Angling Trust Forum

[Steve Coppolo]

Hi Barry, I took the time to attend the Balanced Seas Meeting in Brighton, last November. From what I can remember, the only areas that are now being pushed forward for NTZ's are specifically SPA's, areas specifically designated under the Birds Directive for certain bird species of European importance re: rock outcrops, areas of rugged coastline that are at best, quite dangerous for the participation of sea angling/anglers anyway. You said that the location in your photo was an area set aside due to sea caves and I think underwater rock pinnacles, not SPA's so hopefully you and many others like you will now be unaffected. I will look back on the information I collected from that meeting to try and clarify this with you. However, you are still right to be very cautious about their agenda, we have all seen how quickly government funded organizations can change their minds.

 

Hi Reg

The SPA's, (Special protected areas), relate to birds, but the SAC's, (special areas of conservation), relate to anything and everything, even the seabed. Balanced seas are responsible for identifying SPA's and SAC's.

Edited February 27, 2010 by Steve Coppolo

[barry luxton]

Hi Barry, I took the time to attend the Balanced Seas Meeting in Brighton, last November. From what I can remember, the only areas that are now being pushed forward for NTZ's are specifically SPA's, areas specifically designated under the Birds Directive for certain bird species of European importance re: rock outcrops, areas of rugged coastline that are at best, quite dangerous for the participation of sea angling/anglers anyway. You said that the location in your photo was an area set aside due to sea caves and I think underwater rock pinnacles, not SPA's so hopefully you and many others like you will now be unaffected. I will look back on the information I collected from that meeting to try and clarify this with you. However, you are still right to be very cautious about their agenda, we have all seen how quickly government funded organizations can change their minds.

 

 

There will be some anglers that will be affected, there is no way of avoiding them other than making sure that every sea anglers unites and tells them that we will not put up with restrictions, why should we when we are not to blame. The problem with this is Barry, some anglers, probably those that can't be bothered, are not prepared to do that, and as a result people like you, me and every other dedicated angler will suffer the consequences. When I asked Balanced Seas, why are we the only club attending this meeting, their reply was, we have contacted several clubs in our combined area, they have chosen not to attend in Sussex.

 

 

Look Reg, direct link to one of the sites that the A T have asked all to join with the mcs to work with them regarding mcz's. This is one of the prime sites that the mcs want as a ntz. the other one on the south west coast is off babbacome beach and pier area, both of these sites during the summer are inundated with holiday makers who also enjoy angling with their families, me included for the last thirty years. Don't tell me that they are areas that are unfishable because that is a lie. This one in particular, to the west of this area, to the front, is where the rock pinnicles are and also the sea caves and is also fishable only by mountain goats. So this society, a quango want the area of sea caves a ntz, and they are due to access but the very area that whole families use for years Reg they want as a ntz as well. They also double bluff unsuspecting people by stating that trawlers work in this area, yes they do Reg, using brixham harbour. YET AGAIN, berry head can't be trawled or netted, for example, it's TOO blo@@y rocky. There is only one outcome if this area is to be restricted and that is for a NTZ. I cannot make myself any clearer Reg. This is why i am so anti A T. They are WRONG. No, please do as i ask and have a good look at all of the site, as clearly you haven't and you are guessing, no disrespect, but what you have posted may sound ok to you but it is incorrect. Don't tell me as i have asked you previous, that the angler will win some and loose some as this type of quango have only one agenda, to retrict, why you no listen. The only commercial activity on this site is a few pots, i have seen this with my own eyes for years and years, who is incorrect Reg. Nice photo's in the link, dolphins don't swim at berry head Reg, too shallow, they prefer further out, so it's another bluff for all to say, yes it will be nice to see dolphins at the head, please.

 

One last item that they make much of is these buffer zones, hasn't worked at all for lundy after five years, they won't be able to really confirm any real improvements for the next 30-40 years at that site. Don't you consider that this could be a enormous waste for the un-quantified return?

 

http://www.yourseasyourvoice.com/mpa/?region=5&site=23

Edited February 27, 2010 by barry luxton

[Jaffa]

Jaffa, re: Golden Mile

 

I have thought long and hard about the Golden Mile, I have spoken to many sea anglers, talked to other clubs during that process. For me, the Golden Mile is the first step forward as far as recognition for Sea Angling as a sport. It will not be THE CURE but it will help to secure grass roots angling, it will also help to put sea angling as a sport, on the front pages of most local papers, for a while anyway.

 

If you have thought that long and hard, then you can tell me something about the displacement of commercial effort? The success or otherwise, of the 3 mile limit that used to exist in Scotland? The implications of opening Pandoras box and getting sea anglers boxed and classified to be taxed and manipulated to the latest headlines.

 

Im not a member of any club, prefer fishing alone,and somedays like to dump the fishing tackle and play in the surf. Am i "grassroots" or in some other box?

