Counting Sharks

[Worms]

Back in February 2008, EFTAA put out the following:

 

 

http://www.eftta.com/english/news_indepth....;SKU=2047259506

 

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/governan...aa_eftta_en.pdf

 

Thank you Leon

"We urge the Commission and Member States to identify and keep separate the various recreational fisheries sectors in their data collection, monitoring and management schemes. At least these sectors and fishing methods should be treated in their own right: Recreational angling/sportfishing, competition or tournament fishing, netting from boat, recreational long-line fishing, static nets, spear-fishing/diving and eventually ‘subsistence fishing’."

 

They didn't take much notice of the last paragraph then!

[barry luxton]

Back in February 2008, EFTAA put out the following:

 

 

Hi Leon, you missed out replying to this bit: Why is this info needed. For whose benifit.

 

 

Is this eftaa another voice for recreational angling are they repping the rsa as it certainly looks like with the eu. Do they have real anglers advising them. If so who appointed them, do they have an agenda.

[Leon Roskilly]

Hi Leon, you missed out replying to this bit: Why is this info needed. For whose benifit.

 

It's an EU requirement.

 

I guess that they would say something along the lines of '"We need to better understand the impact that each sector is having on particular stocks in particular areas so that we can manage them better for they benefit of all those who have an interest in restoring them to a more healthy level".

 

But to be sure (I could be wrong!), and if you want a more comprehensive answer, it's best to ask them directly. (That will also demonstrate to them that there is interest in what they are doing and why they are doing it).

 

 

 

Is this eftaa another voice for recreational angling are they repping the rsa as it certainly looks like with the eu. Do they have real anglers advising them. If so who appointed them, do they have an agenda.

 

 

http://www.eftta.com/english/index.html?ca...667455049789114

 

EFTTA is a Trade Association for Manufacturers and Wholesalers of sportfishing equipment. EFTTA members can exhibit at EFTTEX, the leading international Fishing Tackle Trade Exhibition. Membership is open to Manufacturers, Wholesalers, Agents and Press in the tackle industry.

 

 

What they intend in regards to lobbying is set out here:

 

http://www.eftta.com/english/news_indepth....;SKU=2047259648

Edited February 21, 2010 by Leon Roskilly

[Worms]

What they intend in regards to lobbying is set out here:

 

http://www.eftta.com/english/news_indepth....;SKU=2047259648

Digressing a little but it's always worrying when the trade starts dictating what the customer wants........without consulting the customer.

[barry luxton]

It's an EU requirement.

 

I guess that they would say something along the lines of '"We need to better understand the impact that each sector is having on particular stocks in particular areas so that we can manage them better for they benefit of all those who have an interest in restoring them to a more healthy level".

 

But to be sure (I could be wrong!), and if you want a more comprehensive answer, it's best to ask them directly. (That will also demonstrate to them that there is interest in what they are doing and why they are doing it).

 

 

Thought so, in reality the only message that these wastfull buropratts and their hangers need to hear is for someone to tell them and to continue to tell them to take a hike, what an awful waste of taxpayers money. I do have a fantastic interest in what they have ruined and failed to acheive, however it is down to our government old and new to give us the tools in what we need to help them acheive that, like a referendum for example.

 

So this info is only really required to keep their jobs and pensions fluid, nothing else then.

 

I find it incredible that they just don't get it that the rsa don't or can't ruin fish stocks, unless they have been stuffed crap info in the first place.

 

I have only bothered to read the link Worms and not all of his 'speach' no where does he actually refer back to the end user, the angler so as far as i can see they have their own agenda, without consultation, feedback, i agree with you mate.

Edited February 21, 2010 by barry luxton

[Ian Burrett]

It is worrying that the EU can come out with a statement which is contradicted a few months later.

 

Borg assured in this letter below that Art 55 would only concern Tuna and Cod.

Thank you for your e-mail dated 25 June 2009 asking for clarifications on the stocks covered by Article 47 (on recreational fisheries) of the Commission’s proposal on how to improve the control of fishing activities in EU waters in the future.

 

I believe that there is a misunderstanding regarding our latest compromise proposal concerning the issue of recreational fisheries. In fact the Commission has not widened the scope of Art. 47. On the contrary, we have narrowed it down. Our original proposal foresaw that all fisheries covered by a multi-annual plan, of which we have currently ten in place, would fall under Art. 47.

 

In our latest compromise proposal, however, we have restricted this clause further so that only those species subject to a recovery plan would be covered. We currently have four such recovery plans in place. Within these four plans, only two species are fished by anglers, namely cod and bluefin tuna. Thus the vast majority of anglers will not be affected in any way by the proposal. This modification was made in accordance with the report adopted by the European Parliament on 6 April 2009.

 

Now Salmon Eels and Sharks are included. It does make you wonder where it will all end.

 

My biggest worry about the article 55 was a failure to give a meaning for the word "significant". The Swedish government has assessed recreational catches and the data from Sweden show RSA activity is responsible for 0.24 % of landings. Question is will that be considered significant?.

Edited February 21, 2010 by Ian Burrett

[Leon Roskilly]

Hi Ian,

 

Article 55 is within the control regulation which came in this year.

 

These proposals are contained in the seperate data collection regulation (which has existed for several years, but to which new species are gradually being added for monitoring of recreational fisheries)

[barry luxton]

It is worrying that the EU can come out with a statement which is contradicted a few months later.

 

Borg assured in this letter below that Art 55 would only concern Tuna and Cod.

Thank you for your e-mail dated 25 June 2009 asking for clarifications on the stocks covered by Article 47 (on recreational fisheries) of the Commission’s proposal on how to improve the control of fishing activities in EU waters in the future.

 

I believe that there is a misunderstanding regarding our latest compromise proposal concerning the issue of recreational fisheries. In fact the Commission has not widened the scope of Art. 47. On the contrary, we have narrowed it down. Our original proposal foresaw that all fisheries covered by a multi-annual plan, of which we have currently ten in place, would fall under Art. 47.

 

In our latest compromise proposal, however, we have restricted this clause further so that only those species subject to a recovery plan would be covered. We currently have four such recovery plans in place. Within these four plans, only two species are fished by anglers, namely cod and bluefin tuna. Thus the vast majority of anglers will not be affected in any way by the proposal. This modification was made in accordance with the report adopted by the European Parliament on 6 April 2009.

 

Now Salmon Eels and Sharks are included. It does make you wonder where it will all end.

 

My biggest worry about the article 55 was a failure to give a meaning for the word "significant". The Swedish government has assessed recreational catches and the data from Sweden show RSA activity is responsible for 0.24 % of landings. Question is will that be considered significant?.

 

Foot in the door tactics. I always considered the uk rsa conservative take at less than 5% as insignificant, however the buropratts may consider otherwise, yet there is a massive amount that they have overlooked for the last 20 years or so, that is a heck of a lot more important to all of the fish stocks, that they have failed to address, amazing. Why do they need to poke their nose in to the rsa affairs, if they can't control the rest.

Edited February 21, 2010 by barry luxton

[Steve Coppolo]

Will those who attracted this kind of attention by repeatedly telling politicians and fisheries managers how many millions of sea anglers there were, and how many £ billions they were worth to the economy, now accept responsibility for their actions/verbals?

 

Will they f***!