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

[frankthebass]

I have heard it wants to dictate what sort of hooks are used and what type of gloves are worn by anglers when un hooking fish.

 

Is the draft copy available on-line? if so where can I find it?

[Steve Coppolo]

Well banning all commercial fishing out to 200 miles would be very nice to have from an RSA perspective, but would most likely be unachievable, so as it was never put forward, I guess that all involved considered it unachievable.

 

I don't know about that, banning commercial fishing out to 200 miles would be pointless. Suggesting it would be about as sensible as suggesting the moon become a MPA, so I would hope no one did ask for a 200 mile commercial fishing ban.

 

I can't remember that any ideas were floated but rejected on that basis (but I was only at one of the IWG meetings), most sensible people wouldn't put forward ideas that are obviously unachievable, though a few contentious ideas are contained within the document.

 

So why mention it at all on the forum and in the email that accompanied the document? I can't believe that the issue has never been discussed, so can you tell me what was considered achievable and what wasn't, and who made the decision. Also, what "nice to haves" were left off the wish list? If it wasn't discussed, why wasn't it?

Have a read through Steve, the importance of more and bigger fish is mentioned, and so is the need to develop species management plans for fish that anglers value etc.

Yes, they may have been mentioned, along with 1001 other things. That means that DEFRA can completely ignore our main concern, (more and bigger fish), and still address 99% of what's in the document.

Remember that this is a strategy framework, once the framework is established detailed work can begin on things like species management plans etc, to deliver benefits for RSA (and the species of value to RSA) within the overall strategy.

Which is why I'm concerned, (and quite a few others too by the look and sound of things), that the strategy is very weak. If that's a starting pooint and we have to come down from there, as we most certainly will, we will end up with nothing except restrictions and more expense. I'll stick my neck out again and say here and now that we won't achieve any of the restrictions on commercial fishing needed to imrpove RSA if we carry on down this road. There were people who were convinced that we were going to get a 45cm bass MLS. Anyone can suffer a lack of judgement and be taken in once, but to make the same mistake twice is unforgivable.

[Steve Coppolo]

I have heard it wants to dictate what sort of hooks are used and what type of gloves are worn by anglers when un hooking fish.

 

Is the draft copy available on-line? if so where can I find it?

 

LOL, There is a bit in there about fish handling, but I didn't see any mention of gloves The bit about hook size is almost as funny, but unfortunately it wasn't meant to be a joke

 

If you are a SACN member you should have been sent a copy of the strategy document via email. Come to think of it, if you are a member of the NFSA or BASS, or both, you should have been sent a copy. If you haven't been sent a copy, someone has posted it up on this thread.

[frankthebass]

Thanks Steve, It takes me an age to read through Leons posts, part of my dislexia is falling asleep mid paragraph.

 

SACN did e-mail it to me but I couldnt down load it for some reason, Leon then kindly copied it staight to a mail. I just hadnt read it so hadnt realised it was what all the fuss is about.

 

New years resolution: read all my e-mails!

Edited December 30, 2006 by frankthebass

[frankthebass]

QUOTE(Leon Roskilly @ Dec 30 2006, 01:35 PM) *

Have a read through Steve, the importance of more and bigger fish is mentioned, and so is the need to develop species management plans for fish that anglers value etc.

 

Without more bigger fish any stratergy will be meaningless.

[Steve Walker]

A question of principle on this section:

 

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.

 

It talks of raising money for the benefit of sea anglers, and of costs and benefits being transparent, justifiable and clearly understood. So apart from funding the administration of the licence, what exactly is the money needed for? Is the entire point of the licence a matter of having a government register of sea anglers in order to communicate with, monitor and control them? If so, perhaps "Sea Angler's Identity Card" would be a more transparent name for it?

 

I've been sceptical of sea licences in the past, because I can't see that any of the real problems RSAs face will be solved by throwing a modest amount of money at them. I'd be delighted to be set right on this, with examples of concrete projects which would be funded by the licence and which would quantifiably improve the size and number of fish available. If it's purely a matter of paying to extend the surveillance society to sea angling, with any administrative surplus skimmed off to pay for community projects, I'm afraid I can't support it.

