Formal consultation starts on proposed European marine sites

[Steve Coppolo]

Rubbish, the past is precisely that and no amount of crying about it will change it. Deal with the problems we have now using the the same weapons that other stakeholders are using.....RSAs just need to bring their own ammunition and arrange it in an orderly fashion next to the guns, not leave it scattered around all over the place for others to pick up.

 

It may be inconvenient, (for you), but it isn't rubbish.

 

Lessons should have been learnt from what's happened in the past. It's quite clear, from what some people are still saying, that they haven't. This demonstrates an unacceptable level of incompetence by those who took it upon themselves to speak for the nations sea anglers, and who are still hell bent on doing so. It also exposes the unacceptable level of arrogance displayed by the same people. Having got things so badly wrong on so many occasions, you would think that they would either give it up or change tactics. But no, they are still trying to flog the proverbial dead horse to the detriment of sea angling and those who partake in it.

Edited November 28, 2009 by Steve Coppolo

[Worms]

It may be inconvenient, (for you), but it isn't rubbish.

 

Lessons should have been learnt from what's happened in the past. It's quite clear, from what some people are still saying, that they haven't. This demonstrates an unacceptable level of incompetence by those who took it upon themselves to speak for the nations sea anglers, and who are still hell bent on doing so. It also exposes the unacceptable level of arrogance displayed by the same people. Having got things so badly wrong on so many occasions, you would think that they would either give it up or change tactics. But no, they are still trying to flog the proverbial dead horse to the detriment of sea angling and those who partake in it.

I didn't say that lessons shouldn't be learnt from the past. Your constant refusal to accept that having a unified voice for RSAs and bleating on about what others have said in the past won't take us closer to addressing the current issues............that is all we have to do.

 

 

"We are made wise not by the recollection of our past, but by the responsiblity of our future." George Bernard Shaw

 

 

“Pessimist: One who, when he has the choice of two evils, chooses both.” Oscar Wilde

[barry luxton]

Have you got a favourite spot you are willing to be excluded from in the name of conservation or are you just an armchair pirate?

 

I have an absolute gem area to close. No problem. The varne bank, for five years, to prove that overfishing has affected it. and no it isn't an argument between angling and fishing, nor the greenies because as it's offshore it has nothing to do with them, so they can hop it. The reason for that is the greenies don't visit it in any event. Noses out.

 

After that period allow catching both commercially and recreational, with rod and line, that fair enough? to prove that it can be done on a sustainable basis.

 

Won't affect too many as it has been over fished for at least fifteen years, apart from the french. As it would be unfair to restrict the french wouldn't it. Can't see the eu allowing that.

Edited November 28, 2009 by barry luxton

[barry luxton]

Lessons should have been learnt from what's happened in the past. It's quite clear, from what some people are still saying, that they haven't. This demonstrates an unacceptable level of incompetence by those who took it upon themselves to speak for the nations sea anglers, and who are still hell bent on doing so. It also exposes the unacceptable level of arrogance displayed by the same people. Having got things so badly wrong on so many occasions, you would think that they would either give it up or change tactics. But no, they are still trying to flog the proverbial dead horse to the detriment of sea angling and those who partake in it.

 

 

Can anyone give one item that has been won from the men in suits, by say the nfsa, bass, at, that has been to the benifit of the rsa and the fish stocks? Thinking of all the subscriptions that have been paid.

[Steve Coppolo]

I didn't say that lessons shouldn't be learnt from the past. Your constant refusal to accept that having a unified voice for RSAs and bleating on about what others have said in the past won't take us closer to addressing the current issues............that is all we have to do.

 

 

"We are made wise not by the recollection of our past, but by the responsiblity of our future." George Bernard Shaw

 

 

“Pessimist: One who, when he has the choice of two evils, chooses both.” Oscar Wilde

 

 

This is bloody hard work, Worms. There can never be a unified voice while we have the same people who hogged the 'voice' up until now, still insisting that they know best and that their way is the only way. The concept of, 'when in a hole, stop digging', seems too much for them, (and you, apparently), to grasp. I remain convinced that at least some of these people are anti sea angler. No, sod it, let me be perfectly honest, here. I've actually heard, with my on ears, the contempt that some of them hold sea anglers in. The question I don't have to ask is, why would anyone insist on representing people they don't even like? The reason I don't have to ask that question is, I already know the answer. They don't want to represent anyone except themselves. The views of the masses don't matter. If they deviate from the views of the handful of extremists, they are dismissed out of hand. If anyone else tries to put forward varying views, they are undermined. As long as the few can get their point across and push forward their own ideals, everything is fine in their world and sod everyone else. This, Worms, is fact. Doesn't sound much like unified voice, does it? The trouble is, (which also answers Barry's question), these same people have failed miserably to win any benefits for sea anglers, whatsoever. I am also baffled as to why the people who insist on having the most say, do the least fishing.

