Stuart McPherson - Angling Trust

[Steve Coppolo]

The debate between commercial and recreational fishermen seams to be an endless one.

The SFC I work for are at the top of the league when it comes to successful prosecutions in England. At least 70% of our prosecutions are against recreational fishermen.10% are against part-time commercial fishermen and 20% are against full time commercial fishermen.

Regards.

By the way have met Stuart and he seams a nice gentleman, he had a trip out to sea with us and showed great interest in what we do. Would like to see more committee members doing the same.

 

That's interesting. I'm surprised.

 

Are these prosecutions against shore or boat anglers? And what are they for?

[Guest challenge]

That's interesting. I'm surprised.

 

Are these prosecutions against shore or boat anglers? And what are they for?

Hi Steve, I didn’t mention RSA, I said recreational fishermen. There aren’t many laws in place yet that sea anglers can break.

I wonder if RSA where put under similar by-laws as recreational fishermen then that percentage would go up?

Regards.

[Steve Coppolo]

Hi Steve, I didn’t mention RSA, I said recreational fishermen. There aren’t many laws in place yet that sea anglers can break.

I wonder if RSA where put under similar by-laws as recreational fishermen then that percentage would go up?

Regards.

 

Sorry Challenge, I just assumed, wrongly, that you were talking about anglers. I'm still interested though, because I believe sea anglers will soon be subject to the same regulations as hobby netters, etc. Could you tell me what these prosecutions were for? There can't be that many reasons to prosecute a hobby netter?

Cheers.

[Sharkbyte]

So are you saying that anybody that we prosecute are whipping boys then?

 

No, but they consider themselves to be the whipping boys of a crass system.

 

Whether they have been harshly treated, or have been the recipients of fair and justifiable prosecution, I could not say without knowing the fine details.

 

However, if anglers start being hauled before the courts, their age old pursuits having been newly criminalised by the insatiable self servants that run the fisheries, it'll be us doing the screaming.

 

 

Who is trying to justify his job?

 

From where I am sitting, 75% of the public sector.

 

 

I have said it many times, I don’t want more work and I know my colleagues don’t. There aren’t the hours in a week as it is without having to take on more enforcement work.

 

Ahh, but when all those angling fines (stealth taxes) start the tills a'ringing, they'll be able to employ a few more bods. You might be made a 'manager' with priority access to the office coffee machine.

 

If things go really well for your department, and I have no reason to doubt that they will, new recruits can look forward to full retirement at 45, a gold plated pension and all the trimmings.

 

 

 

 

Challenge, every department is now run by those that are primarily concerned with suckling on Nanny States tits. The task in hand, whether it be administering the fisheries or protecting kids in Haringey, always comes second to feathering one's own nest. Even when politician's hands are forced by the masses, and incompetant harlots are ousted, the suckling reflex is a hard habit to kick and the million pound lawsuit soon follows.

 

Vive La Revolution.

 

 

 

PS. How did your SFC respond to the Article 47 proposal?

[Guest challenge]

Sorry Challenge, I just assumed, wrongly, that you were talking about anglers. I'm still interested though, because I believe sea anglers will soon be subject to the same regulations as hobby netters, etc. Could you tell me what these prosecutions were for? There can't be that many reasons to prosecute a hobby netter?

Cheers.

The majority Steve are for recreational limited shell fishermen who now have to hold a limited shellfish licence. There allowed to work 10 pots and take home (per day) 2 size lobsters. They can catch as many as they want, but can only take home two per day. It’s mainly been taking more than there allowed, working more pots than there allowed, taking undersize lobsters. We do get quite a few netting offences, but it mainly is the shell fisheries that we have the problems with.

We have over a thousand recreational limited shellfish licences issued every year in our district, which means there could be up to 10000 recreational pots.

The new bylaws that we have introduced for this fishery have made it much easier to enforce and police recreational fishermen in our district.

In certain areas of our district we have to where stab jackets and inform the police of our presents and that is for our own safety. our officers have been threatened with iron bars, car tyres slashed, assaulted and only a few months ago we had one officer who was ran over by a recreational fisherman, the recreational fishermen was originally charged with attempted murder but later this was dropped to GBH and the offender got a custodial sentence, and I have only been in the job 18 months.

