A Question about the Defra Bass Consultation

[Jaffa]

There are any amount of organisations, no doubt representing every issue we can imagine, working away somewhere in the EU. But I've never heard of the ones you link too, despite hanging around this forum for a few years, reading the FN for 20 odd years on and off, and trying to keep up with "current affairs".

 

The fact that i have never heard of them may mean bugger all, but what makes you believe they are credible and can change anything?

[Leon Roskilly]

All I am saying is that I would put more of my money on these guys than on wurzel and his one-man attempt to address the EU via his local SFC.

 

 

See also:

 

 

http://ukbass.com/2005/11/very-successful-meeting.html

[steve good]

Not anti commercial per ce, but anti anti-MLS increasers, which happens to be all the commercials posting here on AN (plus a couple of anglers). I have urged commercials in favour of the mls increase to step forward and speak up here or in other public places but I haven't seen many. So either are all commercials against or they don't dare to step forward not to upset those very vocal commercials against the mls increase like steve.

 

Hi ff

 

Commercials are not for the increase because they know that the end result that you think will produced more larger bass will not happen

 

stev

[steve good]

FF, be interested to know who is going to do the lobbying for RSA's at EU level, and who is going to pay for it. Running a story to the UK media and government seems a world away from influencing the EU IMHO. I get no sense that anglers are signing up and paying for the creation of any such lobby?

Getting back to the original post: Am i to take it that, as far as you all understand, I have misunderstood, and none of the proposed measures will apply in Scotland, unless the Scottish parliament decides to apply them?

 

hi jaffa

 

as i understand it thats correct

 

steve

[Tom Pinborough]

the sfc that wurzel approached to increase the bass mls , proposed a 40cm mls and a mesh size of 100mm, after rejecting the stour and orwell rsa fishery proposal , in jan 05.

The same committee proposed a mls 0f 38cm and a mesh size of 100mm for the current bass mls consultation.

 

cheers

Tom

[steve good]

There is the European Anglers Alliance (EAA). A young organisation, 11 y.o. but on the move. Now they sit in the EU RACs. As I understand it they might do some on the bass issue soon if not already done. UK BASS is a member via NFSA. Two seabass resolutions have been agreed with the support from all peak bodies in 18 countries (6 million affiliated anglers), including the French sea anglers. The resolutions ask for 'A complete ban to prohibit all fishing during the reproduction period in all spawning areas of the species' and 'The priority should be to increase the landing size of bass to allow them to reach sexual maturity', which can only mean 45 cm at least (as not all female bass have spawned at 45 cm).

 

http://www.eaa-europe.org/2003/PFResolutio...2SeaBass-EN.htm

http://www.eaa-europe.org/2003/PFResolutio...1SeaBass-EN.htm

 

NFSA, Salmon & Trout and NFA are the UK members of the EAA. EAA doesn't operate with membership for individuals but organisations only. However, if individuals would like to support I am sure they can do so via the three said orgs.

 

hi ff

 

I believe your efforts regarding europe are laudable. However the only reason that anglers have done well with the uk government is because they stand to gain about £20,000,000 from the anglers.

 

europe is another matter, going up against the might of the french fisherman and there government will be like xissing in the wind. sorry europe will not happen

 

steve

[steve good]

In my opinion sea fisheries committees are outdated and need to be replaced with something else.

 

hi steve

 

sfc's do not need replacing but you are right they need up dating. They have never been given enough money to do the job right. There by laws take to long to go through, they can not resposned to change very quickly. The councillors should be removed.

 

steve

[stavey]

hi steve

 

sfc's do not need replacing but you are right they need up dating. They have never been given enough money to do the job right. There by laws take to long to go through, they can not resposned to change very quickly. The councillors should be removed.

 

steve

 

Hellow steve, i can agree with you on the councillors being removed for sure, you have to ask the question do they get payed for their services for sitting on these sfc? i think not? expences? maybe? so what would be their reason to do this? some might say oh they are helping to represent our local fishing community and to be seen doing so, to help to keep his or hers possition as a councillor what ever, i see them as puppets for the rest of the majorities committee members commercial fishermen and fish sellers who pull their strings,

 

These councillors should then be replaced by a much broader representation of marine stakeholders ie, rsa's commercials marine environmentalists etc, i am sure leon or steve can elaborate better?

at the moment steve you know this is not the case, and there is to much bias towards the fishing industry full stop in all 12 sfc's in this country........

