AN ADVERT IN A NATIONAL NEWSPAPER TO LET ANGLERS KNOW WHATS GOING ON BEHIND THE SCENCES

[stavey]

I simply wish to make every sacn member aware of the rsa strategy and that it is to be ratified in March. As a member of sacn I haven't received any info from them about this and the very important meetings they are attending regarding the rsa strategy and the marine bill. I am worried about the strategy stavey and I fear people are not informed of what is happening. This matter is too important for them not to be. Obviously if I'm wrong and everyone knows about it there is no harm in them having a little reminder.

 

Have you read the Recreational angling strategy Stavey and how did you find out about it ?

 

You know what glen, i dont realy know? i have read an awfull lot of hot air thats for sure mostly written by defra on their site all complete bo**cks most of the time, and i have no reason to believe that this will change in the near future, i will have a look around on the hard drive amongst the tons i have downloaded over the past few years and let you know, cheers.......

[glennk]

Ok mate. I would be really interested to know if you have a copy of the rsa strategy draft and where you found it.

[Captain Scarlett]

DRAFT V.1

Dec 2006

 

RECREATIONAL SEA ANGLING STRATEGY

 

 

 

 

 

INSHORE WORKING GROUP

RSA SUBGROUP

 

 

CONTENTS

 

Insert table when complete draft

 

 

1. INTRODUCTION

 

Background

1.1 The Drew Report into the economic impact of recreational sea angling (targeting all species) reported that in 2002 around 2 million people went sea angling at least once in England and Wales. The total expenditure by sea anglers in the UK on their sport (e.g. on fishing equipment, travel, food and accommodation) has been estimated at £538m from 12.7m anglers’ days annually.

 

1.2 The IFWG meeting on 23 March 2006 agreed that a Recreational Sea Angling (RSA) subgroup should be formed to take forward the development of an RSA strategy. This was in recognition that the needs of recreational sea anglers should be considered as fisheries policy is developed. A subgroup (at Annex A) formed from a representative group of fisheries stakeholders held constructive discussions around a draft paper, tabled by the RSA sector. The intention has been to seek consensus among key stakeholders on a framework for the development and management of RSA, rather than focusing on specific measures.

 

1.3 This revised (draft) Strategy has been based on the key points to come out of the subgroup. A final Strategy will be presented to the IFWG (at Annex for endorsement.

 

Scope and Definition

1.4 The Strategy is primarily concerned with issues and considerations that are of relevance to Recreational Sea Anglers in England. Recreational Sea Angling can be defined as

 

“A leisure activity in which an individual uses a rod, line and hook to catch fish on a non-commercial basis”

 

1.5 The Strategy does not consider other recreational forms of fishing, such as recreational or artisanal potting and netting, or commercial angling (rod-and-line fishing for profit) as the key outcomes sought by each sector would require different objectives. However, there may be relevant links between the RSA sector and some of these activities.

 

1.6 This Strategy also acknowledges that there is a diverse range of recreational sea angling activities and users with varying requirements. It is not possible to consider in detail the specific preferences, objectives or approaches taken by each. Instead, the Strategy sets an overarching framework of key elements, which will enable more detailed measures to be taken forward by the appropriate, identified bodies.

 

1.7 An RSA SWOT analysis is at Annex C, which highlights the areas this Strategy will address and build upon.

 

Development and Implementation

1.8 The development of the Strategy has opened the door to discussions between fisheries stakeholders, an important step forward in the future management of the marine environment. Discussions have facilitated the development of a shared understanding on some of the key issues where conflict arises, with each sector recognising the value others attach to the issue. However, in some cases, compromise has been difficult to reach. In implementing this strategy it will be critical to build on the constructive dialogue to date and improve the relationship between fisheries stakeholders.

 

2. STRATEGY GOALS

 

2.1 The aim of the Strategy is:

 

“To enhance the recreational sea angling experience in England in a sustainable, holistic and environmentally responsible way”

 

The angling experience can be thought of as all aspects that make sea angling an enjoyable activity. As well as catching more and bigger fish, this includes many un-measurable elements such as the quality and accessibility of angling sites, degree of angling knowledge and skill that is perceived as being required to catch particular species, the belief that desirable fish are in the fishing area and potentially ‘catchable’, the various levels of reward associated with catching a fish of certain size and species and other social aspects valued by individuals.

