Total Sea Fishing Magerzine

[Steve Coppolo]

I find Total Sea Fishings (TSF) Oct o6 editorial offensive. Weymouth & Portland Borough Council (WPBC) looks after and represents both its charter and commercial fleet as it should. It was elected by the people for the people. The editorial was written by Bob Cox and not by Darren Taylor. The figures stated are incorrect as para 6 in the notes of the DEFRA document used state the under ten meter fleet is not included. What TSF also did not tellyou was Bob Cox wrote an email to WPBC stating he would write to TSF if he did not get an answer. Gross abuse of position Mr Cox, shame on you and shame on TSF. By the way. I hope WPBC sue TSF for the deflamatery remarks.

 

I have also noted that TSF have never printed any letters of reply to the article!!

 

Hello local fisherman

 

Didn't you post almost exactly the same rant on the BASS website?

 

What makes you think the editorial was written by anyone other than the person who actually wrote it? That editorial could have been written by anyone armed with the same info, and it would have read exactly the same. So what if the it was Bob Cox who found the information? Bob is an angling journalist, gaining information is what they do. Just the same as writing editorials, using up to date information provided by their journalists, is what magazine editors do

 

Why do you find it offensive? Do you sit on the council? You mention an email that was sent to the council that no one else seems to know about, so you must have access to information that few other people have. If you don't actually sit on the council, do you sit on the local sea fisheries committee with local councillors?

 

You say that WPBC looks after and represents both its charter and commercial fleet as it should. I suppose that depends on what side you look at it from because according to that editorial the council is quoted as saying, "While the significant contribution of angling towards local economies was fully acknowledged, the importance of commercial fishing was also recognised as a PRIORITY." If that's your idea of fairly representing the charter and commercial fleet as it should, then that tells us all we need to know. You obviously believe that the commercial fleet should take priority over the charter fleet too. That explains why you find the editorial offensive. I wonder if the local charter skippers also found it offensive, and if so, whether their reasons would be the same as yours?

 

I thought that copy of TSF was very good, and the editorial was superb. Why on earth shouldn't a sea angling magazine show support for sea anglers? Perhaps you would like it better if TSF showed the same attitude towards anglers as WPBC? Dream on.

Edited November 25, 2006 by Steve Coppolo

[frankthebass]

What the commercial fishermen want is for anglers, charter skippers and any one else who enjoys or earnes money from the sport to just say that commercial fishing is more important that angling.

 

In fact they feel they have more right to the fish than anglers when infact the fish belong to us all.

 

Commercial fishermen were given their lisences buy the govenment payed for by you and me from our taxes, they only gave them to commercial fishermen who were operating at that time. This gave them value, so now when a fishermen sells his boat he can also sell his lisence. He doesnt give the money back he in fact pockets the money. Thats money we gave him in the first place.

 

Now when anglers get a angling lisence we will have to pay for this lisence.

So we will be paying to fish in seas that have been overfished by commercial fishermen. Its all kinda back to front dont you think. Surely anglers would have a case to sue SFC and or govenment for MASS MISMANAGMENT OF OUR FISHERIES!

 

Local councils and SFC are going to be biased towards commercial fishermen as they dont want to be seen doing damage to these heroes of the seas.

[Local Fisherman]

What the commercial fishermen want is for anglers, charter skippers and any one else who enjoys or earnes money from the sport to just say that commercial fishing is more important that angling.

 

In fact they feel they have more right to the fish than anglers when infact the fish belong to us all.

 

Commercial fishermen were given their lisences buy the govenment payed for by you and me from our taxes, they only gave them to commercial fishermen who were operating at that time. This gave them value, so now when a fishermen sells his boat he can also sell his lisence. He doesnt give the money back he in fact pockets the money. Thats money we gave him in the first place.

 

Now when anglers get a angling lisence we will have to pay for this lisence.

So we will be paying to fish in seas that have been overfished by commercial fishermen. Its all kinda back to front dont you think. Surely anglers would have a case to sue SFC and or govenment for MASS MISMANAGMENT OF OUR FISHERIES!

