RSA Strategy

[Elton]

I've heard that there has been a local meeting discussing an RSA Strategy and that another is planned.

 

I was under the impression that this whole thing had been scrapped, after Defra went and asked some anglers if they wanted it and got a resounding 'No'.

 

What is the actual state of play with it?

[Leon Roskilly]

I've heard that there has been a local meeting discussing an RSA Strategy and that another is planned.

 

I was under the impression that this whole thing had been scrapped, after Defra went and asked some anglers if they wanted it and got a resounding 'No'.

 

What is the actual state of play with it?

 

 

Sorry Elton, someone is feeding you with duff information.

 

DEFRA are supposed to be publishing the revised national strategy, taking into account feedback received, this month (well by Easter according to the last Fishing Focus newsletter).

 

The Eastern Joint Sea Fisheries Committee are developing their own local RSA strategy for the EJSFC district.

 

see poster at:

 

http://www.leader-lines.com/images/uploads/amb/1000543.jpg

Edited February 21, 2009 by Leon Roskilly

[Elton]

Nobody's fed me with anything, Leon. As I hadn't heard anything up until recently, I'd assumed that this had been filed in the bin.

 

Thanks for the link, which I've had a scan through. It seems, at first glance, that even Defra conceded that most of it was unworkable and unwanted and that they're trying to amend it to get something through.

 

I'm going to that meeting in Felixstowe, as are a few others, I understand. It'll be my first time at such a meeting, so should be an eye-opener. If the tides are right, I'll pack my kit and have a dabble afterwards

[Steve Coppolo]

Sorry Elton, someone is feeding you with duff information.

 

DEFRA are supposed to be publishing the revised national strategy, taking into account feedback received, this month (well by Easter according to the last Fishing Focus newsletter).

 

The Eastern Joint Sea Fisheries Committee are developing their own local RSA strategy for the EJSFC district.

 

see poster at:

 

http://www.leader-lines.com/images/uploads/amb/1000543.jpg

 

Brilliant! So the results of a public consultation, nationally, showed a distinct lack of support for the RSA strategy. Meetings the Defra held around the country to seek the views of anglers towards ths strategy highlighted mass opposition to it. Then what happens? It's taken away, out of view, and reworked; only no one knows what's in it, because it's all been kept secret. Now we face having it implemented, (I think imposed would be a better word, under the circumstances), on a local level. It was obviously felt that the whole shambles stood a better chance if it was slipped in, bit by bit, on the quiet.

 

What is the point of holding these consultations if no one takes a blind bit of notice of the results? What annoys me the most, is that it so called sea anglers' representatives who are hell bent on pushing this nonsense through - against the wishes of the anglers they claim to represent. And people wonder why I refer to them as misrepresentatives! It's a disgrace.

[barry luxton]

Brilliant! So the results of a public consultation, nationally, showed a distinct lack of support for the RSA strategy. Meetings the Defra held around the country to seek the views of anglers towards ths strategy highlighted mass opposition to it. Then what happens? It's taken away, out of view, and reworked; only no one knows what's in it, because it's all been kept secret. Now we face having it implemented, (I think imposed would be a better word, under the circumstances), on a local level. It was obviously felt that the whole shambles stood a better chance if it was slipped in, bit by bit, on the quiet.

 

What is the point of holding these consultations if no one takes a blind bit of notice of the results? What annoys me the most, is that it so called sea anglers' representatives who are hell bent on pushing this nonsense through - against the wishes of the anglers they claim to represent. And people wonder why I refer to them as misrepresentatives! It's a disgrace.

 

How do you know it was lack of support. It could have been responce by the rsa that they are having to revise the proposel. Are you having a guess or have you info for us.

 

I thought that this was defra's work, where does the reps come into this. Defra must be taking note of this otherwise they wouldn't consider altering this proposel, surly.

 

I think if the topic was bangers and mash the reps would be at fault.

