

 

 

 

However, I have to inform you that indeed, Pew is supporting Article 47. Mortality is mortality. Just like in commercial fishing, limits are needed to keep operations sustainable. Keeping people in business is important, but it is not our prime job nor is it always consistent with healthy fish populations. There are definitely cases elsewhere where recreational fishing has been a major cause for fish declines (including shark fishing in the US right after "jaws"). We think the Commission is proposing a bold and good thing and frankly can't believe it took them this long.

 

 

 

I expect conservation groups in general to be supportive of this move. After all, the Commission is talking limits connected to bloated TACs, not blanket bans.

 

 

 

Whether tag and release operations can be dealt with in a different way than other recreational fishing is a good question, and I’m sure one you will have further discussions about with relevant folks. However, as to Article 47 I think you will appreciate that our job is to ensure overfishing ends, independent on who does it.

 

 

 

Hope this helps, more when we see each other in Feb.

 

 

 

Cheers,

 

 

 

Uta.

[Steve Coppolo]

Who do i believe. The above or is an answer within the mixture of emails floating around today Detailed below. Biggest threat, hummmmmmmmmmmmm.

 

The biggest threats to sea angling are those who still insist on pandering to the very people who are out to destroy sea angling, despite numerous warnings of the likely outcome. Just take a look, below, at some of the quotes from the email you posted.

 

Your email has both surprised and angered me. One thing I have learnt from the Alliance and Ali from Shark Trust is that you must have the scientific data before you can prepare a management plan.

 

Cefas are in the process of gathering the required data. And most RSA mis-representative bodies are supporting it! Unbelievable.

 

 

How can an organisation such as Pew comment on a set of proposals without having any data to support their argument? The reason why you haven’t any data is because there isn’t any.

 

But there soon will be! Then what?

 

You wrote I appreciate your concern, particularly since you may be one of the few actually releasing live fish back into the environment and collecting valuable data.

 

Yes me and probably over 300,000 others. The majority of RSA in Scotland and the west and south coast of England is catch and release not just on the sharks but on species like bass, rays and pollack

 

Absolute rubbish, written without any "data", for the sole purpose of appeasing our enemies. Time to wake up boys. It's already biting us on the 4rse. How much more proof do you need that pandering to these people is counter productive? Yet, still, RSA's mis-representatives continue to mislead others into thinking we release everything we catch. You are digging us all a deeper and deeper hole.

 

RSA conservation groups are supportive of conservation moves that allow species and habitats to recover which is why we are fully supportive and encouraging MPA’s.

 

So, RSA conservation groups support MPA's? RSA conservation groups actually support no fishing zones? And before anyone jumps up and says that anglers will still be allowed to fish in them, PROVE IT! I've been hearing the same old bull for too long now about how the RSA lobby know what they are doing and how it's all under control. Well, it clearly isn't all under control. Leon and Co have been wrong too many times now and have no right, whatsoever, to make any claim to represent anglers. RSA conservation groups? Don't make me laugh. You are selling us all down the river. Call yourselves something else, because you have no right to associate yourselves with sea anglers, or the good of sea angling.

 

You wrote There are definitely cases elsewhere where recreational fishing has been a major cause for fish declines (including shark fishing in the US right after "jaws").

 

You’re quite right but what has this got to do with the UK? Did you read the SSACN response? Our whole objection is based on the lack of evidence. RSA organizations are supportive of data gathering exercises, which when collated could be used to show the way forward for an EU RSA management plan.

 

What will your objection be when the evidence is provided? Head up 4rse doesn't even come close to describing the lack of foresight displayed in this email. This explains how no one saw article 47 coming until it hit us all in the face.

 

Show me any evidence that RSA is responsible for overfishing and I to will speak out for article 47. Until such times that evidence is available it is pure lunacy to suggest RSA has a significant effect on fish mortality.

 

And it will still be lunacy when they produce your much requested evidence. The only difference is, you will have already rubber stamped any proposed restrictions by then.