Are we being sold down the river?

[Jaffa]

Just a point of information.

 

No Take Zones (NTZz) are areas where nothing can be extracted.

 

Highly Protected Marine Reserves (HPMRs) are areas where almost all activity is likely to be banned.

 

Marine Protected Areas are where some restrictions apply consistent with the purpose of the area. So maybe potting allowed but not beam-trawling, or maybe no potting or fixed netting, but maybe pelagic (mid-water) trawling etc.,

 

(Bass Nursery Areas are splendid examples of Marine Protected Areas and were covered by Mike Pawson at the recent conference)

 

There are bound to be areas which are closed to all activities, even if simply to carry out an investigation to see what happens within such highly protected areas. But maybe if such an area is closed, there might be zoning where say potting and angling can take place nearby, but netting and trawling is further out.

 

Or maybe if a reef is closed off, there could be enhancement of another area as compensation for loss of opportunity.

 

There will be many negotiations to come, decisions to be made, complex science and socio-economic arguments to be put forward, as well as legal principles.

 

And there will be those with agendas to close off everything, and those with agendas that no restrictions should apply in any circumstances.

 

Rather than getting het up over what is nothing other than dogmatic agendas, seeing all in black and white absolutes, the people engaged in moving the issues forward need to study and understand what is coming, what is reasonable given the objectives that are being set and engage in sensible debate.

 

For those with a real interest, there is a huge amount of information becoming available that needs to be digested.

 

Given the commitments of the UK, both internationally and driven by both EU and domestic agreements MPAs, NTZs and Highly Protected Areas will be here soon.

 

Better understand them, and know how to deal with them, and make sure that those representing RSA, and the catching sector, have a good grasp of what is involved in all of its complexity.

 

Others are already a long way down the road!

 

Leon, have you ever thought about doing an article on this for FN?

[Cranfield]

Put it this way. If everybody refused to pay, What could they do?

 

Everybody won't refuse to pay.

The majority of us are law abiding citizens, we tax and insure our cars, we buy freshwater licences, etc., thats what the Government rely on.

 

Will "1,000,000" sea anglers take to the streets and riot (if they exist) ?

Of course they won't.

 

The Countryside March (estimated over 3-400,000 people) didn't achieve its objective.

That fact is not lost on this Government.

 

No, I don't think civil disobedience is what you will get, so go back to Plan B, the foot stamping.

[Jaffa]

Hi Chris

 

Point accepted about Mackeerl Herring etc but there are occasions like the cod discards problem with the Herring fleet that RSA could campaign on. Also there are many species like the Wrasse, Conger Mullet, that have very little commercial interest at the moment but could change as species dissapear from our waters. Who would have though ten yaers ago that supermarkets would be pushing Coalie.

 

Scotland has made no noises about introducing a sea license as they seem to use Defra aas a test case. We discussed at the recent exec meeting placing immediate bans on commercial fishing for the Skate and tope and he replied The only points we would make in the meantime are that, on the common skate, the measures suggested in the DEFRA Fishing Focus are ones which they have discussed with us and which would be pursued on a UK basis. On tope, we here will need to reflect on the implications for ourselves of the outcome of DEFRA’s consultation exercise. More generally, we agreed that it was important that sea angling issues be taken more fully into account in decisions on stock management, in particular the annual negotiations on TACs and quotas. We undertook to ensure that you are invited to participate in stakeholder discussions on these negotiations.

 

Rest assured, if Defra imposes licenses then Scotland won't be far behind, and i certainly won't be asking for them

 

Maybe Ian, but the discards are to do with bycatch by whitefish boats and lnothing to do with the herring/mackerel catchers.

 

I take your point about coley but its worth bearing in mind that the French have had a big fishery for them off NW Scotland for at least 20 years. The products there so the supermarkets can market it. Not sure that holds true for species like wrasse and conger?

 

Depressing stuff if the exec is only ever going to wait for DEFRA to give a lead Hope thats not the case.

 

Were you asking for the banning of directed Skate fisheries or the banning of any that caught them btw?

[Ian Burrett]

Maybe Ian, but the discards are to do with bycatch by whitefish boats and lnothing to do with the herring/mackerel catchers.

 

I take your point about coley but its worth bearing in mind that the French have had a big fishery for them off NW Scotland for at least 20 years. The products there so the supermarkets can market it. Not sure that holds true for species like wrasse and conger?

 

Depressing stuff if the exec is only ever going to wait for DEFRA to give a lead Hope thats not the case.

 

Were you asking for the banning of directed Skate fisheries or the banning of any that caught them btw?

 

Hi Chris

 

We asked that the Firth of Lorne and Sound of Mull be given special protection making it illegal to remove a common skate.

 

One way or another the skate are going to get limited protection with the present consultation making it illegal to remove a Ray/skate over 85cm and Ross Finnie has announced a two year trial banning clam dredging in the Firth of Lorne. This should at least preserve some of their habitat.

[Leon Roskilly]

For anyone who's memory isn't up to scratch, think back to the Prime ministers strategy unit consultation a few years ago. Can you all remember what you put in your responses? Are they still available to view?

