An Alternative to Bag Limits?

[Jim Roper]

In a nutshell - RSA refused to even discuss bag limits on the grounds that MAFF were clearly the sponsors of commercial fishing (their words) and that this was an attempt to control sea angling by limiting angler catches, which were seen to be threatening the livelihoods of the commercial sector.

 

................................................................................

........................................................

 

Leon and others who have met with DEFRA and SFCs all stated unequivically, that they and the groups they represent have declared that would never sanction licences and / or bag limits, without the foundations being laid for stock recovery of species of importance to RSA and this would need to include the capping of commercial effort, increased MLSs and closed seasons on certain species.

 

 

I would imagine that Leon et al are getting fed up defending the same old accusations....and what's the point, when there are those who simply won't believe us?

 

Hope this clarifies things in your mind Jim

 

Cheers

Steve

 

It clarifies things in my mind alright.

 

BASS reps would not vote in favour of sea angling licenses/bag limits but, under certain conditions SACN reps would vote in favour of sea angling licenses/bag limits!

 

I wonder what other readers think!

[Leon Roskilly]

It clarifies things in my mind alright.

 

BASS reps would not vote in favour of sea angling licenses/bag limits but, under certain conditions SACN reps would vote in favour of sea angling licenses/bag limits!

 

I wonder what other readers think!

 

 

Is there going to be a vote Jim?

 

Who will be organising that?

 

I haven't heard anything about it.

[frankthebass]

Why would any angling lobby group recoment bag limits and lisences without restrictions on commercial effort at least promissed.

[Steve Coppolo]

Why would any angling lobby group recoment bag limits and lisences without restrictions on commercial effort at least promissed.

 

Promises? We want more than bloody politicians promises. We all know what they amount to.

[Leon Roskilly]

Why would any angling lobby group recoment bag limits and lisences without restrictions on commercial effort at least promissed.

 

 

For licenses our view has consistently been that it would be untenable to ask anglers to pay towards fishery management at a time when the number, and perhaps more important, the quality (size) of species targeted by anglers is at a historical low, owing to current fishery management objectives which totally ignore the needs of the RSA sector.

 

If fishery management objectives were to be put in place to develop recreational fisheries, and these proved successful, so that anglers on the beach and on the sea could see an improvement in their catches, and attributable to the realigned management objectives, then we could perhaps recommend that our members contribute towards the maintenance of that proven management for the benefit of anglers.

 

But we would want to see the results before being asked to pay. ie Don't offer us a jam tomorrow, pay now plan.

 

 

(However, if proposals were put forward for a package of measures that would be of potential benefit to RSA then we would be obliged to put that before our membership for consideration. )

 

 

Giving Evidence to the EFRA committee, this was our statement on a 'voluntary' licence scheme, suggested by the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit:

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/c...iii/uc12202.htm

 

Q213 Mr Drew: May I pick up the point about a voluntary licensing scheme? I believe that you are against this. I should be interested to know exactly what the grounds are against it and whether it is largely because you do not have the invitation to be formally on the licensing authority or for other reasons.

 

Mr Ferré: Our position is fairly clear. Unlike the freshwater situation nothing is being done today through legislation, control, enforcement, or access or rights to fish which benefits recreational sea angling. There is just nothing. So there is nothing to police and there is nothing which gives us a benefit, so why pay. What we see is that if there is a demonstrable programme of things which would benefit sea angling, access, fish stocks, all of those things, then we, as organisations, will happily support it. We are a bit reluctant to take it on trust; we have seen manifestos written before which promise us all sorts of things and do not get delivered.

 

Q214 Mr Drew: Whom do you not trust?

 

Mr Ferré: On current evidence I guess we do not believe that Defra, and although the sea fishery committees are definitely changing they are still of a particular mindset, either of those organisations understands that there is a need to change the management of our fisheries from one which looks to commercial fishing as its primary objective to one which says that there is a resource here which needs protecting and at the same time maximises the benefit to UK PLC. That means a balanced approach and we do not have a balanced approach today. In the middle of that you get the key issues we have.

