Selling Your Shore Caught Fish

[Leon Roskilly]

You asked if the under tens have always only been allowed to catch 6 boxes per month? I am not sure what it is at the moment, but it’s not a great deal more than that.

 

 

Zero in the North Sea for the rest of the month.

 

Ooops!

 

http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2010/100122a.htm

 

[Steve Coppolo]

I believe that Leon made the comment back in2005? I believe it was not a general conception of RSA catches but was about a local incident. Taking people comments totally out of context is also junk in my book Steve.

I am not trying to defend Leon at all. Am sure he is quite capable of that. Just wondered if his comments where about a specific incident and not in the nationwide context that comments seam to suggest?

And in the eyes of the powers that be until anybody can put a figure on how many anglers they are, what they catch, and how much they catch you will have no accountability to anyone and therefore any numbers will be forever seen as worthless junk.

Regards.

 

Having clicked on the link and read the letter, I am of the opinion that it was a generalisation, rather than reference to a single incident. An unfounded generalisation, at that.

 

I agree with you that the figures often punted, that are supposed to relate to the number of sea anglers in the country, are worthless junk. Therefore, any estimates of anglers catches will also be worthless junk.

[big_cod]

Paul

This has been an interesting thread. I think that your words “the end” should have come much sooner than they did.

 

Personally I think the best answer to the original question “can I sell my shore caught fish” should of simple been “no” the end.

If you keep going on about swapping fish, bartering with your fish loop holes here and there and we have done it for century’s then you are inviting trouble. If there is a loop whole in bureaucracy watch the bureaucrats introduce legislation and sow that loop hole up. That’s what there good at.

This isn’t my opinion but let’s look at it from the side of the commercial fisherman in our home port Paul. He is allowed to land say 6 boxes of cod per month because of the restriction that have been put on him because he is targeting what is classed as a species that is under threat and that is his allocated share of the total allocated quota. So to be faire to that commercial fisherman Paul how much fish per day (not forgetting that you are not allowed to sell that same fish) do you think you as an angler should be allowed to take home per day’s fishing? Remember Paul before you say “that what us anglers catch wont make any difference to cod stocks” do you really think that the 6 boxes that the commercial fisherman is allowed to catch is going to make a difference to the cod stocks of our home town Paul.

Regards.

 

 

John how the hell dare you even dare to complain about anglers have you suddenly forgot about those pictures which were on cheiftains website you stood proud as punch over 50st of filletts which you personally fiileted for anglers you now come on this forum suddenly anglers need to be taken into account put against the wall and shot now i know you have a nice uniform but you are once again haveing a go at anglers and it ****ing stinks instead of haveing a go at anglers you want do something more constructive about about why quotas are so low and stocks are what they are now and the reason why they are i can tell why they are so low because they have overfished commercially to the point of no return there is a lot anglers out there who havent seen a cod this winter and reading what you put on here would allmost deffernetly make there blood boil.

 

paul.

Edited January 24, 2010 by big_cod

[mr motorola]

 

This was another haul he filleted too Paul. Damn good filleter was John, best i've ever seen.

[barry luxton]

Must be on Leons ignore list, don't know what i have done though.

[Steve Coppolo]

Must be on Leons ignore list, don't know what i have done though.

 

Asked a question, Barry. It's not allowed, apparently. You should know better.

 

Join the club.

[Jim Roper]

If those words are indeed part of a submission to "the authorities" then it really is the end and no wonder that rod and line anglers are being targetted by regulation when the submission which we believe to be wrong is taken at face value by regulators

 

I suggest that everyone with a concern about what the self-appointed RSA representative has been saying, write to their MP and any other politician, making it quite clear that neither the SACN nor 'Lord Mullet of Medway' is representing you. I did it some time back and got a realistic, favourable response.

I also suggest that anyone who has been duped into joining the SACN Email list, becoming an associate member, ask to be removed from it. You are being used for someones personal agenda.

[seafoods]

As you can see Leon's letter was in response to new legislation concerning first sale of fish and is no way species specific or in response to any particular incident.

 

 

 

 

 

Home : Articles : Buyers and Sellers Legislation - Does it Apply?

 

 

Buyers and Sellers Legislation - Does it Apply?

Oct 04,2006 Leon Roskilly

 

 

 

 

 

Buyers and Sellers legislation was bought in to provide an audit trail designed to squeeze ‘black fish’ out of the economy.

 

Any business that acts as a buyer or seller of first-hand sale fish from a vessel must be registered, and documentation has to be provided that is the start of an audit trail that will theoretically allow all fish sold to be traced back to its origin.

 

 

 

Although principally meant to deal with huge landings of ‘black-fish’, the legislation also applies to fish ‘bought at the back door’, by restaurants and pubs etc.

 

This raises the question as to whether it also applies to rod and line fishermen selling their catch.So we put the question to DEFRA:

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Having read the Explanatory leaflet RBS 2, I am seeking confirmation of the status of those selling and buying fish caught other than from a fishing vessel.

 

I am thinking principally of those using rod and line and fishing from the shore who then sell their catch directly to pubs restaurants etc 'at the door'.