[Leon Roskilly]

Hellow steve, i can agree with you on the councillors being removed for sure, you have to ask the question do they get payed for their services for sitting on these sfc? i think not? expences? maybe? so what would be their reason to do this? some might say oh they are helping to represent our local fishing community and to be seen doing so, to help to keep his or hers possition as a councillor what ever, i see them as puppets for the rest of the majorities committee members commercial fishermen and fish sellers who pull their strings,

 

These councillors should then be replaced by a much broader representation of marine stakeholders ie, rsa's commercials marine environmentalists etc, i am sure leon or steve can elaborate better?

at the moment steve you know this is not the case, and there is to much bias towards the fishing industry full stop in all 12 sfc's in this country........

 

 

The councillors are there because the work of the SFCs are financed by the County Councils and their function is (should be) to see that the ratepayers get benefit for ratpayers money spent, and the community as a whole gets maximum value from the management of local marine resources.

 

They also provide a degree of democratic accountability to local voters and ratepayers.

 

What tends to happen is that when councils are looking for councillors to sit on SFCs, those that stick their hands up tend to be those with connections to the catching sector (I have one councillor on my SFC that owns several fishing boats!)

 

(Perhaps local anglers, and angling related businesses should pay more attention as to how their councillors sitting on SFCs are representing their interests. Letters to the councillors themselves, their local parties, and the county council might open their eyes to the fact that, in many counties, they are supposed to be representing the interest of many more anglers than fishermen in their area, and many more tackle shops, angling charter boats and other businesses that service the needs of recreational anglers, than fishing boats)

 

 

When pressed, the SFCs will say that the job of SFCs is to look after the fishery, not the fishermen.

(It would be better if they were there to look after the marine reources firstly, and to ensure reasonable and sustainable access to those resources by stakeholders)

 

 

As well as the concillors, there are DEFRA appointees from the Environment Agency, English Nature and RSAs etc, although they tend to be massively outvoted by those representing catching sector interests, and councillors with an interest in the catching sector.

 

One peculiar point is that representatives should declare a personal or pecuniary (they stand to make/lose money) interest in any matters being discussed or voted upon, and could be committing an offence if they fail to make such a declaration or take part in any discussion or vote.

 

That has been used to try to gag recently appointed RSA representatives.

 

ie they shouldn't take part in any discussion or vote on any proposal to establish a recreational fishery, or the Bass Management Plan etc. (exactly why DEFRA have appointed anglers to SFCs - although the rules state that anyone sitting on the SFC should be mindful that they are there to look after the fishery as a whole and not to represent any particular interest).

 

 

But that in turn begs the question that almost anyone sitting around an SFC table would be excluded from talking about anything to do with fishing, and especially those with a pecunary interest!

 

The dust is still flying on that!

 

In any case, many of the issues affecting SFCs were the subject of a recent DEFRA consulatation on Inshore Enforcement and, although different people claim to have the inside track on what is going to happen about SFCs in future, different 'informed' people are telling different stories.

 

Meanwhile, everyone is holding their breath, awaiting an announcement from Bradshaw that seems to have been 'imminent' for months now.

Edited February 8, 2006 by Leon Roskilly

[Marine Bill]

Fisheries management in the UK is devolved. Scottish vessels would not be managed by English S.I.s in British territorial waters. It requires separate legislation by the Scottish Parliament.

 

As for SFC representation

Until last year the chairman (for some 8 years) of one SFC was a Vice president of the NFSA. That same SFC has as the chair a member forwarded by the Wildlife Trust.

 

A lot of frustration has built up within the RSA community, given time a much more affective dialogue will develop with SFCs. This is a samilar debate to that that occurred when Environmental organisations entered into proper dialogue with SFCs now they (through the LINK partnership) recommend SFCs are developed and given more powers as they recognise them as the most effective local magement authority.

 

Councillors are BOUND by legislation governing what they can and cannot vote for. They are democratically elected representatives. Mr Eagles report could have equally be applied to the representativeness of elected members on any number of Committees at all levels. Thats why we vote for or against them its called democracy. Although other methods of managment exist Democracy is genreally considered pretty good when compared to the alternatives.

 

If your local government is not representing you, you need to know why.

 

STAVEY ANY accusation of wrong doing by councillors should be referred to you local government members services deprtment. I assure you they will take it very seriously.

 

I guess I have spouted off so I should introduce myself as an angler (mostly Solent area) and a environmental charity professional.