Licenses, Bag Limits, MPAs, SFCs

[mr motorola]

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.

Completely and utterly agree with you 110% Jim

 

It's simple when you think about it

[The doctor]

Challenge, I’m not sure I understand your point about RSA reps taking away your choice, what choices are we attempting to take away. I can only assume you are talking about rod licences, bag limits etc., although where this has been literally stated as the case I’m not quite sure, I certainly have never offered those rights, and can’t think of any others who have. I admit some of these issues have tentatively been discussed, but the same line has been taken throughout, a strong opposition without clear benefits to RSA, and even then any acceptance would have to have widespread endorsement from the RSA sector as a whole. If reluctantly discussing these issues is considered to be a weakness on the part of RSA representatives, then by the same standard refusing to enter into dialogue would be classed as incompetence. I guess at the end of the day I would rather be seen as weak than incompetent, because either way there will be those pushing for the implementation of these measures, if we are unwilling or unable to respond then the measures will be pushed through, if we argue our points to the best of our ability, then perhaps we could derive some benefit from a bad situation.

 

With all the power, resources and support the NFFO and SFF have, they were still unable to prevent the days at sea restrictions despite national campaigns. By entering into dialogue, they were able to mitigate the effects to some extent. Would they have gained any ground by refusing to discuss or accept the DAS restrictions? We have to be realistic and accept that if restrictions on RSA activity are on the table, we have to fight our corner, address the issue, oppose unilateral implementation and get the best deal available. After all if government see fit to pursue this, they will, however much we tub thump and scream and shout.

 

I think you may have misinterpreted or misunderstood my comments wrt dialogue with the commercial sector, it may surprise you to learn that such dialogue has been undertaken. There is at the moment, under the auspices of DEFRA a sea angling strategy being developed, such a strategy has to be accepted by all other stakeholders, prior to consultation, including the commercial sector (in this instance the NFFO). Sadly the NFFO have strongly intimated that much (practically everything that would benefit and secure the future of RSA) within the proposal is unacceptable. Personally I think we’ve reached an impasse with regards to this and at this moment see no future for the recreational sea angling sub group of the Inshore waters working group. Similarly, I (personally) am uncomfortable with the notion, that we (RSA) have to acquire acceptance from the commercial sector prior to any future benefits being levied. We are a large enough stakeholder (both socially and economically) to be able to stand on our own feet, we are not asked to rubber stamp any issues concerning commercial fishing, and rightly so, why should others have to endorse issues that may impact RSA.

 

In addition, we approached the NFFO chief executive at a meeting in Stockholm some time ago, to enquire whether a meeting between the two sectors would be beneficial to see where there may be common ground. I was told politely and rather condescendingly, that it may be possible in the future, but that there were much more important things they had to deal with, sea anglers were not one of them. I felt like a little schoolboy being sent to the corner to play with my rod, such attitude does nothing for relations.

 

You make a valid point (in my mind) with regard to improving relations with the commercial sector, however, you maintain that RSA has to reflect the majority view, not the minority view that RSA reps currently take. I wonder how many on AN endorse working closely with the commercial sector, the topic discussed on AN recently wrt this question showed that there is no majority view to this question. Therefore, which line should anglers take, either way you seriously **** off one section.

 

Anglers on internet fora do bemoan the actions of the commercial fishermen, they take the blame for all the ills of poor fish stocks, poor access, gill nets etc., some of this criticism is justified, some of it isn’t. However, I have yet to see anything emanating from RSA in the public domain that compares with the vitriolic and hysterical attacks by the commercial sector (Fishing News, NFFO and some PO’s). The bass campaign is but one instance. We continuously read that anglers have too much influence, campaigning for the demise of the fishing industry, too big for their boots, shouldn’t be involved in fisheries management, aren’t worth what they say they are, should stick to playing with their rods, etc.

 

I see no willingness to participate in dialogue on the behalf of the commercial sector; in fact the opposite is the case. Sea angling and sea anglers are an evil that must be exorcised was one recent comment, and that was the point to which I referred, i.e. “The commercials have drawn a line in the sand”.

 

Like it not, agree with the sentiment or not, we are on our own, the options are simple and straight forward, we either stand as one and fight our own corner for the best possible outcome, or we give up, accept rod licenses and bag limits without a fight and preside over the demise of sea angling and the resultant loss of the charter fleet, sea angling jobs and fish.

 

I wonder in years to come what the legacy will be if we decide on the latter option, as I said previously, its not about conservation its about the preservation of sea angling and sea angling jobs, why those who currently work in the sector are unable to grasp this is beyond me.

 

 

Doc.

[Guest challenge]

Good post again doc.

I am sorry that there are a few things that you say that I cannot agree with, firstly this hatred that you are trying to say that the commercial industry has for the recreational industry? Sorry doc, even after the massive campaign from the recreational side to discredit commercial fishermen at every chance I still admire the commercials restraint.

Even on this forum, recreational anglers are urged on to discredit commercial fishermen at every given chance.

I am sorry that you where summoned to the corner and that you felt like a schoolboy with your attempts on recognition. It happens in life doc, don’t take it seriously, the fact that you where there at all has a massive acceptance in my eyes.

I believe that finding out what the majority of RSA want should be the main priority of anybody who would like to represent them.

Finding out that is no easy feet I can tell you.

But when you do find out and agree, then that would be your biggest battle internally completed.

If you could prove to commercial reps and government reps that you did represent a very large amount of people who have a very strong opinion on what is going on, then I believe the last place they would want to send you is the corner.

I personally don’t want representing for the simple fact that I love my unbureaucratic pass time just the way it is.

I know you may say that this is a selfish attitude and maybe it is.

but if you where to live by the sea where I live and put up with the millions that come every year then I believe that at the end of it we deserve something to be unregulated for us to do in return to sharing our homes and streets with the masses.