We often get repeat offenders who take the prosecutions as a recreational hazard.

I believe that the marine bill will give our SFC more and stronger powers so we can have the power to revoke somebody’s licence and also to refuse to issue a repeat offender with a licence in the first place. I also think that the maximum fine of £5000 will be increased to £50000 so it could become a very expensive recreational hazard.

there is also a lot of very honest law abiding recreational fishermen out there who respect and thank us on a daily bases for the hard work and risks that we take so that they can enjoy there recreational pass time.

Regards

[Steve Coppolo]

The majority Steve are for recreational limited shell fishermen who now have to hold a limited shellfish licence. There allowed to work 10 pots and take home (per day) 2 size lobsters. They can catch as many as they want, but can only take home two per day. It’s mainly been taking more than there allowed, working more pots than there allowed, taking undersize lobsters. We do get quite a few netting offences, but it mainly is the shell fisheries that we have the problems with.

We have over a thousand recreational limited shellfish licences issued every year in our district, which means there could be up to 10000 recreational pots.

The new bylaws that we have introduced for this fishery have made it much easier to enforce and police recreational fishermen in our district.

In certain areas of our district we have to where stab jackets and inform the police of our presents and that is for our own safety. our officers have been threatened with iron bars, car tyres slashed, assaulted and only a few months ago we had one officer who was ran over by a recreational fisherman, the recreational fishermen was originally charged with attempted murder but later this was dropped to GBH and the offender got a custodial sentence, and I have only been in the job 18 months.

We often get repeat offenders who take the prosecutions as a recreational hazard.

I believe that the marine bill will give our SFC more and stronger powers so we can have the power to revoke somebody’s licence and also to refuse to issue a repeat offender with a licence in the first place. I also think that the maximum fine of £5000 will be increased to £50000 so it could become a very expensive recreational hazard.

there is also a lot of very honest law abiding recreational fishermen out there who respect and thank us on a daily bases for the hard work and risks that we take so that they can enjoy there recreational pass time.

Regards

 

I have to say, that the system seems to be geared up to encourage people to break the rules. Why is there a daily two lobster limit for recreational fishrmen? It seems very measly to me, given the frequency that most recreational fishermen will be getting their boats out. Surely a monthly limit would be better? Commercial quotas aren't broken down into daily limits, so why should recreational limits? Maybe you get a lot of prosecutions because the law too stupid to abide by?

Edited March 18, 2009 by Steve Coppolo

[barry luxton]

Thanks for explaining the situation with the recreational fishermen Challenge, couple of points, any warnings issued. These recreational guys, are they out doing it every day, to make the most of the thier allowance?

 

Can you give us an idea of typical offences committed by the part time commercials and also the commercials guys themselves as this could well be the meat under the gravy with regards to the gravity of the offences committed and more importantly the protection of the stock if you see what i'm getting at. Also any warnings issued. Is there any limits on the amount of lobster commercials can take.Thanks.

[Guest challenge]

Steve.

Good point, but what we have to remember here is that these are only recreational fishermen. There not there to make a profit, would you not be happy with 56 lobsters for your tea a month? Remembering that there are over a thousand individual licences issued for this fishery and at the height of the season there will be in the region of 10000 recreational pots fishing. That’s got the possibility of taking 2000 lobsters out of the fishery a day. Now there’s no limit on what they can catch, just a limit on what they can take home per day for the pot.

Taking 120 undersize lobsters, or working 40 pots instead of ten, we confiscate hundreds of none marked pots every year.

I don’t believe it’s the laws that are stupid Steve.

Barry.

No there isn’t any limit on the amount of lobsters that the commercials can take, only the size and there knot allowed to take v notched lobsters.

We have retrieved hundreds and hundreds of undersized lobsters last year, and as I have said about the percentage of offenders.

There’s nothing to stop the recreational fisherman becoming a commercial fishermen.

The majority of the recreational fishermen tell me they would be delighted if they caught two lobsters to take home every day they went to sea.

O yes by the way Barry, we do give out hundreds of verbal warnings every year.

Regards.

Edited March 19, 2009 by challenge

[Steve Coppolo]

Steve.