 

Chris

 

PS Fishing is not a "Sport" to me. Its a happy hobby/pastime that produces rare moments and a rare chance to eat wonderful food

Edited February 28, 2010 by Jaffa

[Jaffa]

In the past I've fought through many meetings and consultations for the principle that every such area should have stated objectives, and that only activities that significantly impact on the attainment of such objectives should face restriction.

 

And that socio-economic considerations should be taken into account when selecting areas for designation.

 

And that where any restrictions are considered necessary, they should be the minimum that will do the job (rather than going directly for the 'nuclear' option of a No Take Zone favoured by plenty of other 'stakeholders').

 

And just as any other angler should, I have every intention of getting involved to ensure that there will be attainable benefits, both for the wider marine environment on which we depend for our angling, and indirectly as a result of a healthier marine ecosystem for the fish and anglers in my area.

 

I would need some strong convincing that a No Take Zone was needed in any area that is likely to impact on Recreational Sea Angling activity.

 

What will you be doing to effectively address what's coming our way in the shape of SPAs SACs, WFD etc Barry?.

 

(If enough other anglers get involved in an effective way, and take responsibility, I'll most happily take a back seat and leave it to them. But both at regional and county level, there will be plenty to do in the MCZ project areas for those that are able to do more than simply spout-off).

 

 

And just how much is it going to cost to decide who get gets todo what in this beautiful vision of yours? Can we expect the local papers to be full of lawyer-enriching disputes over who has what rights, week in week out?

 

It all comes out of the codend and it would be nice to see this fact recognised.

Edited February 28, 2010 by Jaffa

[Yido]

Look Reg, direct link to one of the sites that the A T have asked all to join with the mcs to work with them regarding mcz's. This is one of the prime sites that the mcs want as a ntz. the other one on the south west coast is off babbacome beach and pier area, both of these sites during the summer are inundated with holiday makers who also enjoy angling with their families, me included for the last thirty years. Don't tell me that they are areas that are unfishable because that is a lie. This one in particular, to the west of this area, to the front, is where the rock pinnicles are and also the sea caves and is also fishable only by mountain goats. So this society, a quango want the area of sea caves a ntz, and they are due to access but the very area that whole families use for years Reg they want as a ntz as well. They also double bluff unsuspecting people by stating that trawlers work in this area, yes they do Reg, using brixham harbour. YET AGAIN, berry head can't be trawled or netted, for example, it's TOO blo@@y rocky. There is only one outcome if this area is to be restricted and that is for a NTZ. I cannot make myself any clearer Reg. This is why i am so anti A T. They are WRONG. No, please do as i ask and have a good look at all of the site, as clearly you haven't and you are guessing, no disrespect, but what you have posted may sound ok to you but it is incorrect. Don't tell me as i have asked you previous, that the angler will win some and loose some as this type of quango have only one agenda, to retrict, why you no listen. The only commercial activity on this site is a few pots, i have seen this with my own eyes for years and years, who is incorrect Reg. Nice photo's in the link, dolphins don't swim at berry head Reg, too shallow, they prefer further out, so it's another bluff for all to say, yes it will be nice to see dolphins at the head, please.

 

One last item that they make much of is these buffer zones, hasn't worked at all for lundy after five years, they won't be able to really confirm any real improvements for the next 30-40 years at that site. Don't you consider that this could be a enormous waste for the un-quantified return?

 

http://www.yourseasyourvoice.com/mpa/?region=5&site=23

 

 

Thanks for the direct link Barry, I will have a closer look later today.

[Yido]

Thanks for the direct link Barry, I will have a closer look later today.

 

 

Ok Barry, I've had a closer look. My stance on this area is that in reality it is no different to any other site around our coastline so why does it deserve complete protection.

 

My questions to you are:

 

Have you protested against this site becomming a complete protected area, how many other anglers have done the same, none I expect?

 

What are you prepared to do about this? Having a moan on this forum will not solve the problem, you need to get your voice heard properly.

 

Would you be prepared to start a fight back on behalf of angling representation?

 

Will you go out of your way for the good of angling, make your voice heard and ask anglers to follow you, signing their name to a protest?

 

Do that Barry and I will be the first to sign, the question is Barry, will you go out of your way for the good of angling, when the majority of anglers do nothing?

 

They may well propose this site to be a complete protected area because anglers can't be bothered to fight back and as a result, our angling will suffer.

 

Don't expect the AT to fight for you Barry, your not a member.

 

What should you do Barry, I think in all honesty you should pick up the phone or email the AT and ask them directly, what will the AT do for me. Tell them about this area, the decades your family have spent enjoying the sport. I haven't got the answers Barry, do what I am doing and ask lots of questions to lots of people, somewhere along the way you may find the answer. Phone Natural England and ask why should this site be a complete protected area when decades of angling has done nothing to harm the localised marine bio-diversity.

 

One thing to consider Barry, this is not a protected site yet, just one area that might become a definite proposal. The Government will make the decision in 2011 ready for 2012, the only thing on their agenda will be the costs required to police that site. That will probably mean nothing will happen because they are skint. Remember one thing Barry, as far as our Government is concerned money will always be more important than the bio-diversity of our sea, proven over decades of mismanagement over our fish stocks. With all these areas around our coastline, our Government will be finding every loop hole they can to avoid spending money that they have not got. Any campaigns against sites being protected may be just the thing they are looking for right now.