 

2.2 There are 3 sub-objectives

 

• capitalise on the economic potential of the sport to the benefit of the UK economy and identify ways to re-invest expenditure to provide further benefits

 

• sustainably maintain and increase participation in RSA across all sectors of society to provide socio – economic benefits

 

• increase awareness and understanding of RSA through improved communication, education and participation in fisheries management

 

 

3. INSHORE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

 

3.1 The management of marine fisheries can be complex. In particular, it will always be difficult to take account of and balance the sometimes conflicting needs of different stakeholder groups. However, marine resources should be managed holistically, not automatically to the benefit of one particular stakeholder group over another, but assessed on a case by case basis. While traditionally the RSA sector has been under-represented in fisheries management discussions, RSA has now been recognised as a socially and economically important activity and as a significant contributor to coastal economies. The needs of RSA stakeholders should therefore be better reflected in proportion to their involvement in decisions on inshore fisheries management.

 

3.2 An overarching principle, therefore, would be to ensure there is a management framework that can adequately reflect the needs of the RSA sector alongside other stakeholders. With recognition that EU legislation must be taken into account, the framework should be flexible and enable management responsibility for different issues to be taken at the most appropriate level. This may be on a national or local level, although Sea Fisheries Committees (SFCs) would be well placed to provide a platform from which to manage local stocks, respond quickly when required and introduce measures relevant to angling.

 

3.3 Inshore Managers, and in particular SFCs, should be equipped with the appropriate set of management tools to deliver these needs effectively. These tools should be comprehensive, covering decision-making processes, powers with which to legislate and effective enforcement.

 

3.4 There should be a review of existing powers and processes at both the national and local levels, with a view to strengthening them to ensure RSA needs are actively, rather than passively, incorporated and that the legislative framework is capable of catering for these needs. Particularly, this review should ensure that there is clarity and equality when Committee decisions are made through voting processes.

 

3.5 The relative value of a species changes depending on whether it is being targeted by commercial or recreational fishermen, although the two values are inherently incomparable. The characteristics of each stock is also dependent on how and to what extent the species is being targeted. The management decisions taken by SFCs should primarily remain conservation driven, but consideration should be given to whether decisions could also be made on a socio-economic basis to optimise the value to society of marine resources. At the least, the links that exist between these two approaches and the associated benefits should be made clearer.

 

3.6 Much of this review and resulting changes needed at the local level will need to be delivered by changes to primary legislation through the Government’s planned Marine Bill. Defra’s Coastal Waters team also provides a new, central contact for recreational sea angling, and will ensure that angling interests are considered in national fisheries decisions as well as review and implement appropriate national measures to benefit sea anglers.

 

 

4. SPECIES AND STOCK MANAGEMENT

 

4.1 Scientific advice suggests that many fish stocks, particularly white fish species, are under threat from a combination of factors including, over-exploitation, pollution and climate change. Other, currently sustainable stocks may be vulnerable to small changes in environment and would benefit from a precautionary approach to management.

 

4.2 Fish stocks are a shared resource, and should be managed in a way that takes into account the needs of all those who place a value on the species. Some species are prized by both the commercial and recreational sector and improved management could therefore provide benefits to both sectors, whilst others have more value to one sector than the other. The RSA sector also values the ‘expectation of catching a fish’ as part of the whole “angling experience”, as well as the actual reward in capturing a particular species or specimen. This value can be enhanced by the development of 3 key areas.

 

Species Management Plans

4.3 There are a number of species that are particularly prized by anglers because of their rarity, ‘catchability/sporting prowess’ and potentially large size, and management plans would set out specific measures that would enhance the stock to maximise the angling opportunities. Plans should set clear objectives for each species and consider the full of range of management tools available to achieve those objectives. Choice of tools will be dependent on species and objectives and are likely to differ in each management plan. Management plans should be informed by current scientific advice.

 

4.4 Using a list of key species identified on a regional and national basis and agreed by the RSA sector (at Annex D [to be inserted] to be confirmed through wider consultation?), plans would be drawn up beginning with those species that are of more value to the recreational sector than commercial sector. This would enable different management tools to be tested, providing an opportunity to evaluate, demonstrate and promote the wider benefits of taking action before any consideration of other more commercially valuable species. Some species would be better managed at a local level (for example, preventing use for pot bait in some areas) and others might be more appropriately managed at a national level.

 

Management measures that promote fish maturity

4.5 Although linked with the development of species management plans (above), there are also opportunities to take action for other species, not just those identified for specific action. The aim would be to follow the principles of sustainable fisheries management, and the need for diverse fish populations. Although the notion of introducing a Minimum Landing Size (MLS) that is above the age of maturity for each species is broadly promoted, it is acknowledged that there are other management tools, such as protecting nursery or broodstock aggregating areas, for example, that could provide benefits through increasing recruitment or protecting large fish when they are most vulnerable to exploitation. The EU is also moving away from MLS as a management tool, and looking to other measures to provide protection for juvenile fish.

