Licenses, Bag Limits, MPAs, SFCs

[Ken Davison South Wales]

Recreational Sea Angling (RSA)

General

3.26 This issue received a large number of comments from environmental

NGOs, statutory advisors, government agencies, the commercial

fishing industry and recreational sea angling (RSA) organisations.

3.27 The majority of responses on this issue recognised that the angling

sector should have a role to play in the development of marine and

fisheries policy. Some of these respondents expressed that greater

consideration should be given to the management of stocks for RSA

purposes to reflect the numbers participating in the sport and the value

to the economy generated by RSA. There was also support in the

responses for an angling strategy provided that it’s development was

open and transparent.

3.28 However, not all respondents were convinced that the RSA sector

could make a relevant contribution to the management of most fish

stocks.

3.29 It was further suggested by respondents that if Marine Protected Areas

(MPAs) are introduced to protect commercial fish stocks, they should

also include protection of recreational species and therefore angling as

well as commercial fishing activity should be restricted or prohibited in

such areas. Other respondents however, were clear that MPAs

(whether introduced on their own or through a system of marine spatial

planning) should not ban angling, especially if catch and release

practices were adopted. It was also emphasised that there was a need

to identify areas of particular importance to RSA, for example the 1nm

belt around the coastline.

A chargeable licensing scheme and bag limits

3.30 There was support both from the angling sector and other respondents

for proposals in respect of “bag limits” and a chargeable licensing

scheme for angling. It was noted however, that revenue generated byഊSection 3: Managing Marine Fisheries

any charging scheme must be used for the benefit of the sport and

that before a charge was introduced there should be:

• a similar scheme to charge commercial fishermen;

• bans on destructive fishing practices;

• management measures (such as increased minimum landing

sizes) to re-build fish stocks around the shores for the benefit of

RSA; and

• a greater role for anglers in decision making on fisheries matters.

3.31 Suggestions for how a chargeable licensing scheme might benefit the

sport included:

• general enhancement and development of sea angling including

coaching and events, etc;

• better access to angling sites on the coast;

• the introduction of a Code of Conduct for anglers; and

• better data gathering from the angling sector.

3.32 A suggestion was made that any new chargeable licensing scheme for

recreational sea anglers could be integrated with the current rod

licence operated by the Environment Agency (EA) for freshwater

angling. This might save on administration costs and make it easier for

applicants given that many sea anglers will also hold a rod licence

issued by the EA.

3.33 The following suggestions were made regarding the introduction of

bag limits for anglers:

• bag limits are accompanied by reporting requirements to improve

enforcement;

•

the criteria for deciding which species should be subject to bag-limits

must be clearly defined based on sound ecological and

management objectives; and

• if licences and bag limits were introduced for anglers, the new

measures must also apply to all non-commercial fishing activities

including spear gunners, those using pots and nets etc.

3.34 However, a number of respondents from the angling sector made clear

their opposition to the establishment of new measures to restrict RSA

for the reasons listed below:

• they considered that angling has a lower impact on fish stocks

compared with other exploiters of the marine environment,

particularly as many anglers adopt a practice of catch and release,

and therefore the proposed restrictions are unjustifiable;

• it was considered that the effectiveness of bag limits would be

difficult to measure due to other pressures on fish stocks;

• that these proposals would unjustifiably interfere with the public

right to fish; and

21ഊ• the practicalities of enforcing and running such schemes was

questioned.

3.30 There was support both from the angling sector and other respondents

for proposals in respect of “bag limits” and a chargeable licensing

scheme for angling

 

Will those who said this wasnt going to happen now wake up ?

 

Hi Glen

 

Having now read through that section the bag limits part seemed to be fairly open ended, i.e. species and areas, the licence however was a for gone comclusion and its' layout pretty much as I thought they would go.

 

 

Hi Leon,

 

As this is a only proposals at this stage will there be an oportunity to have further comments and input ?

[Leon Roskilly]

Hi Leon,

 

As this is a only proposals at this stage will there be an oportunity to have further comments and input ?

