French to increase bass MLS?

[Leon Roskilly]

Good news about another summit Leon, though I would still like to see one solely for sea angling and it would have been better to have it as an annual event.

 

 

As a coarse/game/sea-angler I'm happy with the tradition established over many years for such summits to be multi-discipline.

 

Anglers need to stick together and work together whatever we fish for, wherever we fish, however we fish.

 

As soon as we let them start seperating us into 'secular' groups our strong voice is lost.

 

 

Would you support summits for bass anglers only, with other summits for pike and for roach anglers?

 

 

(Once issues have been defined, then working groups are usually formed to progress (say) sea-angling issues / freshwater predation issues etc with DEFRA officials, and occasionally through meetings with the minister and his officials).

Edited February 3, 2012 by Leon Roskilly

[Bob Shotter]

As a coarse/game/sea-angler I'm happy with the tradition established over many years for such summits to be multi-discipline.

 

Anglers need to stick together and work together whatever we fish for, wherever we fish, however we fish.

 

As soon as we let them start seperating us into 'secular' groups our strong voice is lost.

 

 

Would you support summits for bass anglers only, with other summits for pike and for roach anglers?

 

 

(Once issues have been defined, then working groups are usually formed to progress (say) sea-angling issues / freshwater predation issues etc with DEFRA officials, and occasionally through meetings with the minister and his officials).

 

 

As for my idea of a sea angling summit I didn’t mean instead of the full on meeting of all disciplines Leon far from it.

 

I found last year’s get together very useful but like many of the delegates felt we may have gotten more from the two sectors having a separate day conference as well as the full angling summit.

 

There is a vast difference between the disciplines and sea angling seems to get left out primarily because it is unregulated, none the less we still pay vat on everything angling and it is about time government recognised that.

[Leon Roskilly]

There is a vast difference between the disciplines and sea angling seems to get left out primarily because it is unregulated, none the less we still pay vat on everything angling and it is about time government recognised that.

 

As a practioner of all three disciplines I would say that they have far more in common than individual differences (and I constantly find that techniques I learn are transferable, improving my catch-rate when used to overcome problems and improve presentation etc., from one discipline to another).

 

And I find that I'm by no means alone in fishing more than one discipline. (The crew I boat fish with regularly spend as much time talking about fly-fishing for pike say as they do discussing spring tactics for thornbacks).

 

 

 

I did tell Benyon that as both a coarse and game angler I was much happier than as a sea-angler, who it seemed were constantly being led up long blind-alleys by DEFRA then abandoned without delivery of anything of significance.

 

And that I hoped that that Substance's involvment in Sea Angling 2012 would be a game changer, showing the importance of the RSA sector, much as the 'Fishing for Answers report' does for angling as a whole.

 

( http://resources.anglingresearch.org.uk/pr...nal_report_2012 Well worth reading!)

 

Incidentally the AT was very well represented at the conference (Mark Lloyd also raised a question with the minister about the management of sea-fish stocks), as well as many game and coarse fishing interests.

 

It's a shame that there weren't more sea-anglers/sea-angling organisations there, which itself must send out a particular message to the minister and DEFRA officials who also attended.

 

I suspect it's nothing to do with sea-angling being 'unregulated', rather more a failure of sea-anglers to engage.

 

However, I believe that too is changing at an increasing rate.

 

But then again it needs to, and sooner rather than later.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Leon Roskilly

[barry luxton]

As a coarse/game/sea-angler I'm happy with the tradition established over many years for such summits to be multi-discipline.

 

Anglers need to stick together and work together whatever we fish for, wherever we fish, however we fish.

 

As soon as we let them start seperating us into 'secular' groups our strong voice is lost.

 

 

Would you support summits for bass anglers only, with other summits for pike and for roach anglers?

 

 

(Once issues have been defined, then working groups are usually formed to progress (say) sea-angling issues / freshwater predation issues etc with DEFRA officials, and occasionally through meetings with the minister and his officials).

 

Sounds like a good weeze, according to the likes of the angling trust and the comment that there are now 3000 individual sea anglers on it's books, yet how many sea angling reps, is Mr Mitchell now a full rep for the rsa or is he still being paid in part by a conservation org, who have their own agendas. Anyway, 3000 x 25 = £75000, not including how many clubs subscriptions, nice little earner for at least two full time sea reps. I remember one of the trusts sayings more members = more representation.

[barry luxton]

As a practioner of all three disciplines I would say that they have far more in common than individual differences (and I constantly find that techniques I learn are transferable, improving my catch-rate when used to overcome problems and improve presentation etc., from one discipline to another).

