Pat Carlin

[captain cojones]

So if he is not selling his catch, no problem no?

[barry luxton]

And yes Bob, as the title of by-law 16 states, vessels used in fishing. This is where the courts interpretation is required between say an angling passenger vessel, used primarily for carrying anglers for angling purposes and a fishing vessel, used for catching fish for the purpose of selling for profit.

 

As i said, common sence will be required, that's all. As i understand the purpose of the by-law was to prevent larger commercial vessels fishing within the limit, again fishing for fish for sale, possibly clearing the stock out. Even more, i understood it was brought in the defend the potting industry of the commercial business.

 

At the end of the day, there will be losers, either the good name of one skipper who over the years has brought lucrative business into the port, by carrying thousands of anglers who would eat, sleep, drink, spend money in Weymouth.

 

Or the tax payer who will need to pay the costs if Pat is found not guilty. There appears to be no intent on Pat's part to clear the stock out, in particular when the day in question was used for filming purposes, don't make sence.

Edited February 4, 2011 by barry luxton

[big_cod]

These SSFC sound like not very nice boys i hope the committee get a pasteing in court its disgracfull this bylaw i am sure doesnt exist anywhere else in country but to include a passenger carry vessel which are fishing with rod and line for no commercial gain seems very strange in the leasure industry and is also dangerous forceing a passenger vessel aback of 6 mile sounds like they are on a mission.

 

paul.

Edited February 5, 2011 by big_cod

[barry luxton]

So if he is not selling his catch, no problem no?

 

 

Hi captain cojones.

 

Don't work like that, he wasn't selling, not charged with selling illegally, seperate rules in place for that with huge fines. I haven't heard of any charter boat doing so, he had a film crew on the stern at the time, filming. However the sfc officer considered the boat was in breach of the by-law set in place to protect the fish stocks from larger vessels.

 

Big Cod, i think most of the sfc have some sort of legislation in place to prevent the big boys from coming inside 6 mile. Two sfc's have an amended by-law's to target the by-law exactly to where it is intended, i.e. commercial fishing vessels, excluding charter angling boats, again however one or two interpret the by-law to include angling boats.

 

After April, i believe the new sfc's will re write the rule books and quite possibly this issue will be looked at from a more practical, sensible and common sence point of view.

 

If the judge decides against the sfc case it would put the whole of the by-law at risk, however again, as it is all changing in April, that could appear to be the way forward. Very interesting this will be.

[Cranfield]

As I hadn't heard anything about this for quite a while,I assumed it had been quietly dropped and the SSFC had crawled back under their stone.

The fact that its still proceeding is incredible.

[Leon Roskilly]

Or the tax payer who will need to pay the costs if Pat is found not guilty.

 

 

The way that I understand it is:

 

The SFC's are funded out of the rates (well there is money from the Government that goes to the Councils to help them fund such things).

 

Out of that funding levy on the respective councils each SFC will have a budget/fund to bring prosecutions.

 

If each prosecution is successful then cost will be minimised so the war-chest for bringing future prosecutions isn't diminished too much.

 

An unsuccessful prosecution means that the SFC's budget is diminished more, so less future prosecutions can be bought.

 

For this reason most SFCs will want to be very sure of succes before bringing a prosecution, and will prefer to work by giving 'friendly warnings' in all but the most serious cases/repeat offendings despite warnings.

 

So, if they are unsuccessful in this, there will be no extra charge on the ratepayer, but the SFC's ability to enforce will be diminished, which may impact on the health of the fishery that it is there to protect.

Edited February 5, 2011 by Leon Roskilly

[big_cod]

Hi captain cojones.

 

Don't work like that, he wasn't selling, not charged with selling illegally, seperate rules in place for that with huge fines. I haven't heard of any charter boat doing so, he had a film crew on the stern at the time, filming. However the sfc officer considered the boat was in breach of the by-law set in place to protect the fish stocks from larger vessels.

 

Big Cod, i think most of the sfc have some sort of legislation in place to prevent the big boys from coming inside 6 mile. Two sfc's have an amended by-law's to target the by-law exactly to where it is intended, i.e. commercial fishing vessels, excluding charter angling boats, again however one or two interpret the by-law to include angling boats.

 

After April, i believe the new sfc's will re write the rule books and quite possibly this issue will be looked at from a more practical, sensible and common sence point of view.

 

If the judge decides against the sfc case it would put the whole of the by-law at risk, however again, as it is all changing in April, that could appear to be the way forward. Very interesting this will be.

 

Barry we have a bylaw here if you are over 60ft you have to stay aback of 6 mile that only includes boats which are fishing commercially and have numbers up if you are angling it does not apply we had a quite few years ago where we had 90ft boats towing along the 3 mile taking massive hauls of cod so through pressure from the local fishermen the 6 mile bylaw was introduced but it did not include angling boats it would have been absolute madness.

 

paul.

Edited February 6, 2011 by big_cod

[Bob Shotter]

Background on this case can be found here >>>>>

 

http://www.rodbenders.net/index_files/Reports3.htm

[barry luxton]

The way that I understand it is:

 

The SFC's are funded out of the rates (well there is money from the Government that goes to the Councils to help them fund such things).

 

Out of that funding levy on the respective councils each SFC will have a budget/fund to bring prosecutions.

 

If each prosecution is successful then cost will be minimised so the war-chest for bringing future prosecutions isn't diminished too much.

 

An unsuccessful prosecution means that the SFC's budget is diminished more, so less future prosecutions can be bought.

 

For this reason most SFCs will want to be very sure of succes before bringing a prosecution, and will prefer to work by giving 'friendly warnings' in all but the most serious cases/repeat offendings despite warnings.

 

So, if they are unsuccessful in this, there will be no extra charge on the ratepayer, but the SFC's ability to enforce will be diminished, which may impact on the health of the fishery that it is there to protect.

 

 

Evening Leon, any idea how many prosecutions where they involved with last year, commercially and rsa angling boats. That would be interesting. Unfortunately their web site ain't been updated since 06 so us normal guys can't get that sort of info. Perhaps they need a new clerk. Blokes name is Carrier i believe.

 

Is this case classed as serious then Leon, as i can't really see much damage being done to the stock by such a large angling vessel as this one, while filming?

[Leon Roskilly]

Hi Barry,

 

SFCs (like the IFCAs that will replace them) are public statutory bodies and should be operating with transparancy.

 

The 'public' are able to attend meetings (and perhaps be allowed to address the committee) and to mix with members afterwards. Minutes and other public documents (such as, and especially the fishery officers' reports to the committee) are there for anyone to obtain simply by asking (some SFCs even have their minutes etc published online!).

 

However, because the public gallery is usually pretty empty, and few people ask to be sent documents etc, there has been a tendency in the past to forget that they are accountable outside of those who participate, and those that the officers are involved with on a day to day basis.

 

Hopefully that will change with a move to the IFCAs, and (if there is the demand) all documents will be available on their websites, and IFCAs will do a lot more in the way of informing the wider community about their work (both things I'm keen to see happen).

 

With increased powers, and increased responsibilies that may very well affect anglers, and being the principle body responsible for the health of the marine ecosystems and the sustainability of both commercial and recreational fisheries in their district, it would be good to see more anglers taking a closer interest in the affairs and actions taken by the new IFCAs, rather than demonstrating disinterest by leaving them to get on with it.

 

 

 

 

Try asking them directly Barry. Or better still, go and talk to them.

Edited February 5, 2011 by Leon Roskilly