Marine Protected Areas.

[Jaffa]

Thats is exactliy whow you anglers stuffed commercial fishermen over the mls for bass wont happen again and in any event if commercials get banned from fishing anywhere we will be pushing for anglers to be treated the same

abit two faced then are we, you are trying to stuff your so called commercial chum with the GOLDEN MILE and now you want him to hepl you to continue fishing up the creek tut tut what ever next commercials and anglers working together mmmh anglers said no never not possible, a few weeks is a long time in fisheries management, te he ha ha lol lol wink, wink know what i mean opppps just broke a rib laughing.

 

That is impressive stuff

[Steve Coppolo]

Thats is exactliy whow you anglers stuffed commercial fishermen over the mls for bass

 

Hi Steve

 

You commercials won the bass MLS thing from where I'm sitting!

 

Well O.K, there weren't any winners really, but I'd say we got stuffed more than you did.

[stavey]

Perhaps you could elaborate a bit ?

 

No need to jaffa steve g has done it for me

[steve good]

I was just looking through the SACN news and apparently there was quite an important meeting held recently regarding MPA's, (marine protected areas), and what impact they may have on sea anglers. I've taken a few paragraphs from the SACN site that have given me reason to be concerned.

 

SACN’s Leon Roskilly (who was also representing the National Federation of Sea Anglers Conservation Group at the conference) stressed that MPAs, by providing protection for the Marine Environment in ways that could not be achieved by other methods, could benefit Sea Anglers and the species that anglers are interested in.

 

However, it is also important to ensure that where restrictions on Recreational Sea Angling are proposed in any form (from restrictions on the angling methods employed to a ban on any form of extractive use), that these are shown to be absolutely necessary, and that all stakeholders, including individual sea anglers that would be impacted by a particular MPA, be included in consultations prior to their development.

 

Leon said “The concept of MPAs could receive a huge boost from the enthusiastic support of the over 1 million sea anglers who could be amongst those who would benefit from healthier and more productive seas, but unless their views are fully taken into account at an early stage of planning, and the potential benefits of an MPA properly explained, those affected might organise and mount an effective opposition against any restrictions on angling, making the whole process unnecessarily expensive and wasting precious resources that could be better utilised in creating and maintaining beneficial MPAs.”

 

My first concern is that we could end up with a situation where some of the best inshore fishing areas become MPA's, and anglers could be banned from fishing them. At the meeting it was decided that there would be a consultation period before anything is implemented.

 

My second concern is that if the consultation gives a choice of options it is possible that none of the options would be desirable for anglers. In other words, we could end up having to choose the option which is least damaging to our sport even if it isn't what we want, or opt out of the consultation and therefore not have any say at all. By choosing any of the options available we will be seen to be supporting the proposals, even if we don't agree with them.

 

The article also says that anglers should be involved in talks at an early stage. My third concern is that hardly anyone knew about this recent meeting, so what guarantee do we have that we will all be able to have our say before it is too late? Once the consultation starts it's too late for us to have any input on how it will be shaped, or how the options will be loaded.

 

That's why I think it's important to air this subject on the forums, to get the opinions of as many sea anglers as possible. You can bet that the commercial sector and SFC's will do their very best to make sure that anglers are included in any restrictions. If commercial fishing is banned in some areas, they will want angling banned too. This is too important an issue to pass through un-noticed, so what do you think?

 

Hi Steve

 

QUOTE / My second concern is that if the consultation gives a choice of options it is possible that none of the options would be desirable for anglers. In other words, we could end up having to choose the option which is least damaging to our sport even if it isn't what we want, or opt out of the consultation and therefore not have any say at all.

 

Just like whats happening to commercials with regard to the tope,smoothounds and stake and rays

 

S P GATHERGOOD

Commercial Fisherman

 

 

 

 

 

6 September 2006

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

 

Sussex Sea Fisheries Committee

Unit 6, Highdown House,

Shoreham Airport,

Shoreham-by-Sea

West Sussex

BN43 5PB

 

Dear Committee

 

RE: - The Elasmobranch Management Plan

 

The above consultation looks as though it has been written by anglers, just like the bass management plan with the same implications and same predetermined outcome.

 

I believe this consultation is only window dressing to give the appearance and impression that democracy has taken place, when in fact, it has not.

 

In my opinion I think the committee have already agreed that commercial fishermen will be banned from landing tope and smoothound, and it is the committee’s intention to allocate these two species to the blood sport anglers.

 

I see that the committee are undertaking this consultation as a precautionary measure, suffice to say it lacks any substantive scientific data and therefore the committee’s ability to make any beneficial improvements is therefore limited. Also, the committee will not be able to prove one way or the other if improvement in the fisheries has taken place.