 

Mr Gilbert: A lot of people's perception is that if freshwater anglers are prepared to pay for a licence, as indeed they do, what is wrong with sea anglers paying for a licence. The point needs to be made that the freshwater anglers, be they coarse anglers, trout anglers or migratory salmon and sea trout anglers, have the Environment Agency looking after their affairs and doing so very well. They actually have a remit to promote and develop recreational angling. We have nobody in the marine side with that responsibility. For years we have been from pillar to post: DCMS have pointed us to Defra, Defra have said they sponsor commercial we must go back to DCMS and DCMS have said they have no input into fish stock management. We are like a ping-pong ball, never knowing quite where to go with our issues.

 

Q215 Chairman: The orphans of the industry.

 

Mr Gilbert: Yes, we are.

 

Mr Roskilly: I should like to make the point that what anglers would like to see is more fish along with commercial fishermen of course. We should also like to see bigger fish. To do that means a change to management objectives in the way that fisheries are managed, especially for the larger fish which anglers want. We do not want to go down to the pub and say we caught a massive fish, this big. We want to go down and say that big. If a regime were put in place which actually started to produce the fish in the quantities and the quality which would help to develop recreational angling, I am pretty certain that most anglers would be only too happy to contribute towards those different management objectives by way of a licence. First of all, the majority of my members would want to see extra fish out there, see the bigger fish, see that these new measures aimed at developing recreational angling were working and then they would be quite happy to pay a licence fee. However, if asked to pay a licence fee and maybe there will be an improvement in 20 years' time, they are just going to make rude noises.

 

Q216 Mr Drew: Surely if there were a more effective regime, which would include you having a say over the management issues and maybe actually sharing in the data collection, because you have a means of doing that as well as the commercial industry, you would come out from the cold - although you seem to spend a lot of time in the cold - and you would get a recognisable role. Would you not see some value in that, or is there a danger in being on the inside?

 

Mr Roskilly: I would see that value but the average angler, the one or two million people who go and sit on the beach, whom you are asking to put their hand in their pocket and pay out for a licence would want to see something more tangible in the way of more fish for them to catch. Yes, given the small recognition, hopefully that will lead eventually to that situation where we can start to make our point more and we can bring in the strategies which will produce that. Before people start putting their hands in their pocket, they actually want to see what they are paying for.

We followed up the verbal evidence given with a written submission in which we stated:

 

1.1 Before a licensing scheme would be accepted by many recreational sea anglers, a development plan that was aimed at improving the angling ‘product’ (more and bigger fish of certain species and access to good fishing) would need to be formulated and delivered and, when there was an apparent and measurable improvement in the ‘product’, a licensing scheme would become much more acceptable.

 

1.2 If licensing was to be introduced before there was an improvement, on the basis of management plans that had not yet been shown to be effective, then there would need to be measurable and timely objectives set out, with those charged with delivering the benefits being held to account should targets not be achieved within the stated timescales.

 

 

 

 

 

Similarly for bag limits, these would only be acceptable if they were part of an overall and necessary conservation measure on that particular stock which would benefit anglers overall.

 

Sam, you were at the SFC meeting yesterday and heard me asking the SFC to reject the DEFRA call for bass bag limits.

 

You might have seen this statement also

 

The fact is that, for species where there is no quota, black fish landings are not a problem for RSA. Whether the market is being supplied legally or illegally makes no difference to the amount of non-quota fish that the market is taking.

 

It merely means that bona fide licensed fishermen have a greater problem selling into an already well supplied market, and get a lower price for their product.

 

Carwyn Jones seems to think that if the black market for bass is stopped that those fish will not then be taken out of the sea, so regards it as a conservation measure.

 

However the market will still be there.

 

By choking off the black market supply it will merely mean that it will be bona fide licensed fishermen supplying that market with those fish rather than unlicensed commercial fishermen (rod and liners as well as netters).

