MCZ Proposals

[Worms]

You carry on Worms, get stuck in , join the ranks of the committee junkies and meeting addicts, get involved with the science and help the scientists with their assessments on the impact by RSA, plenty of work coming up there, reply to all the consultations you possibly can, I hope you have ample free time on your hands , I doubt you will have any time to go fishing in the foreseeable future for they will certainly keep you busy.

Mean while we will run a book betting on how long it will take for you to become as cynical and bitter as those of us that have been before you.

 

I bet you won't last a year possibly only six months.

 

But there is always the possibility that you will become indoctrinated by the rhetoric of the marine bill and it's implementers , if this happens and it has happened to a few in the past, there will be no hope for you and you will be lost from reality for ever.

Not my intention at all, I have enough hassle dealing with committees at work. I hadn't noticed any assessments of RSAs by scientists, any links?

 

As for the consultations , unfortunately that is pretty much all we have to defend angling so I won't ignore them. Don't waste your time running a book, because unless others are interested in getting involved and it doesn't appear that too many are, my voice on it's own will carry little weight. As for becoming cynical and bitter like yourself and others, no, life's too short for that. If I can't seafish I'll coarse or game fish.

 

Indoctrination? no, I can think for myself.

[Steve Coppolo]

This is what continually bothers me about you, Steve.

 

You want to leave it alone and get on with fishing.

 

Why not?

 

Why do you stir up anyone/anything which is remotely politically orientated, then?

I'm actually agreeing with you.

 

But it's you who raises 'the second ball', in footballing terms and then goes on

 

 

and on

 

 

 

and on ...

 

 

 

The pretentiousness is amazing!

 

 

Because, Ada, the more anglers get involved with all this bull5h1t, the deeper in it we'll all end up - and then we won't be able to go fishing as and when we please.

 

It's pretty simple once you recognise the threats and where they are coming from. I'm just surprised that those who claim to represent us can't see it. It makes me wonder what their real motives are.

[Worms]

I think you'll find, Worms, that anglers will only unite in order to fight something. (sea angling licence, RSA strategy, etc.) If everything is rosy in the garden, like they are being lead to believe by sea angling representatives, (i.e, just respond to the consultations and let them know what you think and everything will be alright), most of them would rather be left alone to get on with what they like doing best - fishing.

I take it from that then that the Marine Bill and any other new proposed legislation is not a threat to angling then. In which case I've wasted my time and you've been shouting your mouth off for absolutely no reason at all.

 

My guess is that a considerable number of sea anglers haven't got a clue what's happening. I only found out through this forum. Yes I would rather just go fishing and not get involved. What happens in x months time if all of a sudden your favourite fishing mark becomes a no take zone because you couldn't be @rsed to stand up and say something at the time? Who will you blame then?

[Steve Coppolo]

Not my intention at all, I have enough hassle dealing with committees at work. I hadn't noticed any assessments of RSAs by scientists, any links?

 

As for the consultations , unfortunately that is pretty much all we have to defend angling so I won't ignore them. Don't waste your time running a book, because unless others are interested in getting involved and it doesn't appear that too many are, my voice on it's own will carry little weight. As for becoming cynical and bitter like yourself and others, no, life's too short for that. If I can't seafish I'll coarse or game fish.

 

Indoctrination? no, I can think for myself.

 

Defra and Cefas are keen to gather 'data' on the impact that sea anglers are having on fish stocks. Luckily, the Angling Trust have recognised that it won't be good for angling and have told them to get stuffed. Unfortunately, a few individuals is all it will take for them to collate enough 'evidence' to justify what has already been planned for us.

 

The consultations are just paper excercises. They mean nothing in real terms, as has been proved with previous consultations of interest to sea anglers.

 

Like you, I also coarse and game fish, but I have sea fished since I was a boy, too. I don't relish the prospect of giving it up because of a few environmongers and eco bullies peddling their psuedo science and sham consultations. The prospect of having to give it up because misguided and hoodwinked anglers helped them along the way, doesn't bear thinking about.

Edited November 12, 2009 by Steve Coppolo

[Steve Coppolo]

I take it from that then that the Marine Bill and any other new proposed legislation is not a threat to angling then. In which case I've wasted my time and you've been shouting your mouth off for absolutely no reason at all.

