Licenses, Bag Limits, MPAs, SFCs

[glennk]

I think if a rod licence is implemented, the Government may find there are not as many Sea Anglers as they (and the RSA representatives) thought ?

 

My personal view is, that we are likely to be asked to give, long before we will receive (if ever).

The whole thing will be on the basis of promises and "trust us".

Already the Defra "spin" is that the RSA representatives are supporting licences and bag limits, so it won't be Defra's fault when RSA's object.

I think the expression "smoked like a kipper" springs to mind.

 

When the responses are available we will rake through and see who has supported bag limits and licences.

 

Glennk,

Indeed, it's a healthy thing that people see (certain) things very differently. The sad thing is that it often takes a serious threat -e.g. a proposal to ban all angling in any place for this or that reason- for the same people to realise that they share some basic values worth to fight for in common. It's a balance: fighting own private opinions and interests might pay off now and then. But in the long run we all loose if we cannot get our act together when needed, be it at the local, regional, national or international level. If nobody is able to put aside or give up his own personal first priority from time to time for the bigger cause angling is doomed, just a question of time.

 

ps. As for the C&R issue. From what I have seen here I am pretty sure that this disagreement mainly is due to some 'unfinished' communication, which could be solved -or a compromise worked out- if those people involved gathered at the nearest pub for a couple of hours or five to settle this.

 

Well where would this pub be ? Watford gap?

 

Unfortunately FF the only time we will all agree is on a big issue like a ban. I think it was Brian Carreghar who said one size does not fit all and I think they were the wisest words spoken in some time. Instead of people getting all uptight because we dont all agree perhaps they should look at it from a different perspective and accept that agreement is relatively unlikely. Fisheries management needs to be localised and species specific, and even then I'm sure there will be a diversity of ideas. Why should I have bag limits because someone wants bigger bass on the south coast, also why should someone in Scotland have a closed area because I thought I wanted a catch and return area at Whitby ?

Edited October 22, 2006 by glennk

[Cranfield]

How do you know that so many of the others support your views?

 

How do the "RSA representatives" know that so many others support their views ?

 

The vast majority of RSA's don't even belong to any of the organisations that claim to represent them.

 

So these organisations do only represent the minority of RSA's.

 

Be assured, when sea fishing licences and bag limits are imposed on RSA's, for no immediate visible return, then there will be loud shouts that RSA's have been sold down the shore (river didn't seem appropriate).

 

Self elected RSA representatives win no friends, when they choose these Forums to accuse anyone who doesn't laud their efforts,or blindly agree with them, as not caring.

I have written to my MP and directly to Bradshaw (who didn't even acknowledge my letter), I also belong to two organisations that represent RSA's.

Edited October 22, 2006 by Cranfield

[Steve Coppolo]

So in other words its easier to do nothing and sit on an internet forum and beat those with a big stick who are at least prepared to continuously put themselves out.

 

Thats real big of you, and makes me feel pleased to know you are on our side!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Doc.

 

Hello Nigel

So what do you suggest we do then? Just agree with everything that any self appointed RSA rep wants to push through? Does questioning what is happening to our sport make me wrong? Would you, or anyone else, like me, or anyone else, to shut up?

 

Let's not **** about, sea anglers are being hammered. Look at some of the proposals in the pipeline and what RSA stands to gain in return. It's alright saying we won't accept bag limits without restrictions on netting, etc, but it doesn't take a genius to see that we aren't being taken seriously. I believe that all the ideas that RSA have come up with are being cherry picked and manipulated to suit the commercial sector.

 

I've said it twice on this thread now Nigel, these forums are the only way the average angler can get to have his/her say. Don't pretend that the door is open to anyone who wants to voice their opinions at meetings, etc. It isn't. I know from experience that the will to get off your arse and do something positive isn't enough to get your self heard. Everything is rosy when you are towing the party line, but as soon as you dare to question things it's a different story. Should it really be like that?

 

Are we really lucky to have people fighting to "improve" our sport? I'm even beginning to question that. What has been achieved so far that has improved our sport? And what restrictions on angling can we expect to see in the near future? The two things aren't adding up in my view. If things carry on as they are, sea angling will be in a sorry state in a few years time.

 

I don't blame anyone for what's happening. It's a learning curve. But I would at least expect certain people to question themselves over what's happening and to try a different approach, instead of pushing ahead with their own ideals and berating anyone who dares to question them.

 

Just to remind people what we are facing.

 

Licences.

Bag limits.

No go areas.

Compulsory catch and release.