 

So it's really about protecting the market and market price of licensed fishermen, rather than about conservation.

 

And anglers will not benefit from that.

 

Yet in order to protect that market, the intention is to take away the rights of bona fide Recreational Sea Anglers, because the perception is that will make supply to the black market easier to enforce.

 

If a cap was to be placed on the effort on bass then perhaps a cap on the Recreational catch would be acceptable.

 

But the current bag limit proposals make no mention of a limit on total effort, licensed fishermen will still be able to put out as much netting as they possibly can, leave it in the water for as long as is practical, fish for as many hours as they can manage.

 

And when the black market is quashed, and the price of fish goes up, there is no way that the supply of fish will fall, rather the licensed catching sector will gear up to take up the slack. And that is why the carcass tagging idea is preferable.

 

It not only makes life difficult for those who supply black fish, but it enables a cap to be placed on total effort, increasing the market price and meaning that bona fide licensed fishermen will actually be able to fish less for the same level of income.

 

Not only protecting the market and price of bona fide licensed fishermen, but delivering conservation benefits as well.

 

And there is no need to place unnecessary restrictions on bona fide Recreational Sea Anglers taking home fish for their own use, and to feed their families, though with a cap on commercial effort perhaps an angling bag limit would be more acceptable and equitable.

 

Win Win Win for everyone, and most importantly for the fish stocks themselves.

 

 

Our reply to the Marine Bill Consultation on these issues:

 

• Angling Licenses and Bag Limits

 

The proposals make specific reference to the intention of the government to attain powers to charge anglers and to impose bag limits on anglers.

 

- Licensing

 

We would re-iterate our previously stated stance that it is perverse to expect anglers pay towards a fisheries management regime that has increasingly denied anglers the opportunity to catch both numbers of fish, and fish of a quality that would have been available if different management objectives had been pursued previously.

 

If there was a change to fishery management objectives for the species that anglers are principally interested in that resulted in an evident improvement in the number of fish, and the quality of size of fish available to anglers.

 

If other stakeholders that benefit from the management of the fishery resources were also required to pay towards the cost of that management.

 

Then it could be the case that we would be able to recommend that our members accept such a charge.

 

However, to make it acceptable, our members would need to see an improvement, as a result of changed management objectives, before they are likely to accept the need to contribute towards that management.

 

 

- Bag Limits

 

Bag Limits have been introduced as part of a package of fish stock management measures for the benefit of Recreational Sea Anglers elsewhere in the world.

 

However, given that it is generally acknowledged that anglers have a minimal impact on fish stocks compared with the removal of fish by other exploiters, Angler Bag Limits simply on their own have no benefit, especially when the sole purpose is to make available a larger number of fish to others, or to protect the local markets of others from a perceived threat that some unlicensed rod and line fishermen may be selling their catch.

 

Bag Limits for a particular species could only be recommended to our members if they were part of a necessary package of conservation measures that would ultimately make more and bigger fish available to anglers, and fully take into account local issues, such as the need to maintain the viability of angling charter fleets etc.,

 

Bag Limits that are imposed on anglers should also be imposed on other ‘recreational/hobby’ (ie unlicensed) fishermen, using nets, spear guns etc

 

It would be ridiculous if an angler was only allowed to take (say) two bass, and then put out a net to take another 30 on the same tide!

 

 

In summary, it can never be about whether any responsible organisation supports or rejects licenses or bag limits per se.

 

It has everything to do with what the accompanying package contains.

 

If there is no significant benefit for anglers, then SACN, NFSA etc will fight doggedly against such proposals (as we are currently doing against the idea of sneaking in bass bag limits by the back door of the SFCs with no benefit at all for anglers or bass).

 

If however there was the option to agree to a package that would overwhelmingly benfit anglers, then we could not reject that out of hand.

 

If there was something on the table worth considering, then there would be some point in negotiating for the best deal possible.

 

But at the end of the day, if acceptance of a package put forward was required, then we would of first consult with our membership, perhaps recommending one way or another.