 

It appears the reason for introducing what will be discriminatory and restrictive precautionary measures for commercial fishermen are solely based on the assumption of the decline in your landing figures, which is of course complete and utter rubbish. I believe that the committee are inventing a case to justify their preconceived plans.

 

An impartial, competent committee would know that the inadequate and unfair public sector quotas have significantly decreased the amount of vessels in this area, combined with the influx in spider crabs that has reduced set netting to an all time low, are the reasons as to why the landings have decreased on these species.

 

 

For your information the western half of your district has very heavy densities of tope and smoothounds, and plenty of skate and rays, widely distributed throughout the area. There are also excellent brood stocks on all these species which bodes well for the future of these fish stocks.

 

Would it not be prudent of the committee to do some research on stock densities before introducing any measures so as a better insight can be gained as to what measures are needed, if any?

 

It appears to me that the committee have a total lack of knowledge, understanding and information on the species that is subject to this consultation.

 

As I have a documented historical track record on all these species I would like to ask the committee that if certain measures were introduced, would I be able to land fish caught legally just outside your six mile limit into any port in Sussex?

 

I would like to advise the committee, in case it is unaware, that all these species subject to this consultation spend most of their time outside the committee’s jurisdiction. They only come into the committee’s area to breed.

 

French and Channel Island fishermen long line for tope and smoothounds between the 6 and 12 mile zone. French and Belgium trawlermen catch them in their trawls.

 

Any unilateral measures the committee may introduce will have no direct benefit whatsoever on these fisheries because other EU member states fish as in accordance to the Common Fisheries Policy and not Sussex Sea Fisheries byelaws. Any byelaws the committee make with regard to this consultation will only benefit other member states at the detriment to local inshore fishermen. It therefore goes without saying, the committee, will be in affect transferring local fishermen’s fishing rights over to other EU member states.

 

Lord Nelson fought bravely and gallantly and died defending and protecting the sovereign rights of this country and its surrounding waters. The importance of this was celebrated last year by the whole country paying homage to this great man.

 

Any new precautionary and unnecessary measures the committee may introduce will be gifting a part of those sovereign rights to other EU member states.

 

Any new measures should only be introduced on a multilateral basis with all other EU member states. Fragmented and piecemeal management policies such as this one only create ill feeling and resentment.

 

I find it hard to understand, as to why, blood sport anglers get so excited and derive so much pleasure and well being from catching and distressing pregnant female tope and smoothounds. Still they will be able to continue to do this, with the full approval and consent of the committee.

 

I choose option 1- do nothing unless it is a multilateral measure.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

Stephen Gathergood

 

Fishing Vessel Phyllis John P77

 

 

Copy to:-

 

Mr Tim Oliver, Editor, Fishing News

 

 

Dont worry your knew found friend miss bradshaw will swot you all when the timees right

 

king regards stephen

[stavey]

Hi Steve

 

QUOTE / My second concern is that if the consultation gives a choice of options it is possible that none of the options would be desirable for anglers. In other words, we could end up having to choose the option which is least damaging to our sport even if it isn't what we want, or opt out of the consultation and therefore not have any say at all.

 

Just like whats happening to commercials with regard to the tope,smoothounds and stake and rays

 

S P GATHERGOOD

Commercial Fisherman

 

 

6 September 2006

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

 

Sussex Sea Fisheries Committee

Unit 6, Highdown House,

Shoreham Airport,

Shoreham-by-Sea

West Sussex

BN43 5PB

 

Dear Committee

 

RE: - The Elasmobranch Management Plan

 

The above consultation looks as though it has been written by anglers, just like the bass management plan with the same implications and same predetermined outcome.

 

I believe this consultation is only window dressing to give the appearance and impression that democracy has taken place, when in fact, it has not.

 

In my opinion I think the committee have already agreed that commercial fishermen will be banned from landing tope and smoothound, and it is the committee’s intention to allocate these two species to the blood sport anglers.

 

I see that the committee are undertaking this consultation as a precautionary measure, suffice to say it lacks any substantive scientific data and therefore the committee’s ability to make any beneficial improvements is therefore limited. Also, the committee will not be able to prove one way or the other if improvement in the fisheries has taken place.

 

It appears the reason for introducing what will be discriminatory and restrictive precautionary measures for commercial fishermen are solely based on the assumption of the decline in your landing figures, which is of course complete and utter rubbish. I believe that the committee are inventing a case to justify their preconceived plans.