 

And what we have gained.

 

4cm increase in MLS for bass, (no increase at all for Welsh bass + bag limits for anglers). Does nothing to improve our sport.

Possible measures to protect Tope from something that doesn't exist. Does nothing to improve our sport.

Sea anglers sitting on SFC's. Does nothing to improve our sport.

 

Does this look like a good deal to you? Because it doesn't to me.

 

If the government and DEFRA aren't going to do anything to improve sea angling, and early indications are that they won't, then we would have been better off leaving everything as it was and waiting for the commercial sector to disappear up it's own arse. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, I know, but I'd rather turn back when I come to the cliff's edge, than carry on walking.

[Ian Burrett]

Hi fishings fine

I agree with you; to do nothing isn't an option,

 

We are going to end up with bag limits on some species, licenses etc. anyway without anything back in return. if some on here have their say.

 

If those who don't approve of what the NFSA, SACN, SOS are trying to do, and really want to stop these things happening, then they had better get them selves organised and quickly before it is to late.

 

The article in the Independent may be just hot air but more worrying is the labour loony left that will emerge if Gordon Brown becomes PM

 

 

This article appeared in the papers a few months ago

 

How soon before fishing is banned, too?

Last week, Margaret Beckett appeared on radio and made a statement that has, thanks to Jowellgate, gone unreported - until now. To millions of British fishermen and thousands of shooting enthusiasts, however, it comes as the latest signal that the government is far from ready to let their sports continue unchecked.

'Many Labour opinion-formers, particularly those favoured by Gordon Brown, saw foxhunting as the first step. There are ongoing private discussions about how to stop the fishing and shooting,' says a lobby source. 'They're terrified, though, of losing four million fishermen's votes in one fell swoop, so are proceeding with great caution.'

All, it seems, apart from Margaret Beckett, Secretary of State for the Environment, who is directly in charge of countryside (and country sports) policies. When she appeared on the Today programme, she announced, unchecked: 'When we get rid of all the other blood sports, there will still be the House of Commons.'

A Defra spokesman is quick off the mark with damage-limitation. 'It was just a figure of speech,' I am told. 'Fishing is a very popular sport.'

This has done little to allay the fears of those who take it very seriously, such as Jonathan Young, editor of the Field, who counters: 'Whatever the context, for the countryside's top minister to talk about Labour "getting rid of all other blood sports" reveals an attitude that will worry millions.'

Meanwhile, my lobby source adds: 'We fear that Beckett's off-the-cuff remark is a true representation of her government's intent, waiting to manifest itself as policy once Brown takes over from Blair.'

 

Perhaps it needs a threat to RSA on this scale to unite anglers

[Zigs]

The NFSA state that we have a right, under Magna Carta to fish the sea.

 

i couldnt find/didnt understand that bit in the Magna Carta, so i asked the NFSA to clarify this part, they ignored my e mail.

 

anyone on here able to throw some light on this ?

 

if it is true, surely the labour party cant just throw the Magna Carta out of the window ?

[Leon Roskilly]

The NFSA state that we have a right, under Magna Carta to fish the sea.

 

i couldnt find/didnt understand that bit in the Magna Carta, so i asked the NFSA to clarify this part, they ignored my e mail.

 

anyone on here able to throw some light on this ?

 

if it is true, surely the labour party cant just throw the Magna Carta out of the window ?

 

 

See: http://www.sacn.org.uk/Articles/The_Public...ht_to_Fish.html

 

 

Many authorities (including Halsbury's Laws) cite the Magna Carta as the reason the Crown made no further private fisheries.

 

There is no such reference in the statute itself, however, this mistake has now become settled law by virtue of the case of Malcolmson v O'Dea.

 

Because of its constitutional importance, the erroneous involvement of the Magna Carta lends weight to sentimental arguments that somehow the public right to fish is a basic human right to all men; it is submitted that is not a tenable argument..............

 

 

 

 

Note: If anglers are to be licensed, it probably won't be a 'Fishing Licence', but a 'Rod Licence' as is the case with the coarse angling rod licence.

 

If so, then an angler's right to fish will be unimpeded, but they will will need to purchase a rod licence in order to use a fishing rod.

 

(In freshwater, using fixed lines or unlicensed nets etc is illegal, so you can only fish using a fishing rod, for which you need to have a licence)

Edited October 22, 2006 by Leon Roskilly

[Zigs]

cheers Leon,

 

i knew you would know

[Jim Roper]

If anglers are to be licensed, it probably won't be a 'Fishing Licence', but a 'Rod Licence' as is the case with the coarse angling rod licence.

