Are we being sold down the river?

[Cranfield]

The reason I started this thread was in the hope those that are becoming increasingly negative, actually stop and think about the difficult task we have ahead.

 

The present government have shown that they are control freaks. I was shocked to learn recently that a third of all the worlds CCT cameras are in Britain. With that in mind The idea that an angler said to a government official 'how about a sea angling licence?' and a light bulb lit up in their head because they had never heard of such a thing before is pretty laughable.

 

One comment was, "what consessions are left to give." Can you name one consession that has been given.

 

There's plenty of **** on the horizon; bag limits, MPAs, licences, loss of access, fish welfare, and plenty more. I also suspect the anti blood sport politicians from the old labour left will reemerge if Gordon Brown takes over

 

The above are all situations the government have raised, No RSA body wants licenses and further restrictions imposed upon them, but the government will do as it sees fit, with or without RSA approval. RSA's task is to get the best out of a very difficult situation.

 

We either carry on fighting, getting the best deal we can or pack up and watch the fish stocks dwindle year by year and still end up with closed areas and paying a license with imposed bag limits on some species.

 

The goverment should be the target for our frustrations, not the likes of Leon or Tom who give everything to try and make RSA a better package. IMO some of the accusations levelled at them have been scandulous and none of them based on any truth.

 

The question still remains, How can we achieve our aims without giving anything back in return?

 

One things for certain, a mere 2500 letters from interested anglers (BMP responce) isn't going to change any government's minds

 

I don't think its "laughable" for people to suggest that sea fishing licences, bag limits and slot limits, were not thought up as options by the Governemnt/Defra, before they were suggested as negotiating tools by our "Representatives".

 

There is no doubt that if the Government wants to impose them, then there is little we (or our "Representatives" ) can do about it.

 

You pose the final question, " How can we achieve our aims, without giving anything back in return".

 

Once the above three "concessions" are imposed, what is there to "give back in return" ?

Edited September 21, 2006 by Cranfield

[Mikec]

I think you need to add another species into that Ian, namely cod. What harm are anglers doing fishing for cod ?

 

see http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c5/big_cod/paulcod.jpg

[Ian Burrett]

You get nought for nought ,life and conservation is about give and take and I persoal believe that this attitude of take all is wrong for all the anglers

 

regards stephen

 

Hi Steve

 

I agree with you 100 per cent (theres a first time for everything )

 

What those concessions are; is the million dollar question, but they are inevitable, and when they happen people shouldn't jump on the negative bandwagon if theyv'e done nothing to help the organisations in deciding policy.

 

There endeth my sermon

[Cranfield]

"What those concessions are; is the million dollar question, but they are inevitable, and when they happen people shouldn't jump on the negative bandwagon if theyv'e done nothing to help the organisations in deciding policy."

 

I have read that paragraph a few times and it still makes little sense.

 

What possible "concessions" towards Conservation, could sea anglers propose to the Government/Defra, in exchange for the commercial fisheries having bigger mls for all species and a "no fishing" inshore limit (how many miles out? just pick a figure).

 

Perhaps:

Paying for a sea fishing licence.

Bag limits.

Slot size limits.

A close season.

 

I can't think of anything else.

 

Its claimed that the Government/Defra had already thought about a licence fee, bag limits, slot size limits (close season wasn't mentioned), so I can't think of what there is left to give in any negotiations.

 

Perhaps "the organisations deciding policy" can guide me in this connection.

[Guest challenge]

carnfield.

I don’t think that you have to worry too much on what you can offer the government.

If you give them access to your sport hobby and industry they will provide you with as much legislation as you can possible cope with.

The bureaucracy they will impose on RSA will not need any input from RSA in implying, as DEFRA have thousands of bureaucrats just waiting in the wings to enforce bureaucracies onto anybody who asks for it.

[Ian Burrett]

"What those concessions are; is the million dollar question, but they are inevitable, and when they happen people shouldn't jump on the negative bandwagon if they've done nothing to help the organisations in deciding policy."

 

I have read that paragraph a few times and it still makes little sense.