 

 

Details of the consultation and the resultant 'Net Benefits' report is at:

 

http://www.strategy.gov.uk/work_areas/fisheries/index.asp

 

 

 

All responses recieved can be reviewed at:

 

http://www.strategy.gov.uk/work_areas/fish...n_responses.asp

 

 

from Steve Coppolo's Response:

 

Of course all stakeholders should be given a say in the future of our fish stocks.

 

Recreational anglers are stakeholders, and the government really should be lstening to

the National Federation of Sea Anglers and the Bass Anglers Sportsfishing Society.

 

These bodies really do care about tomorrow and the conservation of our fish stocks.

 

Nice One Steve

Edited September 22, 2006 by Leon Roskilly

[Leon Roskilly]

Did the Drew report and Bradley review come before, or after, the Strategy unit report?

 

 

The Prime Minister's Strategy Unit Report was first (published March 2004)

 

 

The Drew Report was also published in March 2004.

 

http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/reports...ing/default.asp

 

 

 

The Bradley Report was published later (Consultation closed Sept 2004)

 

http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/fish-env/index.htm

 

Summary of responses at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/...ses-summary.pdf

 

• The majority of single responses regarding charging for

angling licences were hostile to the proposal; a few were

more receptive, but pointed to the need to consider

practical issues (the British Resorts Association).

 

• Amongst the respondents who took a broader approach

to the consultation, there was also a lack of support for the

angling-licensing proposal – objections were made on the

basis of both principle and practicality.

 

• The EA argued that the proposals were not sufficiently

developed to be credible; ASFC argued that careful

consideration was needed of the costs, benefits and

practicability of any such scheme.

 

• Individual fishermen and their local associations argued

against charging.

 

• WWF, the LGA and the Fishmongers’ Company felt that

there was little to be gained by such a scheme.

 

• Some stakeholders did not support charging of anglers,

including RSPB and the Institute of European

Environmental Policy.

 

• The Countryside Alliance questioned the practicability of

a mandatory scheme, but drew attention to a non-statutory

American system involving purchase of ‘conservation

stamps’.

 

•The National Federation of Sea Anglers and the Sea

Anglers Conservation Network opposed licensing unless

there were clear benefits for the sport.

[stavey]

D, The government is determined to impose a license.

 

The question is, how can we achieve our goal of more and bigger fish and retain our right to take home fish. without giving any concessions in return, bearing in mind we punch well below our weight mainly due to angler apathy.

 

Hi ian

 

The main problem is and will always be apathy and lazyness on the part of the average sea angler, anybody who has been involved with rasing awareness (even at just the club level) to what you/leon/tom/BASS etc have and are doing, trying to get backing and sending of letters to proposals etc, knows that most just realy cant be arsed.

 

The only answer i can see to any of this and to help change peoples attitudes would be the imposing of a license under the present conditions, as these lazy apathetic people will soon start to bitch and moan and are more likely to get off there posterior and do something about it, as things stand at the moment nothing is likely to succeed much in the long run.

 

I was dead against a license before i got a little involved with a bit of leg work but now i see it is the only way of forcing people to take notice, i got sick and fed up with anglers aproaching me and telling me to shut up and get off my soapbox, if the license was imposed i wonder if the rolls would be somewhat reversed?

cheers...................

[sam-cox]

Sorry but paying to have my angling restricted does get my back up.

If they were to ban all commercial activerty within the so called golden mile and then after a while introduced c&r areas that would be ok by me. But so far Ben Bradshaw aint shown me **** in the way of giving sea anglers anything.

I would happily pay a lisense if first we got some thing for the money we already put into the UK econermy.

[Steve Coppolo]

Perhaps a taste of things to come is the proposal Guernsey to impose bag limits on anglers, while commercial fishing carries on unrestricted.

 

Look at what we've got ahead, and what we might get in return. We've got licences, bag limits, MPA's and compulsory catch and release all in the pipeline. In return we've got a bit of talk about the "golden mile". If the bass MLS is anything to go by, that's all it will remain. All talk.

 

 

 

http://www.strategy.gov.uk/work_areas/fish...n_responses.asp

from Steve Coppolo's Response:

Nice One Steve

 

 

Ah yes Leon, but at least I hold my hands up and admit when I've got it wrong.

Edited September 22, 2006 by Steve Coppolo

[sam-cox]

If this does happen I WILL COMMERCIALLY REGISTER MY SMALL BOAT and then maybe I will not be restricted to bag limits.

 

Don’t misunderstand me if we get the so-called golden mile, I would then except bag limits and size limits and would happily pay a licence. It would be a little edgy about NTZ,s but if sensibly sited they could be a real asset in a sustainable fishery.

Believe it or not gill nets are very selective if used correctly and maybe it could be a good thing to ban all trawling inside ten miles. I could be gill nets or long lines only, then at one mile no commercial activity.

See that’s what pisses me off, I can also drift off in to cuckoo land where government listen to sense.

After the bass MLS decision I think we should tell them to poke it at the next general election.

Edited September 22, 2006 by sam-cox