 

4.6 Ensuring linkages are made to species already identified for action through management plans (section 4.3), all species that currently have no minimum landing size or allocated commercial quota should be evaluated. There should be detailed discussions with industry to understand particular difficulties and impacts for them associated with some species, and consensus should be reached where possible. The NFFO has previously proposed the re-introduction of MLSs in the UK for some species that were previously included under the EU Technical Conservation regulations, such as flounder. With regard to ensuring that discards are kept to a minimum and noting the complexities of impacts in mixed fisheries, the ultimate choice of management tool would be dependent on fish species and informed by scientific advice. The introduction of any relevant management tool, such as an MLS, should be widely publicised (through signage and relevant fisheries publications) and effectively enforced.

 

Protection of habitats and introduction of angling-only areas

4.7 Within the RSA sector there is strong support for a ‘Golden Mile’, whereby fishing within 1nm of the shoreline is reserved for anglers only, with only some low impact shell-fishing permitted. Although the sector acknowledges the impact such a measure would have on the commercial sector, there is considerable strength of feeling on this issue from a large number of anglers, who perceive that inshore netting reduces the likelihood of catching a fish, so diminishing the ‘angling experience’ within an area where a significant amount of sea angling takes place.

 

4.8 The need for regular, continuing dialogue between the angling and commercial sectors is strongly recommended. It is acknowledged that, to some extent, there is a misconception about the extent and impact of netting inshore. Buoys that mark strings of crab or lobster pots can often be confused with net-markers, while fixed nets themselves can be relatively selective, and may not be set to target species of interest to anglers, such as spider crabs. Much of this misconception could be remedied through marking of buoys, education about fishing practices and clear signage.

 

4.9 Blanket measures such as a complete ban on netting or other forms of fishing within one mile of the shore could only be introduced after the costs and benefits have been fully evaluated and are likely to be extremely contentious. The inshore zone is important to a number of small scale commercial fishing operators and displacement may also create health and safety problems. Another approach would be designating specific areas for anglers only, and managing others to improve the habitat and ecosystem (such as protecting the sea bed and increasing species richness and abundance). There are a range of tools already in existence that can be used for these purposes, and the Marine Bill should include provisions to broaden management measures. Currently the main measures inshore which have the potential to provide benefits for anglers are fixed engine byelaws and bass nursery areas. Coverage of the coast through fixed engine byelaws is patchy and nursery areas have beenin place some time without review. As a starting point, there should therefore be a review of fixed engine byelaws and bass nursery areas. The use of nursery areas should also be considered for other species as part of individual species management plan tools.

 

4.10 The RSA sector should also make strong links with forthcoming plans for introducing Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) to ensure that their interests are fully represented in the design and designation of these areas. Depending on the management objectives for each MPA, there is scope for some areas to effectively become ‘angling only’. Where ‘No Take Zones’ are considered, anglers could be considered for inclusion as low-impact users in the surrounding buffer zones.

 

4.11 Anglers should also work with local and national fisheries managers and scientists to identify the current ‘angling hot-spots’ and areas where there is minimal commercial fishing, but excellent angling potential. Such areas could be used for pilot studies, restricting use for sea-anglers only. Monitored closely, evidence built from such areas would then provide the basis for the consideration of further action elsewhere.

 

 

5. RSA CONTROLS

 

5.1 To date there has been relatively little control or monitoring of sea angling activity. This may be a contributing factor to the broad appeal of the sport. However, with relatively high angling participation levels, and a possibility that this could increase in future, anglers have the potential to have a large impact on stocks. Although this is broadly acknowledged, the RSA sector has identified the introduction of controls as one of the more contentious issues which has little support at present in advance of the demonstration of improved benefits to the sector.

 

5.2 Nevertheless, the potential benefits that might result from such controls are also acknowledged, although it is noted that these will need to be communicated effectively to generate interest and participation from anglers in discussions. Such measures should be seen as part of an overall package, presented by this strategy, that aim to benefit anglers. The success and potential benefits of any measures will be dependent on anglers being actively involved in the development process – responsibility would fall both to anglers, who should be willing to contribute constructively to the debate, and Government, who should ensure there is a clear, participative and extensive consultation process. Enforcement bodies should be actively involved in the development of proposals to ensure that any control measures can be enforced effectively in conjunction with existing responsibilities.