 

If so, then an angler's right to fish will be unimpeded, but they will will need to purchase a rod licence in order to use a fishing rod.

 

 

How many rods will be covered by one license?

 

I wonder how many SACN members there would be if they had to subscribe to it!!!!!!!!!

 

Looks like a proprietors club to me.

[Guest challenge]

I’m really looking forward to future meetings with DEFRA, of course the Environmental NGO’s (EN, WWF & WLT’s) and commercial sector (NFFO, reps from the SFC’s) will be there, each to support their own uniform ideals and targeted ends, each singing from their respective hymn sheets. I can imagine the questions now;

 

(DEFRA etc.) What is the angling perspective on a sea angling rod license?

 

(Angling Reps) “Well anglers are vehemently opposed to a sea angling rod license, full stop”.

 

(DEFRA etc.) But we’ve had acknowledgement from a number of anglers that they may be willing to pay for a sea angling rod licence

 

(Angling Reps) “Yes but that is a minority position and even that belief is only as long as benefits accrue to the sea angling sector.”

 

(DEFRA etc.) So in other words you can’t make your minds up!!

 

(NGO’s) We believe that a rod license for anglers would be of great benefit to the marine environment, revenue generated could be used to support infrastructure to manage and monitor marine protected areas with anglers getting buy in to the principals of marine conservation.

 

(NFFO etc) We agree, the recreational sector should be licensed, they take many millions of fish each year without having to pay anything towards the management or enforcement of their activities. Commercial fishermen are regulated to the hilt, they have significant costs to pay, not just before they go to sea, but also to enable them to catch a reasonable amount of fish in order to make a living. Anglers are just playing at it, if they can afford to buy fishing gear they can afford to buy a license.

 

Outcome; Implementation of a sea angling rod licence without any benefits accruing to sea anglers and RSA as a whole.

 

Anglers response; Our representatives sold us down the river!!!

 

Part 2

 

(DEFRA etc.) What is the angling perspective on Bag Limits?

 

(Angling Reps) “Well anglers are vehemently opposed to a bag limits, we can see no reason presently to restrict the angling of marine fin fish as its insignificant in comparison to the commercial take”.

 

(DEFRA etc.) But once again, we’ve had acknowledgement from a number of anglers that they may be willing to accept bag limits for sea fish

 

(Angling Reps) “We would accept that bag limits may be applicable if a particular species was under significant threat or in severe decline under threat of collapse, and similar restrictions were placed on the commercial sector.” But as with the issue of sea angling rod licenses, only as long as benefits accrue to the sea angling sector. In addition, those who are in favour of such restrictions are in the minority. Such a move would significantly impact both anglers and the economics of sea angling. We would vehemently oppose a broadscale implementation of bag limits on all species irrespective of status.

 

(DEFRA etc.) So in other words once again you can’t make your minds up!! We have been monitoring sea angling fora, and the general consensus is that marine fish are in significant decline, there are very few fish to catch, and the number of large adult fish are few and far between. What anglers at grass roots are saying is that sea angling experience is poor, but we have to be allowed to continue taking as much as we can as and when we want irrespective of the impact of our activities.

 

(NGO’s) We would welcome bag limits for anglers, especially in marine protected areas. It makes sense to impose restrictions on anglers when there is no information on the level of angler take, this is especially important when there are so many unknowns in general related to fin fish populations. We consider that such a move would be of great benefit to the marine environment, and would propose that bag limits are implemented not just in marine protected areas, but in all sites of scientific interest and with buffer zones around MPA’s to not only encourage enforcement but also to ensure that fin fish have space to migrate out of and into MPA’s. Anglers would benefit in the longer term by having access to larger fish.

 

(NFFO etc) We agree, the recreational sector take of marine fin fish is an unknown metric, and whilst there are significant restrictions on the commercial sector, unknown exploitation levels should be minimised. If there are as has been suggested 1.45 million anglers in England and Wales, if each catches just 1 cod, 1 bass and 5 whiting per year that equates to 1.5m cod, 1.5m bass and 7.5m whiting. Anglers are taking commercial magnitudes of fish without restriction or consideration. Bag limits are the only feasible way ahead and all species should be assigned a daily limit.

 

Outcome; Implementation of a bag limits without any benefits accruing to sea anglers and RSA as a whole.

 

Anglers response; Our representatives sold us down the river!!!