 

And I find that I'm by no means alone in fishing more than one discipline. (The crew I boat fish with regularly spend as much time talking about fly-fishing for pike say as they do discussing spring tactics for thornbacks).

 

 

 

I did tell Benyon that as both a coarse and game angler I was much happier than as a sea-angler, who it seemed were constantly being led up long blind-alleys by DEFRA then abandoned without delivery of anything of significance.

 

And that I hoped that that Substance's involvment in Sea Angling 2012 would be a game changer, showing the importance of the RSA sector, much as the 'Fishing for Answers report' does for angling as a whole.

 

( http://resources.anglingresearch.org.uk/pr...nal_report_2012 Well worth reading!)

 

Incidentally the AT was very well represented at the conference (Mark Lloyd also raised a question with the minister about the management of sea-fish stocks), as well as many game and coarse fishing interests.

 

It's a shame that there weren't more sea-anglers/sea-angling organisations there, which itself must send out a particular message to the minister and DEFRA officials who also attended.

 

I suspect it's nothing to do with sea-angling being 'unregulated', rather more a failure of sea-anglers to engage.

 

However, I believe that too is changing at an increasing rate.

 

But then again it needs to, and sooner rather than later.

 

Your post portrays the sea angler as apathetic, head in the sand, etc etc. Don't you consider that there was and is good reason why.

 

You intimate blind alleys, i liken that with their typical wastfull management paperwork that makes their jobs, carreers and expences go around and around.

 

Don't you think that the trust has had something to do with anglers not engaging, even today their policy appears to be very little released unless it's been santised. No hot news, nothing pre-emptive and no engagement or avenue of engagement with the rsa apart from retrospectivily. Getting anything of note or agendas (eel, tope) out of the trust is like pulling hens teeth. Your last line, are you aware of management threats that are heading the rsa's way then?

[Leon Roskilly]

Don't you think that the trust has had something to do with anglers not engaging

 

 

Nope, the Angling Trust is fairly new on the scene, and hasn't (yet) had much effect on the engagement of sea-anglers, which remains largely as it always has been.

 

(A good (but tired) attempt at an excuse though Barry, but it doesn't really wash).

 

 

... are you aware of management threats that are heading the rsa's way then?

 

 

'Management threats'?

 

 

Hmmmm! depends upon what you define as a 'management threat' I suppose, and I guess everyone will have a slightly different view on that one.

 

 

It's the nature of things that nothing ever stays the same, and all change (and reaction to change) has potentially good and bad consequences, and the same 'change' or consequence of change could be good or bad for certain groups (what may be welcome to one group, might very well be dreaded by another).

 

 

Plenty of change coming, along with both threats and opportunities, depending upon your viewpoint.

 

 

There will be those ahead of the curve recognising and attempting to direct the consequences of those changes (and sometimes initiating change), both good and bad, and those who wait until it's all been all but settled and feel they are victims.

 

It would seem that sea-anglers have less in the first camp, and more in the second than other angling disciplines, and as a community will fare less well.

 

Just my own personal opinion BTW.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Leon Roskilly

[Worms]

Nope, the Angling Trust is fairly new on the scene, and hasn't (yet) had much effect on the engagement of sea-anglers, which remains largely as it always has been.

 

Probably because they don't actively try to engage sea anglers Leon. As you are aware, they're not exactly pro-active as regards engagement with the 'rank and file'. I know that sea anglers can be rather distrusting of 'official' bodies but the AT have been rather uninspiring in their dealings with anglers (of all disciplines) and Mark Lloyd's refusal to discuss the most basic points with any anglers has put an awful lot of people off.

 

The AT's seeming 'we will dictate what we want to happen without consultation with our membership' attitude needs to change before anglers will see them as a viable organisation.

 

'Management threats'?

 

 

Hmmmm! depends upon what you define as a 'management threat' I suppose, and I guess everyone will have a slightly different view on that one.

 

 

It's the nature of things that nothing ever stays the same, and all change (and reaction to change) has potentially good and bad consequences, and the same 'change' or consequence of change could be good or bad for certain groups (what may be welcome to one group, might very well be dreaded by another).

 

 

Plenty of change coming, along with both threats and opportunities, depending upon your viewpoint.

 

 

There will be those ahead of the curve recognising and attempting to direct the consequences of those changes (and sometimes initiating change), both good and bad, and those who wait until it's all been all but settled and feel they are victims.

 

It would seem that sea-anglers have less in the first camp, and more in the second than other angling disciplines, and as a community will fare less well.