 

5.3 A combined mechanism that would raise money for the benefit of sea anglers, provide an effective communication tool, gather information to better understand anglers’ needs and enable effective monitoring and enforcement would underpin other elements of the RSA Strategy. Although there may be other tools to achieve these aims, a sea angling licence (operating in a similar way to the freshwater angling licence) could meet these needs. The costs and benefits should be transparent, justifiable and clearly understood. The associated charge would need to reflect the costs of administering and enforcing the scheme, with additional revenue returned to the angling sector through a range of projects and programmes that would enhance the angling experience.

 

5.4 Other management tools to monitor and control the potential impact anglers have on stocks should be considered. These tools should be flexible, enable action to be taken quickly if necessary to protect vulnerable stocks as well as look to the longer term, and be driven by clear scientific evidence. The conservation benefits of taking any action would need to be proportionate to the potential impact anglers have on stocks and relative to the controls enforced in the commercial sector. Action should be taken at the most appropriate level for each species, but should be primarily driven by Sea Fisheries Committees so that measures can be designed to take account upon particular local circumstances. One possible management tool is a ‘bag limit’ where, on a case-by-case basis, the total number of fish of the identified species allowed to be taken from the fishery over a specified time period would be limited. Defra should also consider extending their existing powers to more comprehensively include anglers and enable action to be taken quickly when appropriate and proportionate.

 

5.5 To implement any national control measures, Defra should therefore take additional powers through the Marine Bill. In practice, there would therefore be a reasonable period of time before any such measures would come into operation. This interval could be used to ensure that the conditions to introduce any controls are right – e.g. that other measures to benefit anglers would begin to come into effect and that anglers and businesses would have sufficient preparation time.

 

5.6 SFCs already have powers that would enable the introduction of some local control measures, such as bag limits, on much shorter time scales. Pilot schemes should be considered by SFCs, working with local anglers to introduce, test and monitor the impact of the measures. This would build evidence to inform decisions about refining and using such measures on a wider basis.

 

 

6. CODES OF CONDUCT AND BEST PRACTICE

 

6.1 The RSA sector recognises that it has a strong responsibility for promoting and developing the sector. In particular, the sector should build upon the work done to date to establish codes of conduct and encourage best practice. The underpinning elements should be environmental protection, safety and taking personal responsibility. The sector should work with environmental bodies, local authorities and other relevant organisations to identify where action is needed to improve the way in which anglers carry out their fishing activities.

 

6.2 Elements that could be considered include:

• Marine finfish handling and return from both boat and shore

• Sustainable angling practices (‘catch and release’ through to ‘catching sufficient for the table’)

• Bait collection

• Appropriate hook selection for size and species of targeted fish

• Appropriate terminal tackle selection to minimise tackle losses

• Disposal of waste and marine litter

• Safety for the public and fishers from the shore and boats

• Liability insurance

• Knowledge of finfish regulations

 

6.3 Existing case studies (such as the use of litter bins and discarded tackle clean-up operations) should be researched to identify the actions needed to deliver the benefits, and good practice examples replicated. The self-regulation mechanism should be actively publicised and promoted throughout the angling community and beyond, to improve general perceptions and knowledge amongst other sectors and the public. Strong links should be formed with communications objectives and improving access and development.

 

 

7. ACCESS AND DEVELOPMENT

 

7.1 Availability of fish stocks and the state of the marine environment could be considered as primary elements that determine the relative level of the angling experience. Secondary elements provide the less obvious but still critical ‘support system’ that underpins this. It is important that these secondary elements are developed in conjunction with any changes to fisheries management to deliver increased benefits to anglers.

7.2 Support system elements, (such as access to fishing sites, development of angling structures and facilities) make it easier for anglers to carry out the key activity (fishing) itself. This is especially critical when considering how to broaden and increase participation in the sport itself, reducing the additional effort potentially new or less able bodied anglers would need to expend to go sea angling. There would also be benefits for other users sharing and accessing the same facilities, whilst structural developments might provide safe-havens or habitat replacements for juvenile and adult fish. Key elements would include:

 

• Protection and improvement of shore access and parking

• Provision of more small boat launching facilities

• Access to existing and new shore structures

• Creation of artificial inshore and off-shore reefs.

• Clear displays of relevant rules (MLS etc), codes of conduct and other useful data at every popular shore venue, boat launch site and aboard charter boats

• Provision of amenities for anglers at popular venues, such as bins and toilets

• A planning system that would protect access and use for RSA on existing structures and new developments, particularly for wheelchair users, young and elderly fishers.