 

My guess is that a considerable number of sea anglers haven't got a clue what's happening. I only found out through this forum. Yes I would rather just go fishing and not get involved. What happens in x months time if all of a sudden your favourite fishing mark becomes a no take zone because you couldn't be @rsed to stand up and say something at the time? Who will you blame then?

 

You are absolutely right. Anglers don't know what's going on, because no one is telling them.

 

The Marine Bill presents a huge threat to sea anglers - and coarse anglers - but all the time angling 'representatives' are telling them that everything is going to be alright and, in some cases, actually supporting the very threats we face, how can you blame them for not wanting to get involved?

 

That is why I spend so much time trying to point out that everything isn't alright and we will get shafted if we don't do something about it. The trouble is, too many people seem to think that the only way forward is the way we are being shown. i.e, take part in the shafting process.

Edited November 12, 2009 by Steve Coppolo

[Dick Dastardly]

The Marine Bill presents a huge threat to sea anglers - and coarse anglers -

 

How does it/going to affect coarse anglers Steve? Or is this just the proposed eel issues?

[Worms]

How does it/going to affect coarse anglers Steve? Or is this just the proposed eel issues?

Sorry to butt in Budgie but the recent proposed ban on taking coarse fish was part of it. Eels will come in as well.

[Dick Dastardly]

Thanks I never realised that.

[barry luxton]

I have asked the mcs to tell me what sort of protection they are looking for and why they consider the rocky areas and wrecks are of prime importance to protect. Looking forward to a reply.

 

Would it include anglers and potters as this is the only type of restriction for rocky areas in particular that could be proposed.

 

For example, one of the proposed sites, the only thing i can think of is a ban for anglers

 

Edited November 12, 2009 by barry luxton

[Worms]

You are absolutely right. Anglers don't know what's going on, because no one is telling them.

 

The Marine Bill presents a huge threat to sea anglers - and coarse anglers - but all the time angling 'representatives' are telling them that everything is going to be alright and, in some cases, actually supporting the very threats we face, how can you blame them for not wanting to get involved?

 

That is why I spend so much time trying to point out that everything isn't alright and we will get shafted if we don't do something about it. The trouble is, too many people seem to think that the only way forward is the way we are being shown. i.e, take part in the shafting process.

Ok, now we are getting down to some common ground.

 

Just for a moment lets work on the assumption that the Marine Bill is aimed at reducing damage to the marine environment. Let's also make the assumption that what we have been told about anglers not being adversely affected by Article 47 is true. Again let's include the point that MCZs will protect social and economic practices as well as the marine environment (anglers are specifically asked to put their views on MCZs and the use that they make of their local waters).

 

Now just for a few minutes put aside your doubts based on previous experience and look at the possibilities.

 

As anglers don't have a significant negative impact on the marine world and, the socio-economic importance of anglers around our coasts is not insignificant then there is plenty of room to believe that anglers are not the targets and the socio-economic importance of angling could become protected within the MCZs

 

Protection of areas from commercial fishing, especially inshore or in fish spawning areas (expanded from what they are now) could easily enhance stocks, not just for anglers but for all.

 

This whole thread and the lively discussion it has aroused is all based on one stakeholder's submission. It doesn't mention angling (to my knowledge) and, as far as we know anglers aren't a target. Barry's question might reveal more.

 

We may well find that a large number of marine stakeholders, canoeists, pleasure sailors, divers, surfers etc. all have the same fears as RSAs and contact and perhaps even amalgamation with other groups (or at least cross reference to each other's fears and suggestions) may go a long way to re-inforcing common views.

 

I know you have reservations about dealing with authority and that you have no faith in officialdom and, some of it is probably with good reason. I strongly believe however that getting involved in the stakeholder consultations with a fist full of signatures and a well thought out plan for the retention of angling as it is with possible support from other stakeholders will do us no harm at all.

 

By ignoring the stakeholder consultations then the views of anglers, and particularly some of the more experienced could be angling's loss. Creating a guerilla group to shout down the process is more likely to have a negative effect.

 

As I mentioned earlier. The coarse fishing consultation (proposed ban on taking coarse fish and grayling) was open to consultation. Although this was largely voted for, sensible fact based discussion was made with the EA and, it now appears that a blanket ban is highly unlikely.

 

I presume you are referring to the AT's "Magnificent Seven" when you refer to reps?

 

I think that the lack of support for the AT by the great unwashed is possibly enough reason for their views to be countered if enough sensible anglers get together to present a sensible presentation.

 

So a lot of assumptions but, better some chance than less!