Edited February 21, 2009 by barry luxton

[Steve Coppolo]

Hello Barry

 

If you look at Defra's summary of responses to the consultation, you will see exactly where the "distinct lack of support" came from. They are Defra's words, but the lack of support most definately came from the anglers.

 

The RSA strategy was Richard Ferre's idea. The strategy is now being shoved through, it seems, on a local level. Meetinsg have been arranged by the sea angling 'reps' who sit on one of my local SFC's, where a local version of the RSA strategy will be 'discussed'. That's where the 'reps' come into this. I would have thought that if they were actually representing the anglers, instead of themselves, they would have dropped the idea after the meeting that was held with Defra at one of the same venues, (during the consultation period), where local anglers expressed their opposition to the strategy.

 

I don't know about bangers and mash, but as for the RSA strategy, the 'reps' are at fault. For the simple reason that they decided to push these mad ideas through with not much thought as to how it might affect sea anglers and what the implications might be. Then, they ignored the concerns of those who expressed them- and continue to do so. They deserve all the criticism they get, as far as I'm concerned.

[Steve Coppolo]

Hi Jan

 

It's not as easy as you make out to answer your questions.

 

First of all, how did the organisations who responded gather the views of their memberships? What questions did they ask, were there conditions attached to acceptance of bag limits, i.e, only if benefits to angling can be proved first, or, only as part of an overall conservation measure where it has been proved necessary? Then, did those organisations truly represent the wishes of their members? You would hope they did, but can't take anything for granted.

You would also know that the list of consultees contained just about everyone who has ever dipped a toe into the sea, including many commercial fishing interests. It also included organisations from parts of the UK that the strategy would never apply to.

 

Personally, I would place more importance on individual responses than those from organisations, which will often express the wishes of just one or two mouth pieces and their loyal followers. But even with individual responses, was the question black and white that demanded a yes or no answer? Or did it contain various hypothetical scenarios?

 

I would say, without a doubt, the best and most true guage of anglers' feeling towards the strategy, was the meetings that Defra held around the country during the consulation period. To say there was opposition would be an understatement. There wasn't just opposition, but in some cases, downright hostility.

 

Dress it up how you like, the sea angling population in general don't want the RSA strategy, in any form. It is being pushed through by a few people who want to inflict their own ideas and ideals, (most of which are fantasy), on the rest of us. The only reason being, they think they know whats best - even though they clearly don't.

Edited February 21, 2009 by Steve Coppolo

[big_cod]

Hi Jan

 

It's not as easy as you make out to answer your questions.

 

First of all, how did the organisations who responded gather the views of their memberships? What questions did they ask, were there conditions attached to acceptance of bag limits, i.e, only if benefits to angling can be proved first, or, only as part of an overall conservation measure where it has been proved necessary? Then, did those organisations truly represent the wishes of their members? You would hope they did, but can't take anything for granted.

You would also know that the list of consultees contained just about everyone who has ever dipped a toe into the sea, including many commercial fishing interests. It also included organisations from parts of the UK that the strategy would never apply to.

 

Personally, I would place more importance on individual responses than those from organisations, which will often express the wishes of just one or two mouth pieces and their loyal followers. But even with individual responses, was the question black and white that demanded a yes or no answer? Or did it contain various hypothetical scenarios?

 

I would say, without a doubt, the best and most true guage of anglers' feeling towards the strategy, was the meetings that Defra held around the country during the consulation period. To say there was opposition would be an understatement. There wasn't just opposition, but in some cases, downright hostility.

 

Dress it up how you like, the sea angling population in general don't want the RSA strategy, in any form. It is being pushed through by a few people who want to inflict their own ideas and ideals, (most of which are fantasy), on the rest of us. The only reason being, they think they know whats best - even though they clearly don't.

 

Well said steve i have maybe come across 10 out of 100 who are in favour of baglimits and that is probably a conservative estimate these so called statistics in favour of bag limits are totally wrong.