 

Just my own personal opinion BTW.

Just a shame that sea anglers can't get a representative organisation together that is prepared to engage in discussion with the powers that be....without such representation we will suffer restrictions, of that I'm sure. Benefits? well I'm not quite sure what we will receive, after all, restrictions at the moment are at a minimum so how could we receive any benefits?.....unless those benefits are restrictions that won't be as restrictive as they might have been!

[Bob Shotter]

There has been some very good points made here by you all and I must commend Leon for telling Richard about how badly sea angling has and is being treated by DEFRA. While the majority of sea anglers want nothing more than to be left alone and free from management/regulation as they always have been it must be remembered as I said before they do pay tax in pursuit of their pass time and should receive some benefit from that.

 

As for ‘Substance’ being involved in Angling 2012 I could be wrong but I get the feeling that there might be a credibility issue in so far as they are lottery funded. My view is it might have been a much better idea for the social and economic side of Angling 2012 to have been carried out by ‘Substance’ as they had done so well previously with the reports provided at the Angling summit last year.

 

Frankly I will make no bones about it but I have a cynical view in that I see this 20 12 project as having been presented in a manner to get the data the government are duty bound to supply the EU by dressing up the collection to look as being of benefit to sea anglers when in truth it is anything but that.

 

Leon you go on to say it was a shame there weren’t more sea angling orgs present at this meeting, could that be because those present were there by selection as I have no idea what this meeting was or who called it etc. One thing I have learnt since getting into the representation world is there is a clear tendency to have yes men involved in committees and any one likely to rock the boat will get shown the door, however you acknowledge that things are starting to change and I agree the sooner the better.

 

Both Barry and Worms mention the Angling Trust and the funding side is quite interesting If and I do stress the word ‘IF’ the Trust has £75,000 subs from individual members and further funding for the involvement in the Angling Development Board as well as other payments to get things like regional committees set up, less what the ‘Fish Legal’ cost them how is it they are so poor that they need David Mitchells wages paid by the ‘Waterloo Foundation’ and Martin Salter funded by some sort of bereavement payment? Something doesn’t add up but that is my own personal view.

 

Having said that I also believe people look at the Angling Trust in the wrong light, they are a business that offers a service if you like what they offer you join them it really is that simple. If you want to be calling the shots then you join and org like RSA-UK and I can tell you hand on heart not many are that bothered.

[Worms]

Having said that I also believe people look at the Angling Trust in the wrong light, they are a business that offers a service if you like what they offer you join them it really is that simple. If you want to be calling the shots then you join and org like RSA-UK and I can tell you hand on heart not many are that bothered.

Bob, the reason sea anglers are not joining RSA-UK is because you have upset many and managed to get yourself removed from some of the important consultation meetings because of your attitude. The idea was great which is why I joined. You really need to hand it over to someone that can talk rationally and diplomatically if there's any hope of it succeeding. My fear now is that the mere mention of RSA-UK will cause people to turn away.

 

Sad but true.

[Bob Shotter]

Bob, the reason sea anglers are not joining RSA-UK is because you have upset many and managed to get yourself removed from some of the important consultation meetings because of your attitude. The idea was great which is why I joined. You really need to hand it over to someone that can talk rationally and diplomatically if there's any hope of it succeeding. My fear now is that the mere mention of RSA-UK will cause people to turn away.

 

Sad but true.

 

Nick let me be clear about a few things RSA-UK was removed from just one committee, the Cefas steering group because the org set out to derail Angling 2012 with the ‘Tell them Nothing’ campaign.

 

It has nothing to do with my attitude at meetings as I DO know how to behave at them, it might be more to do with the fact that I would not sign off the minutes of the first meeting that gave a completely false view of what happened but was the only one with the balls to say so, clearly Cefas knew our participation was not going to be the typical yes man attitude that they wanted. It was also obvious that had we not been removed then we would most defiantly have had to resign or be classed as supporting the data collection which we do not.

 

RSA-UK has remained active consulting with everyone from the minister down and right now has put some very serious points to both the MMO and Cefas.

 

If I have upset some of the misrepresentatives then you should realise I have achieved some of what we set the org up for and on that score I’m more than happy to be judged.

 

You are a premium member of the org and have not resigned to my knowledge and I have on numerous occasions asked you to put up or shut up and you seem content to do the latter even though I have made it quite clear that if the membership want me to stand aside for the benefit of sea angling then I would happily do so. There is a right way to address your criticism and that is to put your case to the members something I have been waiting for you to do for some time. Like you say ‘sad but true.’