A bit of critisism where critisism's due.

[Steve Coppolo]

The single most important decision made about the sport of sea angling was announced four days and 12 hours ago, ish. Ben Bradshaw decided that sea anglers needs were not that important. He decided that the livelihoods of those who earn their wages and support their families through sea angling weren’t that important. But most of all he decided that Bass, the UK’s premier sportfish, weren’t that important either. Instead of deciding to implement the 45cm MLS that would have ensured a sustainable Bass fishery, he wimped out, ignored the science and opted for a 40cm MLS instead, in the hope that the fishery might be able to sustain itself. A total cop out that benefits no one.

 

Now about four days and ten hours ago, a certain Mr Trebilcock responded with a press release on behalf of the commercial fishermen he represents. He made it clear that he was far from happy, and who can blame him? He criticised the decision and he criticised the minister, reflecting the views of those that he represents. Anyone reading his press release would be in no doubt about his stance on the Bass MLS.

 

About the same time a certain Mr Salter also released a statement to the press. His was slightly different to Mr Trebilcocks one. Mr Salter thinks that the minister did a wonderful job of deciding what was best for sea anglers, commercial fishermen and the Bass stocks. (I must admit, if Mr Salter is right it would have been no mean feat for Ben Bradshaw seeing as no one knows how many Bass there are or how much commercial pressure they are under).

 

Meanwhile, four days, twelve hours and thirty minutes later, the NFSA, (sea anglings representative body as recognised by the government), have responded with………………nothing. That’s right, absolutely nothing. Zilch, nought nought f*** all! There have been a few mumblings about how anglers only have themselves to blame for not responding to the consultation, but no official press release yet. I wonder why that is? Is it because the NFSA can’t make their mind up whether it’s a good deal or a bad one? Didn’t they know beforehand what would and wouldn’t have been acceptable? Did they even know what they wanted? I have to wonder.

 

As for anglers being to blame for the bad result, (yes NFSA it was a bad result), how much more out of touch can they be? I think 2500 responses from anglers was good. Maybe 25,000 would have been better, as has been suggested, but we wouldn’t have got a decision until at least 2008. If working out how to ignore 2500 responses gave DEFRA a major headache, 25,000 doesn’t even bear thinking about. The NFSA say that there are 1,000,000 anglers out there. There probably are, or something like it. But to assume that they all belong to clubs, or all buy monthly magazines, or all visit internet forums, is ridiculous. The percentage of anglers who even knew about the Bass MLS consultation must be small. So I still say 2500 responses was bloody good going. If the NFSA think they need 25,000 responses in order to achieve anything worthwhile, then they really need to start looking at their strategy a bit closer.

 

If anyone within the NFSA wonders why they struggle so much to attract members, the above might give them an idea.

Edited August 14, 2006 by Steve Coppolo

[sam-cox]

I think the product (the bass managment plan) was miss-sold by the NFSA.

I also think that at least some of the people in the front line, the same people who talked to Ben Bradshaw at the ANGLING SUMIT ( or should I say frowned and shook their heads) are not real bass anglers. They do not eat, sleep, dream and ruddy sh*t bass. They are adicted to the campaign like a junky to his fix. These people should be people that can ask and answer any questions without any notes, it should be all in their heads already. But I think any one of that ilk would be concidered to passionate or prone to out bursts so would not be made to feel welcome.

 

 

But then who am I to have an opinion, well I will tell you whoo I am Im just a ruddy bass angler thats all.

[skippytheroo]

Dont know why but reading this made me think of speakers corner in Hyde Park..... and I admit I chuckled a little

[Davy Holt]

I also think that at least some of the people in the front line, the same people who talked to Ben Bradshaw at the ANGLING SUMIT ( or should I say frowned and shook their heads) are not real bass anglers. They do not eat, sleep, dream and ruddy sh*t bass. They are adicted to the campaign like a junky to his fix. These people should be people that can ask and answer any questions without any notes, it should be all in their heads already. But I think any one of that ilk would be concidered to passionate or prone to out bursts so would not be made to feel welcome.

 

And for a good reason Sam, as it has been shown very clearly over the last few months on this forum, you can not reason or get a balanced dialogue with fanatics... it's like the proverbial

 

The people in the front line have all the anglers interests to keep in mind, not just those of a select group. So they have to act accordingly on these types of issues.

