DEFRA Meet SACN

[Leon Roskilly]

Reading what you have said, are you claiming it is legal for an angler to sell 25kgs of fish per day? This is something I am not aware of.

 

It is illegal for anyone fishing from an unlicensed powered vessel, or an unlicensedd vessel over 10 metres in length, to sell any fish they catch, regardless of the buyers and sellers legislation.

 

The 25kg limit allowed in the buyers and sellers means that as a buyer, you don't have to be registered if you are buying 25kgs of fish from a fishing vessel for your own personal consumption (so anyone buying up to 25kgs at the back door of a restuarant for resale, from the person who has caught the fish, is not covered by the exemption and could be prosecuted)

 

 

(Note the 25kg limit relates to buying of fish, not selling of fish! And it only applies to the first sale of fish)

 

 

Sales of shore caught fish, whether caught by rod and line or by net, are not subject to any quota or regulation.

 

 

 

see: http://www.sacn.org.uk/Articles/Buyers_And...egislation.html

Edited December 15, 2006 by Leon Roskilly

[Leon Roskilly]

By the way, our local SFC already imposes bag limits on some species of shellfish. The precedent is already there so it would not be a problem for them to do the same with other species if they so wished.

 

 

That precedent has not been subject to any legal challenge.

 

The ancient right to take fish, and perform ancillary activities, is backed up by the Magna Carta and when angling organisations have mounted challenges using that defence on occasions of other attempted restrictions of those rights, they have been successful.

 

It could be that any such challenge instigated as a result of restricting anglers access to fin-fish, could also lead to the overturn of the byelaws restricting the take of lobsters etc by 'hobby fishermen'.

 

Then again, until such a case is tested in court ........................

[JB]

Thanks Leon that is what I had suspected.

 

JB

[JB]

That precedent has not been subject to any legal challenge.

 

The ancient right to take fish, and perform ancillary activities, is backed up by the Magna Carta and when angling organisations have mounted challenges using that defence on occasions of other attempted restrictions of those rights, they have been successful.

 

It could be that any such challenge instigated as a result of restricting anglers access to fin-fish, could also lead to the overturn of the byelaws restricting the take of lobsters etc by 'hobby fishermen'.

 

Then again, until such a case is tested in court ........................

And hopefully this will happen.

[Guest challenge]

So are bag limits to be put in place to stop recreational black fish? Or too help to try and regulate commercial fishermen more?

A thousand RSA fishing the shore between spurn point and the Tyne on a winter’s night. Two commercial trawlers fishing the same area for the same fish. Who is regulated the most?

In fact at the moment, who is not regulated at all?

Proposing to give the government a wind fall in licence money and recommending regulation of the people you represent would surely help RSA representation to be more accountable and therefore more influent when sat round a negotiation table with people who are accountable and are very much so restricted.

The question is, do RSA need to be represented that much that they are going to have there past time turned completely on its head and in some cases could mean the end of the commercial side of the sport.

In this part of the world the commercial fleet (trying to catch fin fish) is so small and so regulated that they cannot make a full time living commercial fishing, without having other work (oil patrol work, standby work etc) to subsidize there fishing efforts.

Do you honestly think that DEFRA don’t already realise this?

[waterman1013]

"commercial fisherman is that they do not think we should be stakeholders"

 

Commercial fishermen need to realise that we are all stakeholders in sea fish stocks, whether we fish or not. The fish in our seas are held in common, for all. The problem has always been that the common has never been managed by those who own it, but, until now, those who live closest to it and have continually raped it.

 

Read the Fisheries Debate at

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=...=angling#g992.6

and see the comments from an inner city constituency.

[Leon Roskilly]

"commercial fisherman is that they do not think we should be stakeholders"

 

Read the Fisheries Debate at

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=...=angling#g992.6

and see the comments from an inner city constituency.

 

or at http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2006-12-14a.1048.0 Mike

[Guest challenge]

"commercial fisherman is that they do not think we should be stakeholders"

 

Commercial fishermen need to realise that we are all stakeholders in sea fish stocks, whether we fish or not. The fish in our seas are held in common, for all. The problem has always been that the common has never been managed by those who own it, but, until now, those who live closest to it and have continually raped it.

 

Read the Fisheries Debate at

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=...=angling#g992.6

and see the comments from an inner city constituency.

Thanks for the link waterman1013.

I am not sure what you mean by those who live by the sea have continuously raped it?

Do you mean the commercial fishermen or the RSA? Or both?

We have thousands of inner city anglers who come to Whitby every year to catch and take fish?

Does there geographical home exempt them from being rapists?

I believe that commercial fishermen now believe (after the amount of stick they have taken from certain parties connected to the recreational sector) that we certainly are stakeholders and therefore should be accountable for what we say we have a stake in.

Regards

[Leon Roskilly]

See Report at Fishupdate.com

 

New bass rule will benefit all fishermen, says Bradshaw

 

Opening the annual fisheries debate, Mr Bradshaw announced that in 2005 the value of landings by British commercial fishing vessels increased for the second year running to £571 million a rise of 11 per cent. Exports had risen by four per cent to £925 million.

 

He said recreational sea anglers also made a very significant contribution to the UK economy but in his view their interests had not always been sufficiently recognised in fisheries management.

 

“We have tried to make sure their interests are better represented, for example on inshore fisheries management bodies and we are currently working closely with recreational angling interests to take this approach forward with a recreational sea angling strategy for England in the New Year.”

 

Bill Wiggin, the Conservative fisheries spokesman, said recreational sea angling in the EU, including that in Britain, was worth up to €10 billion and that both angling and commercial fishing were entirely reliant on the same natural resource, the publicly-owned fish stocks in inshore waters.

 

Full report can be read at:

http://www.fishupdate.com/news/fullstory.p..._Bradshaw_.html

[glennk]

I believe that commercial fishermen now believe (after the amount of stick they have taken from certain parties connected to the recreational sector) that we certainly are stakeholders and therefore should be accountable for what we say we have a stake in.

Regards

 

That's fine so long as they base their requests on scientific evidence saying we need managing for conservation purposes. However it would then be rather ironic if they did that after commercial fishermen have ignored science for so long - unless of course it works in their favour.

 

I notice you say we challenge in your statement, does that mean you are now classing yourself as an an RSA ?