SCOTTISH SEA ANGLERS WORTH MILLIONS

[Steve Coppolo]

Absolutely no idea. My discussion is about RSAs not commercials. Funnily enough this is what all the legislation that some people seem to be so anti is aimed at. The commercial fishermen not the RSAs

 

 

Precisely why, if you are interested in your angling, people like yourself should get involved and do something about it. Moaning about people who are doing something whilst fighting in the other direction might give you some personal satisfaction but it does bugger all for the cause of people who want to fish in water with fish in it.

 

Moaning about it and burying your head in the sand won't help the angling community and divided sea anglers won't attract sympathy or as much support/money from the Govt. or anywhere else.

 

You haven't been reading what I've written. To save going through it all again, can you tell me of one single thing that RSA mouthpieces have achieved that has benefitted fish stocks or anglers? Then tell me exactly who has their heads buried in the sand.

[Worms]

You haven't been reading what I've written. To save going through it all again, can you tell me of one single thing that RSA mouthpieces have achieved that has benefitted fish stocks or anglers? Then tell me exactly who has their heads buried in the sand.

 

One single thing? Ok. By communicating with the people that have the power to restrict, licence or stop sea angling if they wanted. This has led to negotiation and inclusion of sea anglers' views in further discussions. This has created a platform from which sea anglers can help influence an awful lot.

 

It is a lot more useful than blethering on about how bad things have been.

 

If you want fish stocks to recover and for RSAs to be recognised as a powerful and ecologically useful force then forget petty differences and politics. Join forces to save the sport and the fish. At the same time be seen to be doing something for the good of everybody else that isn't in such a position as yourself.

[Steve Coppolo]

One single thing? Ok. By communicating with the people that have the power to restrict, licence or stop sea angling if they wanted. This has led to negotiation and inclusion of sea anglers' views in further discussions. This has created a platform from which sea anglers can help influence an awful lot.

 

And has that improved the quality of anyone's fishing or been of any benefit to fish stocks? No.

 

It is a lot more useful than blethering on about how bad things have been.

 

How? And who's been blethiering on about how bad things have been?

 

If you want fish stocks to recover and for RSAs to be recognised as a powerful and ecologically useful force then forget petty differences and politics.

 

A lot of fish stocks are recovering. All I want is to be able to catch the buggers and take a few home to eat! The way it's been going, we'll be lucky to come out of all this nonsense being able to.

 

 

Join forces to save the sport and the fish. At the same time be seen to be doing something for the good of everybody else that isn't in such a position as yourself.

 

 

If you want me to join forces to save our sport, can we start by stopping all this rubbish about the economic worth of sea angling? Then, can we fight to defend our rights to fish free of all the proposed new rules, regulations and layers of mismanagement? Because these are the biggest threats faced by our sport right now.

 

Bloody development of angling my aarse! Since when has angling needed to be developed?

[H.A.]

Still, RSA's established mouth pieces know what's best for everyone.

 

Steve, all I read about RSA issues are your 'twitterings' about how awful it is that things change.

If you want to effect those changes say something POSITIVE or CONSTRUCTIVE!

 

You are the becoming the most widely read (on here at least) of the so-called RSA 'mouthpieces'.

 

Trouble is you have nothing at all to say ....

except everyone else should shut up and join a Buddist Temple (Milton Keynes?).

 

At least if Elton puts up some info here or Leon puts a reference for us to read (or not, you can choose), I can do that and make my own judgements without listening to your namby-pamby waffle.

 

 

Meanwhile, the real issues go addressed. - Copps

 

OK, your stage ...

 

ISSUES and SOLUTIONS, please ...

 

I'll read what you write, but don't whisper sweet nuthins'. OK?

 

 

 

PS

I think its IQ related with the brighter people getting there first.

 

Oh dear, Glenn ....

 

"Too bad all the people who know how to run this country are busy running taxicabs or cutting hair ..... "

 

Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.

 

[Jaffa]

Zero TAC on Porbeagle and spurdog from this December

25% by catch limit on rays

Full protection on common skate

tope protected in England and Wales

 

I would say thats a benefit to anglers

 

Hi Ian,

 

Every species in your list is an Elasmobranch; the preservation of which you clearly hold dear, but they do not feature in my fishing world at all, nor are they of very much importance to the Scottish fishing industry on the whole.

 

Zero bycatch on porgies? I don't know of a directed UK porgie fishery, so all that means is the odd porgie that gets caught in a net gets dumped instead of being sold? i can remember short lived directed fisheries 20 years ago that took (to me ) frightening numbers of female porgies, but that was 20 years ago..

 

25% by catch limit on "Rays". What does that mean in the real world?

 

I know you have worked your socks off to do good Ian, but these victories mean little than i can see.

 

Chris

[glennk]

People keep talking about Benefits to sea angling. Natural England Do It, Defra do it and some sea angling misrepresentatives do it. Then when you pin them down and ask for precise detailed answers they cant come up with anything - pretty much what worms has just done above. We recently met wiuth Robbie fisher of Natural England. He promised benefits to anglers in exchange for information to aid the MPA process. When I asked about benefits he couldnt give one acceptable answer.

 

What is an acceptable benefit to sea angling ?? I guess were back to the old toilets and slipways argument again. Is this what people want because Im certain ou will never see an increase in your fish catches untill the focuss is taken off sea angling and put on commercial fishing, discards and illegal black fish landings which need to be dealt with by more than a slap on the wrist approach adopted by our courts.

 

Just as a side issue Tope are still been landed right across the UK. One person I spoke to last week admitted landed half a dozen and was completely unaware of any law against it. They are also being skinned before put on the market.

Edited August 2, 2009 by glennk

[Steve Coppolo]

OK, your stage ...

 

ISSUES and SOLUTIONS, please ...

