A Question about the Defra Bass Consultation

[FishingGuernsey]

IMO, any effort to help is better than no effort at all. Everything has to start somewhere and though as several people have pointed out there are some "holes" in the consultation paper, it will still be a forward advance for species protection.

[FishingGuernsey]

But this is the case already for bass fishing in Cornwall 37,5 and for other species, not to mention the higher MLS and other conservation measures in neighbour country Ireland. So should we give up any possibility to introduce local management schemes for any species and leave it all to EU?

 

Hmmm. Leave something to the EU??

[Brian Carragher]

Wheres this local management plan?

The BMP in its purest form may be a good local management plan but that is not what it is about. It is a national plan to be imposed nationally without local negotiation and without any input from the SFC's

[stavey]

Wheres this local management plan?

The BMP in its purest form may be a good local management plan but that is not what it is about. It is a national plan to be imposed nationally without local negotiation and without any input from the SFC's

 

Good! as we all know how benign the sfc's are to commercials brian.

Edited February 7, 2006 by stavey

[Brian Carragher]

Would you like to give us all the benefit of your wide knowledge and expertise and name which of our SFC's are as you say , bent

[Leon Roskilly]

Wheres this local management plan?

The BMP in its purest form may be a good local management plan but that is not what it is about. It is a national plan to be imposed nationally without local negotiation and without any input from the SFC's

 

 

That's funy, I've seen several responses to the MLS consultation (which is the first Phase of the BMP) that have been prepared by Sea Fisheries Committees, and heard of the gist of several more, in fact I attended my local SFC meeting when the response was formulated and discussed.

 

The Association of Sea Fisheries Committees has also submitted a response.

 

The BMP is a document, which is in essence a number of complementary suggestions that have been presented by BASS to DEFRA for consideration and consultation with all stakeholders.

 

Following the recommendation in the Net Benefits report that the case for making BASS a wholly recreational speies should be looked at, BASS was asked by DEFRA to produce a document setting out what BASS wanted.

 

They gave their views in what is now known as the BMP. (Unfortunately perhaps, rather than pushing for wholly recreational status, and negotiating down from that position, they sought at the outset to produce a suggestion that also encompassed the interests of the catching sector - I've never seen that kind of consideration towards RSA embedded in any suggestions to DEFRA made by the catching sector! )

 

They were never asked, or resourced to carry out a national consultation with all other stakeholder organisations before delivering their views to DEFRA.

 

That is what DEFRA are now doing.

 

That's their job, not the job of BASS which is an organisation of and for BASS anglers.

Edited February 7, 2006 by Leon Roskilly

[Rapala]

But this is the case already for bass fishing in Cornwall 37,5 and for other species, not to mention the higher MLS and other conservation measures in neighbour country Ireland. So should we give up any possibility to introduce local management schemes for any species and leave it all to EU?

 

Didnt the scientists say 37,5 is too small to be sustainable? 37.5 may be a step the right way but nowhere near far enough. The way I understand it I believe part of the BMP strategy is to push for the same restrictions to be adopted in EU states, thats why I wrote to my MP.

I can sympathise with some of you commercials who feel at this stage the BMP is giving unfair advantage to the French, but isnt the plan to get them sorted in due course. Two wrongs dont make a right and if the BMP is the right most sensible way to protect and improve the resource - more valuable fish for commercials and more and bigger bass for anglers then why oppose it?

Is it a temporary reduction of revenue thing?

Or a total loss of revenue thing?

Or are the scientists just plain wrong?

 

Its got to start somewhere, get our own house in order then move it to the EU. Good plan?...Or just good in theory? With our commercials dead set against it theres no chance of getting the French to back it - didnt I read somewhere since joining the EU they havent paid a single euro in fishing fines.

I dont care for the French very much.

 

I know its a very far fetched thought but if they adopted similar measures first would our commercials be more supportive?