 

And so it goes on, the discussions on this forum have shown that there are many diverse points of view, there are those who have some foresight, there are those who have none, there are those who should know better but play to the audience, and there are those who are prepared to stand up for what they believe. Either way, and what ever your perspective, it’s a fight to the end, there was a time when alliances could have been forged, however, it’s a case now of anglers against the rest. The commercials have drawn a line in the sand, as have the NGO’s, unfortunately anglers are still arguing whether the tide is in, out or too rough to test the water, that indecision will probably cost us dearly.

 

There are anglers who consider their own activities to be outstanding, fish a plentiful, there are those who’s local angling is dire, there are those who live inland and travel to the most prolific areas and as a consequence don’t really see the state of some coastal areas. I think it time that those lucky enough to have decent fishing on their doorsteps to stop deriding those less fortunate and put down their rose tinted glasses for just an evening to appreciate what some anglers are faced with. As fish don’t respect regional boundaries, neither should those who have currently good fishing, anglers are cut from the same cloth, and in the same way that commercial fishermen support others that may be out of area, anglers should for once consider others less fortunate. After all what goes around comes around, your fishing may be excellent at the moment, but who’s to say in a few years that the roles will not be reversed. At this moment in time we need to consolidate, not disintegrate.

 

The extremely vocal anglers who are hypercritical of those that represent them, should take time out to consider, these representatives are unpaid, largely unskilled (in terms of dealing with government) and extremely under funded in comparison to those who sit opposite. These representatives have frequently requested assistance, they’ve asked for better funding, they’ve asked anglers to attend meetings, the response from the angling fraternity has been conspicuous by its absence. There are those on here (not mentioning any names, they know who they are) who have stated that they would attend meetings, would represent RSA, would travel to London to meet with DEFRA and other officials, and……………. always pulled out at the last minute. I find it strange that these people then see fit to beat RSA representatives with a big stick, the words either put up or shut up spring to mind!!!!!!!!!!!

 

The point that the representatives often visit AN and should have a good idea of angling attitudes is well made, in fact the indecision and conflicting views only compound the problem, or are these hypercritical posters suggesting that their own point of view take president. If that was the case no consensus would ever be reached.

 

Well here’s the rub guys. I’d far rather be fishing than sat up at 02:00am in the morning writing responses to DEFRA consultations, SFC proposed byelaws etc. The persistent vitriol from some members of this forum who seem to have a singular belief that they are right and are more than willing to dismiss out of hand any opposing view, has become tiresome. The offer has not changed, if certain people who are sure they can do better would like to step forward, then please do so.

 

 

I think that was a great post doc, brilliantly written and your points put across with the venom of a man who truly be leaves what he is trying to do is correct.

I take my hat off to you doc for that.

The problem in my eyes and also I believe in many other RSA is that you are (or are seen to be) taking away our choice.

One of the great things about RSA is having that freedom of choice with your hobby that through your own choice you have come to love.

You love it because you have the choice to practice it as you chose.

I believe that the large majority want to keep that choice regardless to what they or future generations choose to try and catch.

I also believe you are making a fundamental mistake on which you see as our enemy in this never ending want to win scenario that you try and get us entangled with.

If where into making up scenarios today then try this one for size.

If I was an elected recreational sea angling representative, the first people I would like to get on my members side and try and work with would be commercial fishermen.

I could learn so much from them instead of trying to learn more to be able to fight and oppose them at every opportunity.

defra, the government and the European bureaucrats must love to see stake holders (because that’s what they want us to be) divided, at each others throats, accusing each other of rights to what fish the government allows us all to catch.

I wonder (from a political point of view) what the governments of Europe would think if all fishermen both recreational and commercial where (with public support) to stand together and say “hay you who we put into power, what the **** is going on?” consecutive governments that we have voted into power have failed with the management that we entrusted you with, namely the management of our seas. Year after year both recreational and commercial fishermen have been robed of our heritage our historical birth right.

By you the democratically elected. So we the democracy who elected you is united in our disproval of your management of all our resources. We will therefore be campaigning for your immediate removal from this very important assignment that we entrusted you with (and who promised us all so much) the only way we know how, through the ballot box.

Sort out our resources before it is too late or we will sort you out before the damage you and your predecessors have caused to our seas and there inhabitants becomes irreversible.

Regards.

[Jim Roper]

What's the point? Only money spending people should count in angling conservation and politics?

The point is that Lord Mullet of Medway would not be able to claim he represents as many anglers if SACN were not free to join.

I reckon anglers spend enough to be taken notice of already.

Edited October 22, 2006 by Jim Roper