Jump to content

Sussex council

SMOOTHOUND

By SMOOTHOUND
in Conservation & Politics

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 34
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

barry luxton Member

barry luxton

Posted
Posted
Nigel Farage MEP has posted on this over at WSF

 

http://www.worldseafishing.com/forums/show...479#post3403479

 

 

More from Nigel, bit of swearing so please be careful and it's not Nigel doing the swearing. :P

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEUIXZg6c-g...feature=related

Free to choose apart from the ones where the trust poked their nose in. Common eel. tope. Bass and sea bream. All restricted.


New for 2016 TAT are the main instigators for the demise of the u k bass charter boat industry, where they went screaming off to parliament and for the first time assisting so called angling gurus set up bass take bans with the e u using rubbish exaggerated info collected by ices from anglers, they must be very proud.

Upgrade, the door has been closed with regards to anglers being linked to the e u superstate and the failed c f p. So TAT will no longer need to pay monies to the EAA anymore as that org is no longer relevant to the u k . Goodbye to the europeon anglers alliance and pathetic restrictions from the e u.

Angling is better than politics, ban politics from angling.

Consumer of bass. where is the evidence that the u k bass stock need angling trust protection. Why won't you work with your peers instead of castigating them. They have the answer.

Recipie's for mullet stew more than welcomed.

Angling sanitation trust and kent and sussex sea anglers org delete's and blocks rsa's alternative opinion on their face book site. Although they claim to rep all.

new for 2014. where is the evidence that the south coast bream stock need the angling trust? Your campaign has no evidence. Why won't you work with your peers, the inshore under tens? As opposed to alienating them? Angling trust failed big time re bait digging, even fish legal attempted to intervene and failed, all for what, nothing.

Looks like the sea angling reps have been coerced by the ifca's to compose sea angling strategy's that the ifca's at some stage will look at drafting into legislation to manage the rsa, because they like wasting tax payers money. That's without asking the rsa btw. You know who you are..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cranfield Member

Cranfield

Posted
Posted
I suppose everyone has a right to use the beach including swimmers, maybe a compromise maybe better, something is better than nothing, perhaps the byelaw should allow angling between 9 pm and 9 am or something on those lines

 

I agree entirely, we don't own the beaches.

This part of the Council's information says it all "(about 500m out of almost 5km)".

Lets not go rushing about tilting at windmills.

"I gotta go where its warm, I gotta fly to saint somewhere "

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Leon Roskilly Member

Leon Roskilly

Posted
Posted

email from Neil:

 

"We have 1,760 online signatures to date, plus the hard copies that continue to come in.

 

I am hopeful we will make 2,500 in all by 3rd June, but in the meantime we will present what we have to the council on Friday 27th May at 4.00 to 4.30 at the Town Hall in Bexhill.

 

The great thing about the online petition is that maybe 1,000 of the people have made comments. These count as consultation responses and have to be considered by the council.

 

I will pull these into a report anyway, but if you can please encourage folks to sign it and make a comment:

 

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/bexhill...ishing_bye-law/

 

It is the comments that really make the difference, so one last push through your contacts to ensure the council get the message would be very helpful - natasha.fielden@rother.gov.uk is the email address they should use.

 

Many thanks for your support and look out for the next stage of the campaign.

 

Best regards, Neil Smith

SSAN bloke in Bexhill"

 

 

http://www.ssan.webeden.co.uk

RNLI Shoreline Member

Member of the Angling Trust

Link to comment
Share on other sites
barry luxton Member

barry luxton

Posted
Posted
email from Neil:

Is Neil Smith supporting the rsa and charter boat bream angling ban?

Free to choose apart from the ones where the trust poked their nose in. Common eel. tope. Bass and sea bream. All restricted.


New for 2016 TAT are the main instigators for the demise of the u k bass charter boat industry, where they went screaming off to parliament and for the first time assisting so called angling gurus set up bass take bans with the e u using rubbish exaggerated info collected by ices from anglers, they must be very proud.

Upgrade, the door has been closed with regards to anglers being linked to the e u superstate and the failed c f p. So TAT will no longer need to pay monies to the EAA anymore as that org is no longer relevant to the u k . Goodbye to the europeon anglers alliance and pathetic restrictions from the e u.

Angling is better than politics, ban politics from angling.

Consumer of bass. where is the evidence that the u k bass stock need angling trust protection. Why won't you work with your peers instead of castigating them. They have the answer.

Recipie's for mullet stew more than welcomed.

Angling sanitation trust and kent and sussex sea anglers org delete's and blocks rsa's alternative opinion on their face book site. Although they claim to rep all.

new for 2014. where is the evidence that the south coast bream stock need the angling trust? Your campaign has no evidence. Why won't you work with your peers, the inshore under tens? As opposed to alienating them? Angling trust failed big time re bait digging, even fish legal attempted to intervene and failed, all for what, nothing.