[Leon Roskilly]

Would you like to give us all the benefit of your wide knowledge and expertise and name which of our SFC's are as you say , bent

 

 

Some concerns about the way that SFCs are constituted and operate are document here:

 

http://www.anglers-net.co.uk/sacn/latest/index.php?view=489

 

Certainly the SFC responses to the bass mls consultation that I've had sight of, and heard of, are pretty consistent with the views expressed in the Josh Eagle Report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The MLS consultation, and supporting draft legislation, has been drawn up by DEFRA.

 

If any part is unclear, or needs further explanation, it is perhaps more sensible to call, or write to, the DEFRA team dealing with the consultation.

 

Opinions expressed on here may be miles off the mark (unthinkable!) and serving to confuse, more than illuminate.

Edited February 7, 2006 by Leon Roskilly

[Brian Carragher]

So the BMP is presented to Defra and they are told that the BMP is what the supporters of it would like to be implemented.

 

Defra contact the SFC's and inform them of the proposed document and its contents.

 

The various SFC's throughout the country respond to that in various ways, some will support the majority of the plan, some will oppose the majority of the plan, all will comment on the BMP on how it will impact on the area of their SFC and how they would prefer to be the masters of their own destiny and produce local law as applicable to local conditions.

 

The supporters of the BMP want the plan adopted nationally and they want Defra to do that.

 

Now just suppose that happens, is that consultation and an ability of local CFC's to determine local law or an imposition of national law overriding local opinion. Local opinion would not be taken into account in that situation so where is the give and take in local negotions in that, none I would contend, so in that respect I stand by my thought that this is a national plan to be imlemented over the heads of the SFC's and that in that case consultation is meaningless.

 

As to the running of the SFC's , I have read the link, I read it when you first published it and nothing in there says anything about corruption or about CFC's being bent. If you or anyone has any information to back up those allegations then please publish it or withdraw those allegations.

 

Strange is'nt it how the person who made the allegation of SFC's being bent can't substansiate them

[Leon Roskilly]

So the BMP is presented to Defra and they are told that the BMP is what the supporters of it would like to be implemented.

 

Defra contact the SFC's and inform them of the proposed document and its contents.

 

Brian,

 

The BMP is a 'menu' of suggested complementary management tools that BASS consider can be used to achieve the objective of more and bigger bass, both for anglers and those in the catching sector.

 

It is recognised, and stressed in talks that not all of the recommendations in the BMP need to be adopted to produce the desired outcome.

 

DEFRA have consulted with their advisors on what measures, both within the document, and what other ideas are propogated to achieve the objective.

 

And it is DEFRA that decide what measures go for consultation.

 

So, it is not 'the BMP' which is being implemented, but measures, some of which are suggested in the BMP, that are being promoted by DEFRA to achieve a better balance between the interests of both the RSA and catching sectors.

 

And all stakeholders are able to give their views into the subsequent consultation, when the measures being put forward by DEFRA may be scrapped, amended or added to before the Minister makes a final decision.

 

But you are right in that the measures that go forward to be implemented, perhaps requiring legislation, will be implemented nationally.

 

The Sea Fisheries Committees have the ability to frame and enforce local byelaws, up to 6 miles out (which have to be approved by DEFRA).

 

Such byleaws can put in place restrictions on activities that are greater, not lesser, than those required by both the EU and DEFRA (DEFRA can place regulations applicable within 12 miles and on British Boats wherever they fish that are as least as restrictive as EU legislation)

 

So the current EU mls for bass is 36cm

 

Perhaps the new DEFRA mls will be 45cm, it must be at least 36cm or greater.

 

The SFC's will be able to impose a greater mls within their area if they so wish (but not a lesser)

 

That's the way it has always been

 

There are many EU and DEFRA fishery regulations that apply all around our coast, aimed at conserving the EU or UK stocks, with the SFCs able to apply even more restrictive measures if needed locally.

 

The DEFRA proposals originating from the BMP are no different.

Edited February 7, 2006 by Leon Roskilly