 

7.3 Development of these secondary elements would require funding. The introduction of a chargeable angling licence would be a way to raise funds. However, there are a number of other possible sources that should also be considered, especially when facilities that benefit multiple users or provide additional environmental benefits are being considered. Potential funding sources could include grants for environmental, social, tourism, sports or regeneration projects. A study to identify possible funding sources should be conducted in the first instance.

 

7.4 Establishing partnerships between key angling and non-angling organisations would provide the basis for developing strong cases to access available funds. The RSA sector could also raise its profile through the promotion of the value of the sector to regional or local bodies that are involved in planning and development, such as Local Authorities and the Regional Development Agencies, and ensure the sector is included within social and economic strategies for the areas.

 

8. COMMUNICATION

 

8.1 Improving communication between fisheries managers and anglers and other sectors is critical in achieving many of the Strategy objectives and to help to establish the RSA sector as a legitimate stakeholder in fisheries and environmental management. Its is recognised that anglers have achieved much in a relatively short space of time to become established as a stakeholder in the Marine Environment, and in part this has been due to better, more co-ordinated representation. This foundation needs to be developed.

 

8.2 Improving internal communications would be the starting point, to ensure that anglers are united in presenting their case and have clear evidence for action. Defra, SFCs and the EA should also ensure that there is good communication of management measures to anglers, particularly where these measures provide benefits to anglers, such as inshore netting or trawling restrictions. Although it is recognised that a key attraction of the sport is independence and a personal retreat, which means many anglers would prefer not to participate in the debate, nevertheless, for anglers to have a meaningful voice, they must co-ordinate their action. The RSA sector should also look for opportunities to work with other key stakeholders to achieve joint objectives – the coalition formed by freshwater stakeholders (Blueprint for Water) is a good example of this practice.

 

8.3 Government, Agencies and key organisations should continue to extend opportunities to anglers to participate in decision-making fora and balance the needs of anglers alongside other key stakeholders. Wide consultation, publication and agreement of this Strategy will provide a firm basis to co-ordinate and improve all aspects of communication.

 

 

9. INFORMATION AND MEASUREMENT

 

9.1 It is widely acknowledged that at present there is a lack of reliable data for RSA. It will be critical to gather sufficient information to establish a baseline, and continue to collect data in future to measure the success of the Strategy objectives.

 

9.2 Recent publications such as the Drew and Nautilus Reports give some detailed information on the relative contribution of RSA to the economy. Historical angling data (competitions, NFSA specimen records etc) give some useful but limited information about past and current catches. Voluntary tagging schemes on some species (particularly shark) also provide data. This is not yet centrally co-ordinated or used most effectively, and significant gaps remain, particularly in terms of representative catch data, angling preferences data and social composition for example, that would be helpful to establish anglers needs and impacts on species and stocks. Further, although there is much scientific understanding and commercial catch data about some species (cod, bass for example), little is known about many species of relatively little commercial interest that have a high angling value (such as mullet).

 

9.3 Existing sources of information should be collated to inform the present and past pictures and establish a baseline. New science and data collection programmes should be established for species identified for action to ensure management decisions can be evidence-based and monitored for impact. Although studies would require a degree of funding, much could be achieved by establishing new Science Partnerships between CEFAS & other Defra Agencies, environmental organisations, educational establishments and key angling organisations. Voluntary log book and catch-return schemes should be established to involve individual anglers. The possible introduction of a licensing scheme or bag-limits would also provide opportunities for more formal catch-return mechanisms.

 

 

10. IMPLEMENTATION & SUCCESS CRITERIA

 

10.1 This Strategy should be viewed as a long term plan to achieve the objectives outlined in section 2. Many of the management tools that could be used to progress each Strategy element will take time to implement fully and so it may take some time for visible progress to be demonstrated. It will therefore be important to put in place measures in the short term to prepare the path for longer term measures can be effective. This Strategy should be iterative, remaining open for review to ensure RSA evolves alongside other changing or new Marine priorities.

 

10.2 The ‘angling experience’ is inherently personal and dependent on a number of qualitative elements and therefore difficult to measure. However, it is possible to identify quantitative measurables that contribute to the overall angling experience, by which success could be judged over a timescale. The chosen measurables must therefore reflect and be assessed against the appropriate timescale. Key measurables are identified in table 2 below.