[Guest CJS2]

And for a good reason Sam, as it has been shown very clearly over the last few months on this forum, you can not reason or get a balanced dialogue with fanatics... it's like the proverbial

 

The people in the front line have all the anglers interests to keep in mind, not just those of a select group. So they have to act accordingly on these types of issues.

 

 

In part I agree with Davy, not sure whether the 'front line, best interest' is quite right, perhaps 'misguided' is a better description, appreciating the breading maturity of bass? A better fens sitting size might have been 42cm, with an appropriate net mesh adjustment? But that wont suit the commercial interests any more than 40cm does. But equally, would it have don any more damage?

 

I have mulled over the 'game fishing tag that has been pined on to bass like a donkeys tail? Frankly, in financial term I dont think there would be much to be had as a whole, you cant eat 'cu-dos', 'exclusivity' or 'snob factor', and thats where it could so easily lead. Very expensive estuary fisheries with licenses to match, and an added rarity value along the lines of salmon and sea trout, then we would really be stuffed, not being able to afford the fees?

 

However, back to reality, there is an obvious hardcore of bass anglers, 2500? cut that in half to allow for coercion! Hyde Park, soap boxes, fanatics, anoraks, there is some truth in there somewhere. One million sea anglers, yeah I have spent a lot of time on charter boats with a representative percentage of these so called anglers. They have not got much idea, and as for size, especial on bass there is always argument as to what is a keeper! We have all seen, and many have commented in this forum about the 'score of lug' beach and pier so called angler, but in the numbers game they all count!

 

Facts are facts, decanted down, most dedicated anglers fish to catch fish, a bass comes along, thats a bonus. Therefore the best efforts would be to fight the corner of our fish stocks in general, one could harp back to the 'Trawler-man' program, but thats been don to death. Get some protection for sustainability of general stocks and we 'all' benefit. Then the 'bleating' about more replies may just be justified.

 

You are right Steve, 2,500 signatures was good for the minority interest in bass fishing to the exclusion of almost all others

 

Edited August 15, 2006 by CJS2

[Fastd]

Well said Davy.

 

Sam.

 

The people at the summit may not have been by your definition "real bass anglers", nor were they highly paid lobbyist or experts with letters after their names but what they were is "real anglers" who had made it possible for the summit to take place in the first place by their dedication to angling as a whole.

 

The NFSA have a large membership to represent and not all would agree that bass are the finest sporting fish as quite a high proportion have probably never caught one. Surely its not unreasonable for the NFSA to get some kind of feedback from the membership before issuing a press release, because after all they represent those same members. It would be very easy if option two had been adopted without change but as it wasn't it must take time to analise the outcome before issuing any kind of statement on behalf of a varied membership.

 

It will be interesting to see if anyone from the NFSA comments on this thread.

 

Just looking through the BASS website and I see no mention there of letters of condemnation to Mr Bradshaw. Statements along the lines of "its not what we wanted but its a step in the right direction" seem to be the order of the day. I guess thats because they are also "not real bass anglers".

 

Dave

[seaside]

I think the product (the bass managment plan) was miss-sold by the NFSA.

I also think that at least some of the people in the front line, the same people who talked to Ben Bradshaw at the ANGLING SUMIT ( or should I say frowned and shook their heads) are not real bass anglers. They do not eat, sleep, dream and ruddy sh*t bass. They are adicted to the campaign like a junky to his fix. These people should be people that can ask and answer any questions without any notes, it should be all in their heads already. But I think any one of that ilk would be concidered to passionate or prone to out bursts so would not be made to feel welcome.

But then who am I to have an opinion, well I will tell you whoo I am Im just a ruddy bass angler thats all.

 

All anglers were asked to support the Bass MLS activity, irrespective of the fact that the vast majority of sea anglers don't see much, if anything, of Bass themselves. The whole activity, like the angling summit, was supposed to be seen as the beginning of a wider process aimed at a broader range of species and activities.

 

For those non-Bass 'junkies' who did gave their support, all they've seen is the debate descend into a vitriolic slanging match which will do no good for the perception of RSA, nor will the excessive personal attacks help create a groundswell of support from uncommitted anglers for any future proposals.