 

An impartial, competent committee would know that the inadequate and unfair public sector quotas have significantly decreased the amount of vessels in this area, combined with the influx in spider crabs that has reduced set netting to an all time low, are the reasons as to why the landings have decreased on these species.

For your information the western half of your district has very heavy densities of tope and smoothounds, and plenty of skate and rays, widely distributed throughout the area. There are also excellent brood stocks on all these species which bodes well for the future of these fish stocks.

 

Would it not be prudent of the committee to do some research on stock densities before introducing any measures so as a better insight can be gained as to what measures are needed, if any?

 

It appears to me that the committee have a total lack of knowledge, understanding and information on the species that is subject to this consultation.

 

As I have a documented historical track record on all these species I would like to ask the committee that if certain measures were introduced, would I be able to land fish caught legally just outside your six mile limit into any port in Sussex?

 

I would like to advise the committee, in case it is unaware, that all these species subject to this consultation spend most of their time outside the committee’s jurisdiction. They only come into the committee’s area to breed.

 

French and Channel Island fishermen long line for tope and smoothounds between the 6 and 12 mile zone. French and Belgium trawlermen catch them in their trawls.

 

Any unilateral measures the committee may introduce will have no direct benefit whatsoever on these fisheries because other EU member states fish as in accordance to the Common Fisheries Policy and not Sussex Sea Fisheries byelaws. Any byelaws the committee make with regard to this consultation will only benefit other member states at the detriment to local inshore fishermen. It therefore goes without saying, the committee, will be in affect transferring local fishermen’s fishing rights over to other EU member states.

 

Lord Nelson fought bravely and gallantly and died defending and protecting the sovereign rights of this country and its surrounding waters. The importance of this was celebrated last year by the whole country paying homage to this great man.

 

Any new precautionary and unnecessary measures the committee may introduce will be gifting a part of those sovereign rights to other EU member states.

 

Any new measures should only be introduced on a multilateral basis with all other EU member states. Fragmented and piecemeal management policies such as this one only create ill feeling and resentment.

 

I find it hard to understand, as to why, blood sport anglers get so excited and derive so much pleasure and well being from catching and distressing pregnant female tope and smoothounds. Still they will be able to continue to do this, with the full approval and consent of the committee.

 

I choose option 1- do nothing unless it is a multilateral measure.

Yours sincerely

Stephen Gathergood

 

Fishing Vessel Phyllis John P77

Copy to:-

 

Mr Tim Oliver, Editor, Fishing News

Dont worry your knew found friend miss bradshaw will swot you all when the timees right

 

king regards stephen

 

Hey steve nice piece

 

I am glad its not only anglers this sfc is out of touch with, do you honestly think they are gonna make smoothound a recreational only species then?????

[steve good]

Hi Steve

 

You commercials won the bass MLS thing from where I'm sitting!

 

Well O.K, there weren't any winners really, but I'd say we got stuffed more than you did.

 

Hi Steve

 

Thats a profound statement

 

The French won hands down

 

We us British lost our sovreign rights to a EU shared rescource thats within our waters

 

Still it is not over yet is it?

 

kind regards steve

[steve good]

Hey steve nice piece

 

I am glad its not only anglers this sfc is out of touch with, do you honestly think they are gonna make smoothound a recreational only species then?????

 

Hi Stavey

 

yes smoothounds and tope will be recreational only

 

It is a matter of whether the fuss over the mls for bass will have an effect on the powers to be, to stop it

 

Kind regards stephen

[stavey]

Hi Stavey

 

yes smoothounds and tope will be recreational only

 

It is a matter of whether the fuss over the mls for bass will have an effect on the powers to be, to stop it

 

Kind regards stephen

 

I would like to share your optomism, i would also be surprised if it is left to the so called powers to be as you put it,

but still life is full of surprises sometimes.

 

Oh for the record i also think marine protected areas should mean just that, protected from all types of fishing commercials and anglers alike, otherwise what would be the point in calling them that???????

Edited September 18, 2006 by stavey

[steve good]

I would like to share your optomism, i would also be surprised if it is left to the so called powers to be as you put it,

but still life is full of surprises sometimes.........

 

Hi Stavey

 

its not optomism i am just a realist, as a commercial fisherman i want to carry on catching tope and smoothounds

 

kind regards stephen

[stavey]

Hi Stavey

 

its not optomism i am just a realist, as a commercial fisherman i want to carry on catching tope and smoothounds

 

kind regards stephen

 

Steve

 

I have never caught a tope in my life here, but quite a few smoothounds though, whats the odds on which one of the 2 they are going to protect is tope eh!

im off to bed now cheers and goodnight........