 

Table 2: Success criteria

 

Measurable Assessment & timescale Responsible organisations

1 Angling participants

• Number

• Social structure Assessed every year through surveys & organisation membership RSA sector

Government

 

2 Number of RSA target species managed

• Stock numbers

• Stock size range Overall assessment every 5 years

Individually assessed on timescales appropriate for each species Defra & CEFAS

RSA Sector

SFCs

3 Angling expenditure and contribution to UK economy Anecdotally assessed annually through angling surveys

Formally assessed every 5 years Government

RSA sector

4 Site access

• Number accessible

• Access improved Assessed annually Local Authorities

RDAs

RSA Sector

Defra

5 Number and location of facilities for anglers

• Boat launches

• Artificial reefs

• Amenities

• Information displays Assessed every 3 years Local Authorities

RSA sector

RDAs

DCMS

 

6 Number & location of Angling only areas Assessed every 3 years SFCs

Natural England

Defra

7

 

11. REFERENCES

? Drew, Net Benefits, Bradley review etc

 

 

ANNEX A – INSHORE FISHERIES WORKING GROUP

RSA SUBGROUP MEMBERSHIP

 

Member Organisation

 

Chris Venmore Shellfish Association of Great Britain (SAGB)/Devon SFC

Doug Beveridge National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO)

Graham Catt Department of Culture Media & Sports (DCMS)

John Leballeur Bass Anglers Sportfishing Society (BASS)

Leon Roskilly Sea Anglers Conservation Network (SACN)

Mat Mander Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee

Nigel Proctor National Federation of Sea Anglers (NFSA)

Richard Ferre National Federation of Sea Anglers (NFSA)

Rob Blyth-Skyrme Natural England (NE)

Tim Dapling Sussex Sea Fisheries Committee

Steve Colclough Environment Agency

Mike Pawson Cefas

Alistair McDonnell Marine Fisheries Agency

 

Defra

 

Anthony Hynes Coastal Waters Policy (Chair)

Nicola Clarke Coastal Waters Policy

Erin Priddle Coastal Waters Policy

Simon Mundy Defra Legal

 

ANNEX B – INSHORE FISHERIES WORKING GROUP

MEMBERSHIP

 

Member Organisation

 

Barrie Deas National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO)

Chris Venmore Devon SFC

Diana Mompoloki South West Regional Development Agency

Godfrey Williams Environment Agency (EA)

Lisa Browning The Wildlife Trusts

Mike Pawson CEFAS

Peter Hunt Shellfish Association of Great Britain (SAGB)

Peter Winterbottom Association of Sea Fisheries Committees (ASFC)

Richard Ferre National Federation of Sea Anglers (NFSA)

Sue Utting Seafish Industry Authority (SFIA)

Tom Pickerell World Wildlife Fund UK

Mat Mander Eastern Sea Fisheries Joint Committee

Rob Blyth-Skyrme Natural England (NE)

 

Defra

Trevor Hutchings Coastal Waters Policy (Chair)

Anthony Hynes Coastal Waters Policy

Annabel Stockwin Coastal Waters Policy

Erin Priddle Coastal Waters Policy

 

Apologies

 

 

 

ANNEX C - RSA SWOT ANALYSIS

 

STRENGTHS

High participation levels.

Large and varied coastline.

Wide range of fish species.

Large Economic Activity.

Popular Leisure Activity.

Low Environmental Impact.

Healthy outdoor activity.

Brings one close to the environment.

Attractive to youngsters.

May reduce youth crime through participation and awareness

Free access for most.

Supports boat/tackle/charter/hotel trades.

Successful track record in International Shore and Boat competitions.

Increasing awareness within the sector of the benefit of conservation measures and successful catch and release.

Integral part of the coastal tourist industry.

WEAKNESSES

Fragmented nature of the participants has meant that Recreational Sea Angling voice has not been listened to in the past.

Often solitary participants difficult to engage.

Activity is dependent on fish stocks.

Seen by some competing sectors and a few resource managers as a “Frivolous” activity.

RSA could have a better conservation image, given its low environmental impact.

The legal position of RSA is confused. There is uncertainty what rules apply and who can enforce them.

Lack of detailed catch and commercial data hampers decision making.

Communication processes are difficult because of the make up of the participants.

Is not fully engaged within the resource management system.

 

OPPORTUNITIES

RSA is the only English fin fishing based activity with real growth potential, based on results from other countries.

Increasing levels of personal wealth mean that expenditure levels grow faster than catch rates.

Opportunity to increase tourism by both attracting external visitors and keeping our travellers at home.

Opportunity for existing commercial fishers to diversify as activity increases.

Opportunities to increase participation through education and training.

Clear evidence from other countries of successful programmes.

Creation of artificial reefs, inshore and offshore RSA only zones and more shore based fishing structures. THREATS

Reducing fish stocks will deter anglers from participating.

Increased difficulties over access to shore, piers and docks are reducing fishing venues.