 

I've said a thousand times what I think should be done, if anything, to benefit fish stocks. But, as usual, your head is so far up your own backside, you haven't taken any notice and only pull up the comments that you think you can pull apart. Maybe it's the onset of Altzheimers? So, just for for your benefit, here it is again. It's not rocket science, so even you should be able to understand it.

 

The MLS for most species of fish caught commercially are too small. The quota system encourages huge amounts of waste. Increase the MLS of all species to a size where they have spawned at least twice, with relative mesh size increases - and do away with the quota system. Let the market dictate how many fish are landed, by how many fishermen. There, that wasn't too bad, was it?

 

For your info, over the years, I've come up with many other good ideas that have been ignored or squashed by RSA's estabished mouthpieces. You know, those that think they should speak for eveyone, because they know best. The last significant one was when it became clear the bass MLS wouldn't be increased after all. There was a mesh increase to 100mm on the table which would still have been achievable. I advised said mouthpieces, via email and in person at the BASS AGM that year, that we would be wise to let the MLS go and accept the increase in mesh size. Of course, they all scoffed, because they knew best, and went with the all or nothing approach. Well, guess what? Now, the big year classes of bass that were coming through at the time are, and have been, getting hammered mercilessly in 90mm mesh. There aren't any big year classes coming through now, and the signs are pretty grim for the future of the stocks. A mesh increase to 100mm might not have been what we set out to achieve, but it would have given those big year classes a bit of breathing space and allowed a good percentage of them to spawn before being landed. Still, RSA's mouthopieces knew best, didn't they! When the bass fishing falls throuh the floor, we'll all know who to blame, won't we?

 

Still, you carry on defending the indefensible and spewing all your usual uninformed clap trap all over the internet. You keep posting silly pictures up of man catching two mullet in a net shot from the beach, as if that will ever make a difference.

[Worms]

And has that improved the quality of anyone's fishing or been of any benefit to fish stocks? No.

 

But don't you think the new legislation that involves RSAs can do that?

 

 

 

How? And who's been blethiering on about how bad things have been?

"Still, RSA's established mouth pieces know what's best for everyone. I mean, look at what they've achieved over the last 30 years."

 

 

 

A lot of fish stocks are recovering. All I want is to be able to catch the buggers and take a few home to eat! The way it's been going, we'll be lucky to come out of all this nonsense being able to.

The way it is going, with MPZs etc and limiting commercials the fishing should improve because the whole idea is to improve the ecology of the seas around our coast for everyone and everything. It is not just an angling issue. It is for the benefit of all. Anglers are being asked for their input. Use the opportunity. Up 'til now one could argue that angling has been a cash cow by bringing tourists into seaside towns to swell the coffers (and the tax associated with it). At least now RSAs are being asked to get involved in decision making and could be useful in policing the waters. Once RSAs are seen as a consoloidated power with eyes and ears it will be much easier for RSAs to influence future decisions for the benefit of the sport, the ecology and the financial benefit of home ports.

 

 

 

 

 

If you want me to join forces to save our sport, can we start by stopping all this rubbish about the economic worth of sea angling? Then, can we fight to defend our rights to fish free of all the proposed new rules, regulations and layers of mismanagement? Because these are the biggest threats faced by our sport right now.

 

Don't forget that an awful lot of people don't live by the sea but, are prepared to spend a lot of money on the odd visit or several visits a year for the fishing. If the quality of fishing is seen to improve and the RSAs local to the fishing areas are actively seen and heard to be 'protecting' stocks then believe me nothing could be more attractive.

 

The 'economic worth of sea angling' might not be very important to the average angler but, if the government can raise more money from supporting it or encouraging it then, well why not? The more people fishing the more money the government gets and, if the fish stocks are boosted to support the angling then everyone's a winner. It won't cost the angler more but the quality of fishing could easily benefit........not from the research and 'development' alone but incorporated with the legislation mentioned above.

 

Bloody development of angling my aarse! Since when has angling needed to be developed?

All back to cane rods and wooden centrepins then?

[H.A.]

Well, that was really convincing, Steve.

 

Plus the rather poor attempts at abuse.

Do you always tell people who disagree with you that they have the onset of Alzheimers?

Obviously you have never met any sufferers.

 

I'm not sure which photo you are referring too; but you're probably right.

Gill netting (if that's what it was) is pretty abhorent because of the by-catch of gulls, seals, non-target fish .... not to mention the gross abuse of sensible regulations for passage of migratory fishes in areas like the Solent and SW and Welsh estuaries and general ignorance about the maintenance of these headlines in shallow waters.

 

Now, although K&E and NE gill netters have made many reasonable and sometimes innovative suggestions regarding the use of gillnets; what are they then saying?

"We would like our suggestions incorporated in SFC regulations, so that the 'cowboys' (and there are plenty) can be weeded out."

OK, I go with that. But what will the 'fat controllers' do with all the info?

 

 

Source - Fisheries Science Partnership

Provisional Final Report

BASS GILLNET SELECTIVITY

(CEFAS)

 

No you guys have got some gall (bile?) to tell me about regulation and control and misrepresentation, when the K&E/NE gill-netters are out there doing CEFAS's groundwork for them.

 

I guess they'll get a lot of benefit from the next layer of regs which come out of that, eh?

 

So, more regulations from the East Anglian gill-netters, then?

 

[Steve Coppolo]

Ada, I can't see how any of what you've posted there is relevant. What are you trying to say?

 

As for the abuse, just returning fire old boy. Or is this a one way street? And I have had relatives who have suffered from Alzheimers, so you obviously assume too much. Nothing new there, then.

 

As for who does Cefas ground work for them, it wouldn't matter if it was the Telly tubbies - the results would probably be the same. It's the politicians who make the decisions.