 

 

DEFRA are still researching implications, costs and attitudes to many of the proposals, including sending out consultants for meetings with stakeholder groups.

 

Eventually legislation will be drawn up in the shape of a bill to go in front of Parliament and to be voted upon.

 

If accepted by parliament it will merely provide the legislative framework for moving the proposals forwards (ie giving the government the necessary powers to implement measures).

 

I would expect that before the government uses it's new powers to bring in licences, bag limits, MPAs etc, there will be further consultations on the detail, and for each MPA proposed etc.

[Steve Coppolo]

Right, people shouldn't be blamed for 'having their own point of view and expressing it' but people's choice of time and place for expressing own points of view sometimes need to be blamed imo. If you can't require a minimum of respect for the party line and strategy ('loyalty' is the name) then you won't get even close to power or influence.

 

Fine, unless you think that the party line might drop you in deep 5h1t, then you have to scream and shout as loud as you can!

 

DEFRA are still researching implications, costs and attitudes to many of the proposals, including sending out consultants for meetings with stakeholder groups.

 

Eventually legislation will be drawn up in the shape of a bill to go in front of Parliament and to be voted upon.

 

If accepted by parliament it will merely provide the legislative framework for moving the proposals forwards (ie giving the government the necessary powers to implement measures).

 

I would expect that before the government uses it's new powers to bring in licences, bag limits, MPAs etc, there will be further consultations on the detail, and for each MPA proposed etc.

 

 

That will take a long time, and with a bit of luck this shambles of a government will be gone before then.

[wurzel]

Right, people shouldn't be blamed for 'having their own point of view and expressing it' but people's choice of time and place for expressing own points of view sometimes need to be blamed imo. If you can't require a minimum of respect for the party line and strategy ('loyalty' is the name) then you won't get even close to power or influence. This is where angling has failed terrible over the years imo.

 

 

Fishingsfine are you the nominated party whip?

[Ian Burrett]

Fishingsfine are you the nominated party whip?

 

Hi Wurzel

 

I thought of you today. I had a farmer out fishing with me and he said "For every farmer there are 10 xxxxxxx Defra officials"

 

I thought I have heard that story somewhere before

[wurzel]

Hello Steve

 

Quote

That will take a long time, and with a bit of luck this shambles of a government will be gone before then.

 

It won't make any difference; the same civil servants will be running defra, but pulling the strings of a different politician

[Steve Coppolo]

The important thing is that unity can move mountains - even make politicians to believe that their is no problem with fish stocks.

 

And can even make politicians think that anglers want bag limits, no go areas, licences and compulsory catch and release for nothing more than a few false promises. I think I'll pass on that one if you don't mind.

[slackline]

Hi Leon I dont like the term enableing legislation

It simply means they dont have to discuss any more and can impliment as and when they want

As for number s of responses what about the hunting lobby the anti Iraq war lobby and watch for the results of the 4 million name petition on rural post offices Tony and his cronies wil do what they want when they want

Edited October 19, 2006 by slackline

[glennk]

And what about our own response Glenn (from Yalasa);

Bet you a pound to a penny a certain person will be jumping up and down accusing us of selling anglers down the river!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

cheers

Doc.

 

Yes Nigel it is a good response. I never thought it would be anything else though m8. Living locally, fishing the matches, pleasure fishing the rock marks and taking charter trips from Brid and Whitby the lads in Yalasa know about the north east because they are north east anglers through to the core.

 

Congrats on your premier league cod mate

 

premier league

 

1st. mike coulman ................2lb 13oz (1 cod , 2 whiting)

2nd. gareth wright .................1lb 11oz (3 flounders)

3rd. nige proctor ...................1lb 6oz (1 cod)

Edited October 19, 2006 by glennk

[glennk]

No, what I am is of no importance. The important thing is that unity can move mountains - even make politicians to believe that their is no problem with fish stocks.

 

The consultation was for people to express their views not just for people with the same point of view as you to be allowed to comment - otherwise whats the point ?