 

Sam, this is not a personal attack, but you have an incredible ability to rant at others, though I've not yet seen you take any positive action. Obviously you feel that you or your dad would be a better figurehead, so why don't you set up your own focus group, say - Sams Federation of sleeping/eating/sh**ting Bass Anglers and see what support you can gather to drive your agenda.

Edited August 15, 2006 by seaside

[Norm B]

The single most important decision made about the sport of sea angling was announced four days and 12 hours ago, ish. Ben Bradshaw decided that sea anglers needs were not that important. He decided that the livelihoods of those who earn their wages and support their families through sea angling weren’t that important. But most of all he decided that Bass, the UK’s premier sportfish, weren’t that important either. Instead of deciding to implement the 45cm MLS that would have ensured a sustainable Bass fishery, he wimped out, ignored the science and opted for a 40cm MLS instead, in the hope that the fishery might be able to sustain itself. A total cop out that benefits no one.

 

Now about four days and ten hours ago, a certain Mr Trebilcock responded with a press release on behalf of the commercial fishermen he represents. He made it clear that he was far from happy, and who can blame him? He criticised the decision and he criticised the minister, reflecting the views of those that he represents. Anyone reading his press release would be in no doubt about his stance on the Bass MLS.

 

About the same time a certain Mr Salter also released a statement to the press. His was slightly different to Mr Trebilcocks one. Mr Salter thinks that the minister did a wonderful job of deciding what was best for sea anglers, commercial fishermen and the Bass stocks. (I must admit, if Mr Salter is right it would have been no mean feat for Ben Bradshaw seeing as no one knows how many Bass there are or how much commercial pressure they are under).

 

Meanwhile, four days, twelve hours and thirty minutes later, the NFSA, (sea anglings representative body as recognised by the government), have responded with………………nothing. That’s right, absolutely nothing. Zilch, nought nought f*** all! There have been a few mumblings about how anglers only have themselves to blame for not responding to the consultation, but no official press release yet. I wonder why that is? Is it because the NFSA can’t make their mind up whether it’s a good deal or a bad one? Didn’t they know beforehand what would and wouldn’t have been acceptable? Did they even know what they wanted? I have to wonder.

 

As for anglers being to blame for the bad result, (yes NFSA it was a bad result), how much more out of touch can they be? I think 2500 responses from anglers was good. Maybe 25,000 would have been better, as has been suggested, but we wouldn’t have got a decision until at least 2008. If working out how to ignore 2500 responses gave DEFRA a major headache, 25,000 doesn’t even bear thinking about. The NFSA say that there are 1,000,000 anglers out there. There probably are, or something like it. But to assume that they all belong to clubs, or all buy monthly magazines, or all visit internet forums, is ridiculous. The percentage of anglers who even knew about the Bass MLS consultation must be small. So I still say 2500 responses was bloody good going. If the NFSA think they need 25,000 responses in order to achieve anything worthwhile, then they really need to start looking at their strategy a bit closer.

 

If anyone within the NFSA wonders why they struggle so much to attract members, the above might give them an idea.

I supported the BMP, not because I'm a bass angler or a member of BASS but because I realised that if the BMP was adopted it would also benefit other fish and anglers alike. I catch quite a few bass but most go back because I don't rate them highly as an eating fish, so once you've caught them, take the picture and put them back is my attitude. Bass provide a lot of pleasure for quite a large minority of anglers, not just BASS members. Plugging, spinning, livebaiting, deadbaiting, they are all various ways to catch these fish and they are fairly easy to catch, hence their popularity with anglers and of course a lot are caught by accident while fishing for other species and are a welcome bonus. I think the NFSA's attitude to the 40cm limit is, "well we've got something so let's not rock the boat". The NFSA is not a proactive, confrontational body so don't expect letters like Mr Trebilcocks, more like a statement "that while the outcome is not exactly what they wanted, they're glad to have something and will work towards a larger size limit in the future".

[Leon Roskilly]

Interesting that there has been no comment on the SACN statement.

[Norm B]

Interesting that there has been no comment on the SACN statement.

Didn't see it Leon, I must've missed it. Sorry.