That’s only my opinion doc. unfortunately until you can prove that your opinion is more than just your own then I believe it’s going to be more corners for you.

Regards.

[The doctor]

I personally don’t want representing for the simple fact that I love my unbureaucratic pass time just the way it is.

Regards.

 

 

And therein lies the problem Challenge, there are probably quite a few others like yourself, a number have made that clear on AN. I would take issue with the perception that that is the majority position however. But the crux of the problem is that those who don't want to be represented are the most critical of those representing anglers that do want representation, who do want a voice at the table. If you are not interested in sea anglers having a voice, then why criticise, just ignore it, it doesn't affect you does it.

 

It may be possible to produce a list of those who have opted out and have no clear position on the future of RSA, in other words your happy to maintain the status qou. Any future response to consultation packages could contain a list of such people/organisations in order to ensure that there are those in RSA circles who have no position and as such it could be argued hold a counter position to that being provided. That way all feelings are being portrayed, a minority position if you like (assuming it is a minority who feel that way). I feel another poll coming on LOL.

[Holmesy]

I think therein lies a potential problem. Even when you've determined what the majority of RSA's want, I still don't believe that until your an elected representative that it gives any individual the right to negotiate on behalf of another. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to have somebody sat on the panel at meetings with the ministry and our commercial friends but that persons position would carry greater strength if the other panel members knew they were elected representatives. I get a bit twitchy when I read sentences like "I admit some of these issues have tentatively been discussed, but the same line has been taken throughout, a strong opposition without clear benefits to RSA, and even then any acceptance would have to have widespread endorsement from the RSA sector as a whole", surely the stock answer would be not to discuss such issues until consultation had taken place, express a strong opposition and not give the impression it was something that could be traded?

[Cranfield]

"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."

 

The point remains, this is the relevant extract from the Defra "Summary of responses".

 

I don't see a lot of qualifications attached to that statement.

That is Defra's interpretation ................worrying isn't it.

 

Quote by the doctor.

"If you are not interested in sea anglers having a voice, then why criticise, just ignore it, it doesn't affect you does it. "

 

I would have thought what the unelected representatives of RSA's are doing, will most certainly affect sea anglers.

Why should we ignore it.

 

The answer to licences and bag limits should be "No".

When Defra have something to offer the RSA's in exchange for these impositions, thats the time to negotiate.

Don't offer them up and then stand there with your cap in hand, hoping some consoling crumb is going to drop of the table.

[seaside]

............... big snip

 

I feel another poll coming on LOL.

Personally I don't see the issue with polls, there are many assertions made on this forum as to what the majority want, don't want etc., but in reality, there is no proof that this is so.

 

I guess most of the 150+ RSA organistions ( angling clubs, associations, federations etc.) will have elected officers and there'll be periodic exec meetings where key issues are discussed and positions identified; also for members of those organisations, there'll also be a process for votes of no confidence, elections etc., if members are disatisfied with their representation.

 

For other organisations ( without elected officers and processes ) and/or individuals, a poll would enable them to contribute to a national argument by saying their position was put to an open vote and the response was such and such.

[Holmesy]

What's the NFSA's position? I'm a member but can't remember having any literature from them re these issues. I'm not sniping at them, I'm asking the question, but to me they would be the obvious organisation to carry these things forward, particularly if they got all the regional fishing associations on board (hope your reading SWFSA).

[The doctor]

Quote by the doctor.

"If you are not interested in sea anglers having a voice, then why criticise, just ignore it, it doesn't affect you does it. "

 

I would have thought what the unelected representatives of RSA's are doing, will most certainly affect sea anglers.

 

 

The 'unelected' representatives are members of the NFSA, BASS, SACN, YALASA, NMC, etc., these are the bodies the government has chosen to deal with as they are the only bodies which have some angling representation. Perhaps you should form the Anti Representative Seaanglers Institute (LOL), representing sea anglers who either don't want to be represented or take an opposing view to the traditional bodies.

 

All of these groups have asked their membership for a greater level of participation, individual members have asked on this forum for anglers to help out by attending meetings, there have been one or two who have offered and then when away from the limelight of the forum, quietly declined. You can only ask, if none stand forward what do these representative orgs. do. Perhaps we should just give up and accept that anglers don't want to be represented, and whilst there are undoubtedly those that do, thats just hard luck because there are a number that don't. I would suggest that those who take a differing or opposing view write to DEFRA stating that is the case and that they wish to be included in the process due to their conflicting views and their wishing these conflicting views to be heard.

 

The answer to licences and bag limits should be "No".

When Defra have something to offer the RSA's in exchange for these impositions, thats the time to negotiate.

Don't offer them up and then stand there with your cap in hand, hoping some consoling crumb is going to drop of the table.

 

I'm sorry Cranfield, you do that when you are negotiating from a position of power (like the government). DEFRA, through the government do not need to offer RSA anything, do you consider it likely that the government will offer RSA anything if we persistently say no to anything and everything. What has been said thus far is that we are opposed, but are prepared to negotiate in the event that there is no option. We negotiate from a reasonably strong position as opposed to here it is take it or leave it. I think personally that is what your own comments amount to.

 

I admire your optimism, where the coal miners, steel workers, fishing industry, car manufacturers and all other industries have failed, you believe that sea anglers will win. With 1.45m voters I still don't think we would be able to shift this government, anglers are spread across the country, and to be honest from what I've seen of the tory manifest wrt sea angling, god help us if they get in.

 

Doc.

[Holmesy]

Despite the goverments position of power, they want something from RSA's, the tax of a licence which they know they can't police succesfully. I think the RSA position could be stronger if the elected bodies had a mandate from their members that illustrated to the government just what they could lose.