 

Local councils and SFC are going to be biased towards commercial fishermen as they dont want to be seen doing damage to these heroes of the seas.

 

 

Oh Dear........ No body has said your going to have to pay a license yet. Although I do acknowledge what your saying in your 1 st para, and I also acknowledge that this has been proposed.

 

Local councils and SFC's are not biased towards commercial fishermen. They look after their people who elected them. Therefore the statement "While the significant contribution of angling towards local economies was fully acknowledged, the importance of commercial fishing was also recognised as a PRIORITY" is the correct way for the Council to steer.

 

SFC Members: They actualy now have to declare their interests as MP's do and if a proposal is a conflict of interest they must withdraw from the debate and they do not vote on the proposal.

 

As for do I sit in any elected chair..... ? NO. Nor on any SFC. Do I have the said correspondence? Yes... But ... I will not divulge the email or its contents and Leon knows why! We all know you work with Malcombe G, Richard F, Bob Cox, John L. You have all done the RSA an injustice. You all claim to represent the majority and you dont. RSA is seriously fragmented and yet you act on their behalf.

 

Wurzul you got it right.... this is going to go full circle and bite the RSA on the A*#e. If only they had worked in conjunction with the commercial sector they would not be in the mess they now face - Licenses and bag limits, plus other possible restrictions.

 

No Steve I did not post the rant on the BASS website. Someone else beat me to it.

 

As for is the MLS increase in the bag.... No... If a challenge is mounted through the courts the Government will have to suspend the MLS increase until a judgement is made.

 

I have seen some brilliant statements from both the RSA and the commercial sector:

 

1. Stop the pair trawlers

2. Bass closed season 1st Jan to 30th Apr.

3. Commercial and RSA should have worked together.

4. If the RSA lobby had approached the commercials with the same sort of proposals and acted along with like minded commercials we would not be in the situation of bickering and trying to score political points off each other that we have now.

 

Instead they are(RSA) trying to use bullyboy stakebloodyholder tactics, trying to build bridges much to far, egged on by desperate for something to do DEFRA officials along with vote and revenue hungry politicians.

 

I think the RSA lobby needs to back off, hind sight can be a wonderful thing, the commercials are doing what any cornered animal will do, fight back, the RSA need to reassess their objectives discuss what is obtainable, scrap what is just fantasy and start again. A very true statement from Wurzel.

[frankthebass]

I used to hope that we could all work together, and unlike most anglers I would of hated to see the nd of our commercial fishing fleet. I myself used to work on a small fishing boat just like Wurzels. But now I see the light, the fact that SFC or govenment are not interested in anyone else but fishermen.

There is no way (although I think it would be great if we could) with current tempers that we an all sit around a table and talk.

[Ken Davison South Wales]

Bottom line Local Fisherman:

 

All the time commercials are stating fish stocks in general are ok and sustainable, a statement which the opposite to 99.99% of information available, how do you think not only RSAs but all the other stake holders will feel???

 

Whilst some of the other stakeholders will not be so concerned about bass sizes, commercial exploitation of other species will come high on their list.

 

The commercial sector always blame the RSAs for targeting them, I would however say they should take a much broader look at the situation they are currently facing.

 

I would suggest it would be wiser for commercials to buddy up to RSAs and find ground which we can both use to demonstrate a joint effort to preserve our common rights to go fishing.

 

You’re some what mis-placed humour about having mls for bass put on hold could be your undoing.

 

There are conservation bodies out there who have more money and far better lobbying tactics that commercials and RSAs put together; in fact against them we are a pack of wallies.

Edited November 26, 2006 by Ken Davison South Wales

[Leon Roskilly]

Local councils and SFC's are not biased towards commercial fishermen.

 

 

Are you sure about that?

 

See: http://www.sacn.org.uk/index.php?news=97

[Leon Roskilly]

I will not divulge the email or its contents and Leon knows why! We all know you work with Malcombe G, Richard F, Bob Cox, John L.