Ill informed conservation measures could needlessly limit RSA activity.

Historic non-involvement in fishery decision making will continue to hamper

best value decisions on access to fish stocks.

Perception of anglers selling fish is damaging RSA and threatening beneficial decisions.

CFP decisions are often at odds with what is needed to improve English inshore fish stocks.

Misinformation from protagonists to deflect scrutiny of their own activities.

[steve pitts]

What if someone else has the same name?

 

What - two of me?

Surley one is bad enough!

 

I am willing to submit to a DNA test though

 

Cheers

Steve

[glennk]

The mysterious captain scarlet.

 

A copy of that document should be on a mass email to every sacn member, to every nfsa member and it should be pinned on every forum in the uk. It should appear in every angling magazine. Every angler should know about it before March.

[Guest challenge]

The mysterious captain scarlet.

 

A copy of that document should be on a mass email to every sacn member, to every nfsa member and it should be pinned on every forum in the uk. It should appear in every angling magazine. Every angler should know about it before March.

You should print a dozen copies off and spread them on your carpet the next time you take your dog digging worms (and your dog eats carcases) at RHB.

[Leon Roskilly]

It should be remembered that the copy of the document posted above is a working draft that is still being discussed and amended by the Inshore Working Group sub-committee charged with it's development.

 

As a result of discussions by stakeholders within the sub-committee it is likely that it could change significantly before it is ready for wider publication and public consultation.

 

So, it's contents should be treated with caution.

 

Once all of the stakeholder groups are happy that the proposals contained are broadly acceptable by the group as a whole (though perhaps not totally acceptable to each stakehodler organisation represented), it is intended that a public draft will become available in early February.

 

That might be somewhat different to that published above.

 

At the recent meeting between RSA representative organisations and DEFRA, the draft was made available to those attending, and DEFRA asked that those attending also feed their comments back into the February meeting of the sub-committee.

 

I asked whether SACN could make the draft available on it's website.

 

I was told that as it was still a work-in-progress, not yet ready for public consultation, public release of the draft at this stage might only serve to confuse the debate, and that wider publication should wait until the Frbruary draft (assuming some agreement by all stakeholders then) is ready.

 

I wasn't supported in my appeal by anyone else at the meeting, and it is a reasonable point.

 

I then said that as it would be necessary for SACN to counsult with it's membership to provide feedback, to do that in any meaningful way would mean distributing the current uncompleted draft to the membership for comment.

 

It was agreed that the organisations present could distribute it amongst their memberships for the purpose of obtaining comment from those members.

 

The draft was emailed out to all SACN members, including Glenn! on 23rd December.

 

The email to Glenn was returned <<< 501 #5.1.1 bad address ***_***@ntl.com

554 <***_***@ntl.com>... Service unavailable

 

Glenn if you have changed your email address, please let me have your new address, or contact you ISP and find out why it was bounced.

 

In emailing the members, it was made plain that the draft document should not be distributed further, nor posted onto any websites.

 

Captain Scarlet might have thought that he was doing RSA a favour by revealing the contents of the uncompleted draft, that is still being worked upon by the Inshore Working Group sub-committee, bu he should have considered what will happen in future.

 

It has made it almost certain that any future 'work-in-progress' will be kept under tight wraps until it is ready for public consultation, and that until that time only a few eyes will be allowed to see it, rather than risk leaking of unfinished discussion documents that may or may not be relevant to the final draft and thus provoking unnecesary panic or expectations amongst the various stakeholder groups that will be impacted.

 

So, well done Captain Scarlet - You've done RSA something of a disservice and by jumping the gun on publication of a finished draft, acted in a way that is likely to increase secretiveness rather than extended openess.

 

If you are a member of SACN and ignored the appeal in the email that the draft was circulated under to not publish the unfinished document on websites, please do the honourable thing and resign. You have damaged the reputation of the membership of SACN.

Edited December 29, 2006 by Leon Roskilly

[glennk]

It has made it almost certain that any future 'work-in-progress' will be kept under tight wraps until it is ready for public consultation, and that until that time only a few eyes will be allowed to see it, rather than risk leaking of unfinished discussion documents that may or may not be relevant to the final draft and thus provoking unnecesary panic or expectations amongst the various stakeholder groups that will be impacted.

 

So, well done Captain Scarlet - You've done RSA something of a disservice and by jumping the gun on publication of a finished draft, acted in a way that is likely to increase secretiveness rather than extended openess.