Good point, but what we have to remember here is that these are only recreational fishermen. There not there to make a profit, would you not be happy with 56 lobsters for your tea a month? Remembering that there are over a thousand individual licences issued for this fishery and at the height of the season there will be in the region of 10000 recreational pots fishing. That’s got the possibility of taking 2000 lobsters out of the fishery a day. Now there’s no limit on what they can catch, just a limit on what they can take home per day for the pot.

Taking 120 undersize lobsters, or working 40 pots instead of ten, we confiscate hundreds of none marked pots every year.

I don’t believe it’s the laws that are stupid Steve.

 

If someone is taking 120 undersize lobsters in a day, they deserve to have their collar felt, but why tar all recreational fishermen with the same brush adn subject them all to ridiculous rules?

 

With a two lobster per day bag limit, I doubt I'd manage to take half a dozen lobsters in one month, let alone 56. If I'm very lucky and the weather is kind, I manage to get my boat out once a week. That's 4 trips per month, or 8 lobsters. As prolonged periods of good weather are not very common, I reckon you could safely half those figures to get a realistsic recreational take. That's 4 lobsters a month, or one a week. I would not dream of selling fish, or lobsters, but with the cost of running even a small boat, I would want to be able to take enough to see me through til next time I was able to get out, which could be months sometimes. The lobster thing doesn't apply to me because I don't have any pots, (I don't even know if you can freeze lobsters), but the mentality behind the bag limits, bothers me. If some people get their way, anglers will be on a bag limit soon and, if your post is anything to go by, we'll end up being clobbered for nothing. If I was ever restricted to two cod per day, for instance, just because some fisheries officer somewhere thought that I might be out every single day, I'd sell my boat and all my gear.

 

If the people who work out the limits want to talk about how much it is possible to take in a month, set a monthly limit. Setting a daily limit is unfair, unreasonable and unnecessary. If you, or anyone else, fears the fact that recreational fishrmen can take 56 lobsters in a month, set the limit at 56 per month. It can't be that hard because commercial limits are set by the month. If you tried to set a daily quota for commercial fishermen, you would be skinned alive. And quite rightly so, in my opinion. Still, I suppose stupid rules keep the fisheries management industry busy.

[Guest challenge]

If someone is taking 120 undersize lobsters in a day, they deserve to have their collar felt, but why tar all recreational fishermen with the same brush adn subject them all to ridiculous rules?

 

With a two lobster per day bag limit, I doubt I'd manage to take half a dozen lobsters in one month, let alone 56. If I'm very lucky and the weather is kind, I manage to get my boat out once a week. That's 4 trips per month, or 8 lobsters. As prolonged periods of good weather are not very common, I reckon you could safely half those figures to get a realistsic recreational take. That's 4 lobsters a month, or one a week. I would not dream of selling fish, or lobsters, but with the cost of running even a small boat, I would want to be able to take enough to see me through til next time I was able to get out, which could be months sometimes. The lobster thing doesn't apply to me because I don't have any pots, (I don't even know if you can freeze lobsters), but the mentality behind the bag limits, bothers me. If some people get their way, anglers will be on a bag limit soon and, if your post is anything to go by, we'll end up being clobbered for nothing. If I was ever restricted to two cod per day, for instance, just because some fisheries officer somewhere thought that I might be out every single day, I'd sell my boat and all my gear.

 

If the people who work out the limits want to talk about how much it is possible to take in a month, set a monthly limit. Setting a daily limit is unfair, unreasonable and unnecessary. If you, or anyone else, fears the fact that recreational fishrmen can take 56 lobsters in a month, set the limit at 56 per month. It can't be that hard because commercial limits are set by the month. If you tried to set a daily quota for commercial fishermen, you would be skinned alive. And quite rightly so, in my opinion. Still, I suppose stupid rules keep the fisheries management industry busy.

Good points Steve. But the majority of recreational fishermen in our district are more than happy to be able to take two lobsters per day and abide by the rules. He or she are also allowed to take 10 crabs per day and work a 100meteres of net. They could also work as many long lines as they wanted and catch as much cod from those nets or lines as they wanted, with no restricted quota. So I suppose you could get a lot of enjoyment from your hobby without having to break any laws.

Regards.