 

And so called 'hobby fishermen' who set nets from the shore.

 

My confusion arises from the definition 'A registered buyer is someone who buys first sale fish direct from a vessel or agent........'

 

If no vessel is involved in the capture of the fish, does that mean that the buying and selling of the fish is unregulated?

 

 

If a restaurant or pub is offered fish for sale at the door, how would they know whether the seller is a rod and line fisherman (as claimed perhaps) or someone who has obtained fish from a vessel.

 

Or, if someone has been out on an angling charter boat (say) and then sells their catch, the buyer is buying from the angler, not a vessel?

 

Also, fish is often 'bartered' ie swapped for a drink or two at the pub etc. How is this covered where no 'sale' actually takes place.

 

The quantities of fish involved in this trade are quite substantial and do have an effect, particularly on inshore stocks.

 

 

Regards - Leon Roskilly

Sea Anglers' Conservation Network (SACN)

[barry luxton]

John how the hell dare you even dare to complain about anglers have you suddenly forgot about those pictures which were on cheiftains website you stood proud as punch over 50st of filletts which you personally fiileted for anglers you now come on this forum suddenly anglers need to be taken into account put against the wall and shot now i know you have a nice uniform but you are once again haveing a go at anglers and it ****ing stinks instead of haveing a go at anglers you want do something more constructive about about why quotas are so low and stocks are what they are now and the reason why they are i can tell why they are so low because they have overfished commercially to the point of no return there is a lot anglers out there who havent seen a cod this winter and reading what you put on here would allmost deffernetly make there blood boil.

 

paul.

No where in Challenges post do i see him complaining about anglers, where did you get that from. All of the words you are using in the above post are of your own making and not Challenges, So thats a bit unfair.

 

I can quite clearly see his point regarding waste of space idiots using hearsay, exaggeration, bullshine, to create new laws to restrict the rsa. Do you think the rsa are going through exactly that at the moment?

 

Why would Challenge have any influence over quota, you or i would have the same amount of influence. I can also see commercially the inshore guys getting upset about anglers being allowed, while they can't. It works both ways. During the 47 consultation, the commercials certainly did not want the rsa being part of the quota system and i was aware many commercials used that within the consultation, to their advantage and also the rsa. So a vote of thanks to them is required otherwise the eu might well have a bigger hook into the rsa now with 47. The problem with quota isn't with the undertens and the rsa it is where the big boys have 97% of the quota while a miniscule amount is shared out to the rest. On the political forum i have just put a post where nigel farge is asking the eu why the uk has app 7% of the channel cod stock? I would say the problem with the quota is with the EU . Might be better if the uk sort out our unbalanced membership with the E U than relying on Challenge to sort the stocks out, don't you think. Still waiting for someone to confirm if the EU have made it a crime for the unpowered shore angler to sell. the closest i can get to it is:

 

quote:

2. The marketing of catches from recreational fisheries shall be prohibited.

end quote.

 

No doubt a heck of alot of taxpayers money has gone into this, to date we are still non-the wiser. Absoulute cr@p. That is where the problem is.

 

Whats Challenges previous job on John Brennans boat got to do with it. At the time he certainly appeared more than competent and those fillets are nothing to do with this topic whatsoever, unless the guys on the boat where selling. No doubt there isn't any proof, nor would i expect to see any.

[big_cod]

No where in Challenges post do i see him complaining about anglers, where did you get that from. All of the words you are using in the above post are of your own making and not Challenges, So thats a bit unfair.

 

I can quite clearly see his point regarding waste of space idiots using hearsay, exaggeration, bullshine, to create new laws to restrict the rsa. Do you think the rsa are going through exactly that at the moment?

 

Why would Challenge have any influence over quota, you or i would have the same amount of influence. I can also see commercially the inshore guys getting upset about anglers being allowed, while they can't. It works both ways. During the 47 consultation, the commercials certainly did not want the rsa being part of the quota system and i was aware many commercials used that within the consultation, to their advantage and also the rsa. So a vote of thanks to them is required otherwise the eu might well have a bigger hook into the rsa now with 47. The problem with quota isn't with the undertens and the rsa it is where the big boys have 97% of the quota while a miniscule amount is shared out to the rest. On the political forum i have just put a post where nigel farge is asking the eu why the uk has app 7% of the channel cod stock? I would say the problem with the quota is with the EU . Might be better if the uk sort out our unbalanced membership with the E U than relying on Challenge to sort the stocks out, don't you think. Still waiting for someone to confirm if the EU have made it a crime for the unpowered shore angler to sell. the closest i can get to it is:

 

quote:

2. The marketing of catches from recreational fisheries shall be prohibited.

end quote.

 

No doubt a heck of alot of taxpayers money has gone into this, to date we are still non-the wiser. Absoulute cr@p. That is where the problem is.

 

Whats Challenges previous job on John Brennans boat got to do with it. At the time he certainly appeared more than competent and those fillets are nothing to do with this topic whatsoever, unless the guys on the boat where selling. No doubt there isn't any proof, nor would i expect to see any.

 

What john is saying without saying it barry is anglers need bag limits or quotas which ever fits the bill.

 

paul.