[barry luxton]

A question of principle on this section:

It talks of raising money for the benefit of sea anglers, and of costs and benefits being transparent, justifiable and clearly understood. So apart from funding the administration of the licence, what exactly is the money needed for? Is the entire point of the licence a matter of having a government register of sea anglers in order to communicate with, monitor and control them? If so, perhaps "Sea Angler's Identity Card" would be a more transparent name for it?

 

I've been sceptical of sea licences in the past, because I can't see that any of the real problems RSAs face will be solved by throwing a modest amount of money at them. I'd be delighted to be set right on this, with examples of concrete projects which would be funded by the licence and which would quantifiably improve the size and number of fish available. If it's purely a matter of paying to extend the surveillance society to sea angling, with any administrative surplus skimmed off to pay for community projects, I'm afraid I can't support it.

The rsa community are slowly and non-reversably being pulled into joining defra who is ultimately run by the eu who have a bottomless pit of our money that in the last few years the accountants have been unable to certify the accounts. If you was to run a company like it you would be closed down by companies house. That is what you are joining and if you believe that it is for the improvement of our lot then think again. First in the queue will be the men in suits looking for their index linked pension scams before anything else. There will be no surplus to put into the nicer things in life as it WILL all be swallowed up, trust me. It is all about control, once defra has its hooks in you there will be no going back. It will cost you and me more and more and more. To be fair they will have to alter the licence for commercial as well as charging the rsa, will it happen, of course not.

 

Take a look at jaffa's post re-interpreting the fisheries crisis, where the speaker uses the eu as an prime example of why it will not work, then perhaps you will have comments to make.

Edited January 4, 2007 by barry luxton

[Steve Coppolo]

And don't forget, without more and bigger fish, they can do jack 5h1t for sea angling. Where are they going to get more and bigger fish from?

[JRT]

Why?

 

The "golden mile" makes no sense whatsoever where i live, but we will all feel the heat from the friction that will create with the commercials.

 

This golden mile will achieve what for RSA outside of Kent?

 

I can assure you it will make a hell of difference all along the south coast to!! What a bloody silly thing to say. The inshore commercials do immense damage to the fish stocks here.

 

As for "all feel the heat and friction from the commercials" good!!! They've been having their own way for years and look where it's got us.

 

In fact it's the commercials promoting bag limits for anglers as they state that RSA's take loads of fish. This absolute crap, its the inshore commercials that do. However the RSA's that do sell their catch illegally don't get prosecuted because the current rules do not get enforced as it is. Bag limits will be ignored by these RSA's just as the current rules do now.

 

Bag limits are no problem if the inshore commercial effort is reduced considerably and the laws are simplified and enforced.

 

As for the rest of you bitching about costing £100 to go fishing so you need to catch and kill lots of bass to justify the trip, then I support bag limits if it stops this practice. Fish for sport and the table not for gain.

 

JRT

[barry luxton]

I can assure you it will make a hell of difference all along the south coast to!! What a bloody silly thing to say. The inshore commercials do immense damage to the fish stocks here.

 

As for "all feel the heat and friction from the commercials" good!!! They've been having their own way for years and look where it's got us.

 

In fact it's the commercials promoting bag limits for anglers as they state that RSA's take loads of fish. This absolute crap, its the inshore commercials that do. However the RSA's that do sell their catch illegally don't get prosecuted because the current rules do not get enforced as it is. Bag limits will be ignored by these RSA's just as the current rules do now.

 

Bag limits are no problem if the inshore commercial effort is reduced considerably and the laws are simplified and enforced.

 

As for the rest of you bitching about costing £100 to go fishing so you need to catch and kill lots of bass to justify the trip, then I support bag limits if it stops this practice. Fish for sport and the table not for gain.

 

JRT

 

 

I posted a fact that when i go to weymouth the cost to me is approximatly £100.00 This is without bitching as i am prepared to pay this and will continue to do so. I don't however need someone watching over me to tell me what i can and not take. I do not want bag limits again i do not want someone watching me at my actions as i pursue something that i have enjoyed for years, a sport, thats all, its got nothing to do with commercial, selling or whatever. If you feel the commercial actions are doing a lot of dammage, write to your friend bradshaw.