 

But until such as package is put forward, we can only speculate, serving no good purpose.

 

 

Of course what is likely to happen, as with the bass bag limit proposals, we won't be asked, just told.

 

Will we then be able to mobilise 100,000 sea anglers to march into parliament square, with their rods, in protest, or will we merely be able to write a letter of protest?

 

Now is the time for Anglers to get behind their organisations and to give them the support and power to fight for the best deal possible, and to be taken seriously.

Edited November 21, 2006 by Leon Roskilly

[Jim Roper]

Is there going to be a vote Jim?

 

Who will be organising that?

 

I haven't heard anything about it.

 

For 'vote', read 'give backing to' if you want to play with words!

 

Why would any angling lobby group recoment bag limits and lisences without restrictions on commercial effort at least promissed.

 

 

Why would any angling lobby group recommend bag limits and licenses at all?

Edited November 21, 2006 by Jim Roper

[steve pitts]

It clarifies things in my mind alright.

 

BASS reps would not vote in favour of sea angling licenses/bag limits but, under certain conditions SACN reps would vote in favour of sea angling licenses/bag limits!

 

I wonder what other readers think!

 

Hi Jim

 

It isn't so much BASS reps voting for or opposing bag limits or licencing - all that the BASS reps do is represent BASS members and other anglers and businesses who support the BASS restoration project through donations etc.

 

We do not have a mandate to accept or reject proposals, merely to discuss and at times negotiate where appropriate, then report back to our members.

 

If the issues are significant enough to warrant public consultations at local or national level, then we ensure that our members are informed and encouraged to participate and have their say. BASS will also respond on behalf of its members, with a detailed response where appropriate. All of our responses to recent consultations are posted on our website.

 

The majority of our members can see potential benefits in the CONCEPT of licencing, they can and do work elsewhere, where the revenue raised is ring-fenced for RSA's benefit, but they will not pay for a licence, if they are being shafted with vague promises and anti-angling proposals from the likes of DEFRA and SFCs.

 

BASS are opposed to licences and bag limits for UK sea anglers under the prevailing management regime and objectives.

 

It is up to DEFRA etc. to convince us that they have acheived some tangiable and measurable improvements in our sport, which would justify us putting our hands in our pockets.

 

Cheers

Steve

Edited November 22, 2006 by steve pitts

[Jim Roper]

RSA already generates £63M in VAT for the UK Treasury.

 

A £22 Sea Angling License is expected to net £3M for fishery management.

 

I, and others, think that levying such a license on sea anglers will reduce their numbers, especially newcomers, to such an extent that there will be no net gain in revenue!

 

It will just be a bureaucracy exercise!

 

All VAT charged to commercial fishing boats should be repaid to them, as their outputs(food) is zero-rated!

Edited November 22, 2006 by Jim Roper

[MJB]

RSA already generates £63M in VAT for the UK Treasury.

 

A £22 Sea Angling License is expected to net £3M for fishery management.

 

I, and others, think that levying such a license on sea anglers will reduce their numbers, especially newcomers, to such an extent that there will be no net gain in revenue!

 

It will just be a bureaucracy exercise!

 

All VAT charged to commercial fishing boats should be repaid to them, as their outputs(food) is zero-rated!

 

 

Is this the same Jim Roper as the one who had plans on charging us to fish a venue that we have been fishing for years with no charge or challenge?

 

http://www.anglersnet.co.uk/forums/index.p...c=57193&hl=

[Jim Roper]

Is this the same Jim Roper as the one who had plans on charging us to fish a venue that we have been fishing for years with no charge or challenge?

 

http://www.anglersnet.co.uk/forums/index.p...c=57193&hl=

Not mine!

 

It's a nursery area behind Chesil beach that is privately owned and Joe Public do not have easy access to.

 

I doubt that you fish very much of it.

 

Most of the shore that you fish is in a different ownership.

 

I'm glad to think that you disagree with paying to fish in the sea!

Edited November 22, 2006 by Jim Roper