Looks like the sea angling reps have been coerced by the ifca's to compose sea angling strategy's that the ifca's at some stage will look at drafting into legislation to manage the rsa, because they like wasting tax payers money. That's without asking the rsa btw. You know who you are..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chesters1 Member

chesters1

Posted
Posted (edited)
I agree entirely, we don't own the beaches.

This part of the Council's information says it all "(about 500m out of almost 5km)".

Lets not go rushing about tilting at windmills.

 

nor does the council ,they are in place to pander to us who do own them ,only private beaches have the power to ban this or that .

if the beach anglers dont like council decisions take it out on the councillors their addresses are out there somewhere

the council have banned fishing in the river and they know i will tell their stooges to f off if they try to stop me ,one councillor 4 doors away is very aware of my objections to their petty show of power

Edited by chesters1

Believe NOTHING anyones says or writes unless you witness it yourself and even then your eyes can deceive you

None of this "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" crap it just means i have at least two enemies!

 

There is only one opinion i listen to ,its mine and its ALWAYS right even when its wrong

 

Its far easier to curse the darkness than light one candle

 

Mathew 4:19

Grangers law : anything i say will  turn out the opposite or not happen at all!

Life insurance? you wont enjoy a penny!

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." Thomas Jefferson

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cranfield Member

Cranfield

Posted
Posted

I admit to not knowing the specific ownership of the beaches in question, but I am quite sure the Council have "stewardship" responsibilities for them, at least the bits above the high water mark.

 

If the Council are concerned about the real risks of injuries with swimmers, sunbathers, mingled among sea anglers, then they have a responsibility to do something about it.

Not a lot different than having no go areas buoyed off from recreational sea craft.

 

I am quick to protect our "rights", but common sense has to play a part sometimes.

 

Its selfish , pointless protests like this that really make me wonder about the motivation of angling representative bodies.

"I gotta go where its warm, I gotta fly to saint somewhere "

Link to comment
Share on other sites
barry luxton Member

barry luxton

Posted
Posted (edited)

These facts are what the council are proposing to ban angling with, there ain't any recorded problems caused by angling. These facts come straight from the horses mouth. P.s. they are also looking for a bait digging ban in two areas, again, no facts of problems encountered as bait digging did not even get a mention from the horses mouth. So yet again, by-laws are proposed based on assumption. Plenty of laws avalible for use regarding annoyance or assault on people and certainly laws avalible for littering as the councils are very good at dealing with the criminals who drop fag butts.

 

What these two lines also tell me is that they want by-laws in place because they can't be bothered or police the 'problem' any other way. In other words i can see the ex parking attendants, now enforcement officers, saying to little johnney, you can't bring that fishing rod onto the beach son as you will be fined. Called guilt by association as opposed to the non evidence of someone who has a hole in his head due to a non incident with a flying lead.

 

quote facts:

 

Due to the mobile nature of beach management and patrol it is not feasible or practical to record every incident involving fishermen, individuals or other group. There are, therefore, no official statistics available.

Edited by barry luxton

Free to choose apart from the ones where the trust poked their nose in. Common eel. tope. Bass and sea bream. All restricted.


New for 2016 TAT are the main instigators for the demise of the u k bass charter boat industry, where they went screaming off to parliament and for the first time assisting so called angling gurus set up bass take bans with the e u using rubbish exaggerated info collected by ices from anglers, they must be very proud.

Upgrade, the door has been closed with regards to anglers being linked to the e u superstate and the failed c f p. So TAT will no longer need to pay monies to the EAA anymore as that org is no longer relevant to the u k . Goodbye to the europeon anglers alliance and pathetic restrictions from the e u.

Angling is better than politics, ban politics from angling.

Consumer of bass. where is the evidence that the u k bass stock need angling trust protection. Why won't you work with your peers instead of castigating them. They have the answer.

Recipie's for mullet stew more than welcomed.

Angling sanitation trust and kent and sussex sea anglers org delete's and blocks rsa's alternative opinion on their face book site. Although they claim to rep all.

new for 2014. where is the evidence that the south coast bream stock need the angling trust? Your campaign has no evidence. Why won't you work with your peers, the inshore under tens? As opposed to alienating them? Angling trust failed big time re bait digging, even fish legal attempted to intervene and failed, all for what, nothing.

Looks like the sea angling reps have been coerced by the ifca's to compose sea angling strategy's that the ifca's at some stage will look at drafting into legislation to manage the rsa, because they like wasting tax payers money. That's without asking the rsa btw. You know who you are..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We and our partners use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences, repeat visits and to show you personalised advertisements. By clicking “I Agree”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit Cookie Settings to provide a controlled consent.

  I accept