 

And many others from many angling organisations and sometimes environmental organisations as well.

 

And oh! commercial fishing organisations and commercial fishermen too!!

 

So, why does that prevent you publicly divulging the contents if they are as you are trying to represent them.

 

And if it exists?

[Ken Davison South Wales]

Are you sure about that?

 

See: http://www.sacn.org.uk/index.php?news=97

 

Nice reading Leon It would seem to support RSAs and other stakeholders views

 

Looking forward to the report being published.

[Steve Coppolo]

Oh Dear........ No body has said your going to have to pay a license yet. Although I do acknowledge what your saying in your 1 st para, and I also acknowledge that this has been proposed.

Why should we have to pay for a licence. Commercial fishermen were given theirs free of charge. Why didn't the government give out licences to anyone who was catching fish at the time, including anglers and hobby fishermen?

Local councils and SFC's are not biased towards commercial fishermen.

 

They look after their people who elected them. Therefore the statement "While the significant contribution of angling towards local economies was fully acknowledged, the importance of commercial fishing was also recognised as a PRIORITY" is the correct way for the Council to steer.

I still can't see that quote as being correct or fair. What it says is that the livelihoods of commercial fishermen take priority over the livelihoods of charter skippers, tackle shop owners, bait diggers, etc. Still, at least you've nailed your colours to the mast so we all know how you think.

SFC Members: They actualy now have to declare their interests as MP's do and if a proposal is a conflict of interest they must withdraw from the debate and they do not vote on the proposal.

Elected members have to declare any "vested" interests and can still take part in any debate, but can't vote on it. DEFRA appointees don't have to declare any interests if they don't want to, and can vote on any issue they like, although most would no doubt declare a vested interest if they had one.

As for do I sit in any elected chair..... ? NO. Nor on any SFC. Do I have the said correspondence? Yes... But ... I will not divulge the email or its contents and Leon knows why! We all know you work with Malcombe G, Richard F, Bob Cox, John L. You have all done the RSA an injustice. You all claim to represent the majority and you dont. RSA is seriously fragmented and yet you act on their behalf.

Anyone reading this would think that you knew what you were talking about. In your last post you complain about "deflamatery" (sic) comments even though those comments were made by the WPBC themselves. Now you say that you "know" I work with a members of the NFSA conservation group and BASS restoration team, which simply isn't true. I would guess that anything "dodgy" contained within the said email is also a figment of your imagination.

Wurzul you got it right.... this is going to go full circle and bite the RSA on the A*#e. If only they had worked in conjunction with the commercial sector they would not be in the mess they now face - Licenses and bag limits, plus other possible restrictions.

Working with commercial fishermen would be great. Unfortunately their idea of working together is to tell RSA to get stuffed, mind your own business, leave us alone, make do with the crumbs we leave for you, our livelihoods are more important than yours, etc. As soon as the commercial sector agree to compromise on some issues, then we might be able to work together, but as things stand it'll neve happen because RSA is having to fight for everything. A prime example is the BASS MLS. 4cm was too much for the commercial sector to give. They fought it fiercely and are now trying to get it over turned. No, it's not RSA who are unwilling to work together, it's the commercial sector. You think RSA is in a mess because bag limits and licences are on the horizon? What restrictions on commercial fishing do you think will be needed to justify those measures? Maybe if commercials had been willing to work with RSA instead of refusing to budge on any issue, we might not have needed to insist on such severe restrictions on comkmercial fishing.

No Steve I did not post the rant on the BASS website. Someone else beat me to it.

It is almost word for word. Maybe you copied it?

As for is the MLS increase in the bag.... No... If a challenge is mounted through the courts the Government will have to suspend the MLS increase until a judgement is made.

A prime example of what I was talking about above.

[frankthebass]

Im sure that nothing would have been printed in the Bobsbites bit of TSF unless to the best of Bob Coxes knowledge it was correct. I just feel it has left certain quarters a tad red faced and this posting is a bit of a kick back against that.

Edited November 26, 2006 by frankthebass