 

And you wonder why people are getting annoyed Leon ? Why are these things for a few eyes only ? That statement sums up what is going on with you lot. You have tried to discredit me regarding what I have said about private meetings and documents for select eyes only. This is Something that could effect every angler in the country, something that could impact so heavily on peoples business' and livelihoods and you want it kept under wraps until no-one can do anything about it ? What gives you the right to even ask for that ? If anyone should resign from SACN its you, this whole thing is a disgrace.

 

Leon - my email address is the same as it ever was. Don't worry I already had a copy of this document from Nigel. Although you might think that I am captain Scarlet you would be wrong. Although I should have put this document out on here I never.

 

Any more secrets to declare Leon ?

Edited December 29, 2006 by glennk

[Leon Roskilly]

Why are these things for a few eyes only ?

 

 

Before a proposal is floated, those floating it need to be as certain as they can that what is being put forward is thought through properly.

 

Publishing half-cocked ideas is of no benefit to anyone.

 

Only when they are statisfied that the initial half-cocked ideas have been developed into well thought out proposals, and there is agreement between all those developing the proposals that what they have is ready, is it worth putting forward.

 

 

Involving thousands and thousand of people in all steps of the process of developing from intitial thoughts towards a comprehensive and integrated set of proposals is really totally impossible.

 

Thats why we have organisations, and meetings of a reasonable number of people, to do the initial groundwork, work out the pros and cons, what's possible etc.

 

But eventually, once ready, any proposals that affects others does have to go out for public consultation.

 

Which will happen with this quite soon.

 

If you can't see that Glenn........................

[glennk]

5. RSA CONTROLS

 

5.1 To date there has been relatively little control or monitoring of sea angling activity. This may be a contributing factor to the broad appeal of the sport. However, with relatively high angling participation levels, and a possibility that this could increase in future, anglers have the potential to have a large impact on stocks. Although this is broadly acknowledged, the RSA sector has identified the introduction of controls as one of the more contentious issues which has little support at present in advance of the demonstration of improved benefits to the sector.

 

5.2 Nevertheless, the potential benefits that might result from such controls are also acknowledged, although it is noted that these will need to be communicated effectively to generate interest and participation from anglers in discussions. Such measures should be seen as part of an overall package, presented by this strategy, that aim to benefit anglers. The success and potential benefits of any measures will be dependent on anglers being actively involved in the development process – responsibility would fall both to anglers, who should be willing to contribute constructively to the debate, and Government, who should ensure there is a clear, participative and extensive consultation process. Enforcement bodies should be actively involved in the development of proposals to ensure that any control measures can be enforced effectively in conjunction with existing responsibilities.

 

5.3 A combined mechanism that would raise money for the benefit of sea anglers, provide an effective communication tool, gather information to better understand anglers’ needs and enable effective monitoring and enforcement would underpin other elements of the RSA Strategy. Although there may be other tools to achieve these aims, a sea angling licence (operating in a similar way to the freshwater angling licence) could meet these needs. The costs and benefits should be transparent, justifiable and clearly understood. The associated charge would need to reflect the costs of administering and enforcing the scheme, with additional revenue returned to the angling sector through a range of projects and programmes that would enhance the angling experience.

 

5.4 Other management tools to monitor and control the potential impact anglers have on stocks should be considered. These tools should be flexible, enable action to be taken quickly if necessary to protect vulnerable stocks as well as look to the longer term, and be driven by clear scientific evidence. The conservation benefits of taking any action would need to be proportionate to the potential impact anglers have on stocks and relative to the controls enforced in the commercial sector. Action should be taken at the most appropriate level for each species, but should be primarily driven by Sea Fisheries Committees so that measures can be designed to take account upon particular local circumstances. One possible management tool is a ‘bag limit’ where, on a case-by-case basis, the total number of fish of the identified species allowed to be taken from the fishery over a specified time period would be limited. Defra should also consider extending their existing powers to more comprehensively include anglers and enable action to be taken quickly when appropriate and proportionate.

 

5.5 To implement any national control measures, Defra should therefore take additional powers through the Marine Bill. In practice, there would therefore be a reasonable period of time before any such measures would come into operation. This interval could be used to ensure that the conditions to introduce any controls are right – e.g. that other measures to benefit anglers would begin to come into effect and that anglers and businesses would have sufficient preparation time.

 

5.6 SFCs already have powers that would enable the introduction of some local control measures, such as bag limits, on much shorter time scales. Pilot schemes should be considered by SFCs, working with local anglers to introduce, test and monitor the impact of the measures. This would build evidence to inform decisions about refining and using such measures on a wider basis.

 

 

No mention of the poor old dog walker in there.