[Yido]

If you have thought that long and hard, then you can tell me something about the displacement of commercial effort? The success or otherwise, of the 3 mile limit that used to exist in Scotland? The implications of opening Pandoras box and getting sea anglers boxed and classified to be taxed and manipulated to the latest headlines.

 

Im not a member of any club, prefer fishing alone,and somedays like to dump the fishing tackle and play in the surf. Am i "grassroots" or in some other box?

 

Chris

 

PS Fishing is not a "Sport" to me. Its a happy hobby/pastime that produces rare moments and a rare chance to eat wonderful food

 

Jaffa,

 

I cannot answer this post because I know nothing of the past or present problems in Scotland, I can only comment on my area along the south coast, Sorry Jaffa. Having a Golden Mile does not come with a Sea Rod Licence, so why do you think anglers will be taxed. Obtaining recognition from local papers can create better understanding and support for the sport of angling with the local community. That support could be used to deter further restrictions and increase the participation of the sport within the local community increasing RSA revenue in those areas.

[barry luxton]

Hello Reg, thank you for having a look at the argument from the other side.Most of their jewels are the same, so that is my greatest fear for the rsa. I do have a lot to say to respond to your last post. For kick off's regarding protesting and responding. Here is a copy of a posting and email i sent off to yours truly at the beginning of last week, no responce, the same goes for other emails sent and to other orgs. So at present i'm going to limit it to the last email sent at the mo.

 

 

quote:

 

article 55

 

Posted by Barry Luxton Mon Feb 22 16:02:56 2010

 

Sorry it's politics. The government have issued a responce to the online 47 petition. I won't bore you with the details, only to say that they have highlited the new article 55 that all of the eu are rubbing their hands with. Jobs and pensions for the boys.

 

Further, before the government set the rules inplace for 55 they are to ask the Angling Trust for their opinions etc.

 

So following on from the freshwater consultation where the A T did not consult the rsa before agreeing to a ban on the removal of the common eel i have asked the A T for confirmation that they are indeed going to consult the rsa, who they state they represent, before they offer the government thier opinion. copy of email sent.

 

copy.

 

I understand that the A T have been in contact with the government with regards to article 47. Following the response to the online petition I further understand that you are to enter into talks with the government before article 55 rules are finalised.

 

As I consider there has been no consultation by your self with the rsa who you are claiming to represent, I respectfully ask you to confirm if you are to consult with the rsa before the A T approach the government again on this important issue.

 

cc anglers net.co.uk

 

deepsea.co.uk

 

your faithfully

 

Barry Luxton

Edited February 28, 2010 by barry luxton

[wurzel]

My questions to you are:

 

Have you protested against this site becomming a complete protected area, how many other anglers have done the same, none I expect?

 

What are you prepared to do about this? Having a moan on this forum will not solve the problem, you need to get your voice heard properly.

 

Would you be prepared to start a fight back on behalf of angling representation?

 

Will you go out of your way for the good of angling, make your voice heard and ask anglers to follow you, signing their name to a protest?

 

Do that Barry and I will be the first to sign, the question is Barry, will you go out of your way for the good of angling, when the majority of anglers do nothing?

 

They may well propose this site to be a complete protected area because anglers can't be bothered to fight back and as a result, our angling will suffer.

 

Don't expect the AT to fight for you Barry, your not a member.

 

Hello Reg

 

Being the voice of all anglers the AT should be doing all of the above already, it's because they are not and there is no sign of them ever doing so Barry and most other RSA are not members.

If the AT ever did take up the real issues that worry sea anglers there would be a direct conflict of interests with the WWF, any links with these eco bullies will always be a problem especially any consultation concerning MPA's

 

 

And while I'm here.

 

The AT response to the CFP was crap based on nothing but some anglers representatives perceptions of fish stocks and commercial fishing practices and no doubt some input by the WWF, I suppose it was based on what they think anglers want to hear.

 

The Golden Mile is a none starter any way, but if it was ever implemented it would not make any difference to anglers catches just cause a lot of animosity with the inshore fishermen who I doubt you have ever spoken to on the subject.

[Worms]

Reg,

 

you are a star in my opinion. You have taken it upon yourself to do what the AT should be doing as an organisation. You are making huge leaps in faith and fact on the RSA issue and you have my respect.

 

I know that feelings are running high on these issues and you have contributed more to solving this problem as a "normal" angler with relatively little knowledge, compared with some of the politically knowledgeable RSAs that you are replying to (even if you are an AT member ), than a lot of people have managed.

 

Keep up the good work and don't forget, if some of the questions and replies coming your way seem a bit forthright they are not meant personally, just a bit of frustration and probably relief that somebody is prepared to talk (I've suffered a bit of flak in the not so distant past, it just took the formation of the AT to press home a few truths and shatter a few illusions!).

 

Keep up the good work!

 

Nick