[Jaffa]

That depends on whether you read the risk assessment or the reports on the surveys. The MAY comes from the former. These are quotes from the latter for the two sites.

 

 

 

 

I don't really have the interests of the commercial fisherman at heart. I am contributing as an angler. Commercial fishermen have their own bodies for putting their voice across, the MPA Fishing Coalition which already has the backing of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. Anglers are struggling to find one that will represent them, or don't want one, or don't know about the problems etc.

 

 

Of course sand and gravel extraction won't be stopped completely. Nor will wind farms. If you have an issue with a commercial fishing ban go and speak to the MPAFC. If anglers are worried about angling bans then get together and respond to the consultation!

 

As for being excluded from favourite fishing spots, you must be behind the times. Freshwater anglers have been excluded or limited by similar conservation regulations for years.

 

No, I'm not an armchair pirate.........I'm an angler that wants to continue catching fish.

 

In another thread you preached about catfish: Have you actually ever seen one?

[Worms]

In another thread you preached about catfish: Have you actually ever seen one?

Hardly preached about them just referred to the context that they were used in the document.

 

No I never have seen one. Is there any relevance here?

[Worms]

This is bloody hard work, Worms. There can never be a unified voice while we have the same people who hogged the 'voice' up until now, still insisting that they know best and that their way is the only way. The concept of, 'when in a hole, stop digging', seems too much for them, (and you, apparently), to grasp. I remain convinced that at least some of these people are anti sea angler. No, sod it, let me be perfectly honest, here. I've actually heard, with my on ears, the contempt that some of them hold sea anglers in. The question I don't have to ask is, why would anyone insist on representing people they don't even like? The reason I don't have to ask that question is, I already know the answer. They don't want to represent anyone except themselves. The views of the masses don't matter. If they deviate from the views of the handful of extremists, they are dismissed out of hand. If anyone else tries to put forward varying views, they are undermined. As long as the few can get their point across and push forward their own ideals, everything is fine in their world and sod everyone else. This, Worms, is fact. Doesn't sound much like unified voice, does it? The trouble is, (which also answers Barry's question), these same people have failed miserably to win any benefits for sea anglers, whatsoever. I am also baffled as to why the people who insist on having the most say, do the least fishing.

Right now I know a little more about the way you're thinking. It makes a little more sense now.

 

The point I've been trying to make is hoping that RSAs unite. I'm not talking about resurrecting old comittees. I mean a united anglers voice so that people who like to go fishing have a say on what they want. With all the various forum sites and local clubs etc. would it be too difficult to raise a petition/questionnaire for anglers to respond to? Get as many anglers as possible to respond and enter that as the response to the consultation.

 

It may not be a 'recognised' organisation but if tens or even hundreds of thousands of anglers reponded surely that would be the best way of representing the voice of the RSA?

[Steve Coppolo]

Right now I know a little more about the way you're thinking. It makes a little more sense now.

 

The point I've been trying to make is hoping that RSAs unite. I'm not talking about resurrecting old comittees. I mean a united anglers voice so that people who like to go fishing have a say on what they want. With all the various forum sites and local clubs etc. would it be too difficult to raise a petition/questionnaire for anglers to respond to? Get as many anglers as possible to respond and enter that as the response to the consultation.

 

It may not be a 'recognised' organisation but if tens or even hundreds of thousands of anglers reponded surely that would be the best way of representing the voice of the RSA?

 

Unfortunately, we don't have the choice of whether we resurrect old committees, or not. They never went away and still think it is their right to carry on speaking on behalf of the masses - even though some deny this and say they are only speaking on behalf of their respective, (and tiny), memberships.

 

As for anglers uniting and speaking up for themselves, we have seen that they will only do this when they consider themselves under threat. The various petitions against a sea angling licence springs to mind. As does the attendance at Defra roadshow meetings where anglers expressed their opposition to the RSA strategy. The consultation that followed backed up the opposition shown at the meetings. Yet, both times, they have been ignored as the same few steamroller these things back to the table time and time again.

 

I keep saying it but we will never have a unified voice whilst you still have these arrogant self serving egoists speaking on our behalf and refusing to listen to what the anglers want if it doesn't match their own ideals. They still haven't realised that whether the masses agree with them or not, they need their support. They would much rather push the same failed campaigns, than sit back and listen to what sea anglers are actually saying.

 

Until they are out of the game, we are stuffed.

[Worms]

But what is there to lose by attempting to get as many anglers to respond to a questionnaire/petition?

 

If more anglers respond to that than to an 'official' organisation then the results are more valid and are still stakeholder's views regardless of their stature.