 

What possible "concessions" to wards Conservation, could sea anglers propose to the Government/Defra, in exchange for the commercial fisheries having bigger mls for all species and a "no fishing" inshore limit (how many miles out? just pick a figure).

 

Perhaps:

Paying for a sea fishing license.

Bag limits.

Slot size limits.

A close season.

 

I can't think of anything else.

 

Its claimed that the Government/Defra had already thought about a license fee, bag limits, slot size limits (close season wasn't mentioned), so I can't think of what there is left to give in any negotiations.

 

Perhaps "the organisations deciding policy" can guide me in this connection.

 

What is there to understand?

 

None of the above are a done deal. No one from RSA has agreed any deals on any species with anyone

 

It has been made clear to Ben Bradshaw that only if and when anglers see benefits from proposals i.e. more and bigger fish on the beaches will RSA even contemplate paying a license. The ball is in their court.

[Cranfield]

"It has been made clear to Ben Bradshaw that only if and when anglers see benefits from proposals i.e. more and bigger fish on the beaches will RSA even contemplate paying a license. The ball is in their court."

 

How does that work ?

I bet Ben Bradshaw is quaking in his boots.

 

If the Government want to impose a sea fishing licence, thats what they will do.

 

What did the RSA representatives threaten to do, if he didn't increase the bass mls ?

Stamp their feet ?

 

Its this sort of imaginitive rhetoric, that makes it hard for me and a lot of other people to take the whole business of angling politics seriously.

Eventually, we will be dealt a hand by the Government.

How we play that hand will be up to us as individuals.

 

Thats not me being negative, just realistic.

[Guest challenge]

"It has been made clear to Ben Bradshaw that only if and when anglers see benefits from proposals i.e. more and bigger fish on the beaches will RSA even contemplate paying a license. The ball is in their court."

 

How does that work ?

I bet Ben Bradshaw is quaking in his boots.

 

If the Government want to impose a sea fishing licence, thats what they will do.

 

What did the RSA representatives threaten to do, if he didn't increase the bass mls ?

Stamp their feet ?

 

Its this sort of imaginitive rhetoric, that makes it hard for me and a lot of other people to take the whole business of angling politics seriously.

Eventually, we will be dealt a hand by the Government.

How we play that hand will be up to us as individuals.

 

Thats not me being negative, just realistic.

Well said that man.

The problem that accurse when debateting this is that rhetoric is cheep, evidence comes much more dearly.

The only thing I see flourishing here is the extravagance of aspiration.

Regards.

[Ian Burrett]

"It has been made clear to Ben Bradshaw that only if and when anglers see benefits from proposals i.e. more and bigger fish on the beaches will RSA even contemplate paying a license. The ball is in their court."

 

How does that work ?

I bet Ben Bradshaw is quaking in his boots.

 

If the Government want to impose a sea fishing licence, thats what they will do.

 

What did the RSA representatives threaten to do, if he didn't increase the bass mls ?

Stamp their feet ?

 

Its this sort of imaginitive rhetoric, that makes it hard for me and a lot of other people to take the whole business of angling politics seriously.

Eventually, we will be dealt a hand by the Government.

How we play that hand will be up to us as individuals.

 

Thats not me being negative, just realistic.

 

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

[Steve Coppolo]

I don't hold in with the claims that the government thought of licences, bag limits, etc, all on their own, and before they were pointed out to them by RSA. 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? Did the Drew report and Bradley review come before, or after, the Strategy unit report? Even before the strategy unit consultation, I believe there was mention of the worth of sea angling to the economy, and licences in order to have more of a say, coming from RSA. Until then, the government hadn't even heard of sea angling. I'm not saying it was wrong to point out to them that we existed, but it is wrong to pretend that they found out about us all by themselves. It's misleading.

 

"It has been made clear to Ben Bradshaw that only if and when anglers see benefits from proposals i.e. more and bigger fish on the beaches will RSA even contemplate paying a license. The ball is in their court."

 

How does that work ?

I bet Ben Bradshaw is quaking in his boots.

 

Especially given the response to his decision by RSA.