 

paul.

Edited February 21, 2009 by big_cod

[barry luxton]

Big cod obviously don't like bag limits, yet when it comes to his own fully endorses boat limits, strange that.

 

Quite pleased also to agree with Steves sentiments regarding this;

 

First of all, how did the organisations who responded gather the views of their memberships? What questions did they ask, were there conditions attached to acceptance of bag limits, i.e, only if benefits to angling can be proved first, or, only as part of an overall conservation measure where it has been proved necessary? Then, did those organisations truly represent the wishes of their members? You would hope they did, but can't take anything for granted.

 

Yet offers no explanation apart from it's 'association business,' strange that. Even some of the guys on the other forum have asked the question with regards to an explanation, yet it remains unanswered.

 

Big cod is quite pleased to agree with this:

 

It's not a blame game, Ada, it's a highlighting excercise. If no questions are asked and fingers aren't pointed, these people will be free to carry on as before, unchallenged. I'm not prepared to sit back and let that happen. You can ask for censorship and try stifle free speach as much as you like, but if this thread is locked I'll just start another one. The only way to stop this, is for those in a position to, to start answering the questions.

 

 

Nice one steve.

 

Yet gets upset and cry's foul when questions are asked that concerns association business, in particular from the very people who he is trying to target to support a fishing festival. Strange.

[Guest challenge]

Big cod obviously don't like bag limits, yet when it comes to his own fully endorses boat limits, strange that.

 

Quite pleased also to agree with Steves sentiments regarding this;

 

First of all, how did the organisations who responded gather the views of their memberships? What questions did they ask, were there conditions attached to acceptance of bag limits, i.e, only if benefits to angling can be proved first, or, only as part of an overall conservation measure where it has been proved necessary? Then, did those organisations truly represent the wishes of their members? You would hope they did, but can't take anything for granted.

 

Yet offers no explanation apart from it's 'association business,' strange that. Even some of the guys on the other forum have asked the question with regards to an explanation, yet it remains unanswered.

 

Big cod is quite pleased to agree with this:

 

It's not a blame game, Ada, it's a highlighting excercise. If no questions are asked and fingers aren't pointed, these people will be free to carry on as before, unchallenged. I'm not prepared to sit back and let that happen. You can ask for censorship and try stifle free speach as much as you like, but if this thread is locked I'll just start another one. The only way to stop this, is for those in a position to, to start answering the questions.

 

 

Nice one steve.

 

Yet gets upset and cry's foul when questions are asked that concerns association business, in particular from the very people who he is trying to target to support a fishing festival. Strange.

Hi Barry hope your keeping well.

In my opinion they will be changes to RSA as we know it, come what may.

You have to be careful in what doors you want to slam shut in a building that has to have doors left open.

For example, a large percentage of anglers say (according to what we reed on here) they want nothing to do with article 47 and being included in commercial quotas. Understandable door they want to slam shut. There’s a lot of publicity steered up (which I believe that everybody knew there would be) and so Brussels reply by saying that it will only apply to commercial anglers then? So another door opens, how do you prove that your not a professional angler and how do the powers that be enforce this legislation? Quite simple, enforce bag limits. commercial fishermen who can make a decent living for a few weeks catching fish with a rod and line (and of course has the quota) wants to also take paying anglers to sea to boost his commercial living. How do the powers that be distinguish between an RSA and a casual commercial fisherman? I think you know the rest Barry.

Bag limits rod licences have been accepted for years by millions of course fishermen, they also fill in return sheet’s and questionnaires on there days fishing. they have fought hard to have bag limits put on profitable fish like sea trout and salmon so that no commercial gane can be obtained from a participant in a sport.

I have yet to here anything about any sort of self regulation by anyone connected to RSA in this part of the world. Like you the only regulation that I have seen put on anglers is what boat can and cannot join a closed shop.

Regards.

Edited February 22, 2009 by challenge