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

[Guest challenge]

And yet ..........

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=65002007

 

So sad, my heart goes out to the families involved.

 

That is a scourge I wouldn't wish on anyone

What is your point here Leon? If indeed you are trying to make a point?

Because of a tragic death of somebody that was connected 9 years ago to the fishing industry and a report that police are saying that there are presumed to be more people who have a drugs problem in this part of the world and that a proportion of these are connected to the fishing industry? Then what’s your point Leon? There’s more than likely to be the same amount of people who have some kind of drugs problem in all walks of life.

You’re scrapping the bottom of the barrel here Leon if you’re trying to make some connection with what I was trying to say about a hard and determined workforce and a social problem that you can find in all walks of life.

Regards.

[fishyrob]

Stavey.

Because of the massive amount of restrictions that commercial fishermen have been put under in recent years and the compulsory decommissioning and scraping of a massive part of the fleet, it means that so many fishermen have been forced to leave the industry.

But we still have a fleet, we still have an industry. an industry that (despite all the restrictions that have been imposed on it) in certain sectors managed to break all grossing records in some of the areas (Peterhead, Aberdeen etc) that have been most effected by the ruthless restrictions that have been dealt out to this industry.

 

Hey Challenge. Please note that this question is genuine (it doesnt even have any traces of sarcasm....!) From a bystanders perspective (all though of course I am an RSA, so not entirely neutral) it would seem that you might have answered your own question. If the ports that were reduced the most have vessels that are breaking records since the reductions, does it not add up that the remaining vessels are benefiting for exactly that reason. IE Less vessels means more fish for the remaining vessels? And if this might be the case, would it not suggest that the short term pain (or long term for the families that have retired from the fishing for ever) has actually produced a result for the hardy souls that stuck it out?

[RedBull]

Sam,

As your note refers to me, I feel free to reply.

One of the by products of Sea Anglers seeking recognition and a voice,

which by and large we have now got, is more attention and focus. If

anything, the BASS proposals (which the NFSA fully and actively supported at

every phase) have increased significantly this attention. Needless to say,

not everyone shares our view of the world and as a result of the BASS

"success" we are now under scrutiny.

The draft strategy document you refer to I have had a a lot of involvement

with. The idea for one came from me and I prepared a draft based on input

from as many RSA people as I could get together. that formed the basis of

early discussions with both DEFRA and representatives of SFC's and

Commercial Fishermen. The document is now DEFRA's, they have taken over the

drafting and will own the end product. I hope it is a template of steps

which can be taken to improve RSA in a region. Trying to change the CFP is

impossible for us, changing Inshore Fishery management is not impossible,

just frustratingly diffficult. I hope this strategy will help once finished.

I At the moment the document is in 1st draft discussion stage. I and fellow

RSA reps will be feeding back about what we do not like. However, we (the 3

RSA reps involved) have had long and hard discussions with DEFRA, SFC's and

NFFO about why we want a "golden mile" why we want increased MLS, why we

want a management plan for all species important to RSA and many other

points. In the process they also tell us why they do not fully support some

of our ideas. The Government will legislate for licensing in the marine bill

no matter what we say. Whether they then bring one in will depend on

strength of opinion. I do not preach catch and release, people have every

right to catch fish to eat and it should be protected. However, when asked

the question "if we introduce a very special marine protected area would you

rather have catch and release or no fishing?" the pragmatist in me felt that

catch and release would be a preferable option. That is the only area where

I have expressed a view on catch and release other than in responding to the

recent consultation on Tope, where it appears to be the preferred option..

As it happens, the recent NFSA membership survey shows a surprisingly high

level of support for catch and release in conservation circumstances.

We are faced with some uncomfortable choices today, get attention and

influence, get some of the things we want and get some things we do not

really want imposed on us in the process, or do what we have always done in

the past and get nothing and be ignored. The second option has not worked to

date, given current state of fish stocks, so in my view we have to be mature

enough to pursue the first option and manage the consequences.

Regards,

Richard Ferre.

[wurzel]

Quote

However, when asked

the question "if we introduce a very special marine protected area would you

rather have catch and release or no fishing?" the pragmatist in me felt that

catch and release would be a preferable option.

 

 

Heads I win Tales you loose, DEFRA are experts at that sort of consultation.

[Ken Davison South Wales]

Quote

However, when asked

the question "if we introduce a very special marine protected area would you

rather have catch and release or no fishing?" the pragmatist in me felt that

catch and release would be a preferable option.

Heads I win Tales you loose, DEFRA are experts at that sort of consultation.

 

Hi Early Bird or is it Late Bird,

 

Catch and release has been in practice in the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand for over a decade in marine parks and the practice is expanding and both commercial / RSAs are aknowledging the benefits.

 

I have to agree with the above quote and would expand it a little bit more; "would you rather have the opportunity to catch a specimen fish and release it or not catch any fish at all?"

 

Commercials have found they catch larger fish around these areas which fetch a better price, and many have turned from fishing to chartering which offers a better and more secure income.

 

For RSAs I would say "You can't have your cake and eat it" translated "You can't have your specimen fish and eat it"

 

IF it happens it will mean a big mind set change for all parties concerned but that is happening in all walks of life currently so it is nothing new.

[RedBull]

The point is our rights are being frittered away for nothing. RSA restrictions and nout in return.

[Ken Davison South Wales]

The point is our rights are being frittered away for nothing. RSA restrictions and nout in return.

 

If you evaluate it we have very little in the way of rights at the moment, SFCs can bring in local rules without consulting anyone, beach accesses etc. can be closed by various bodies and as individules without any rights whats so ever there is very little one can do about it.

 

Once they start tying us in it works both ways, there is a frame work of the law to give us protection, we will have rights, maybe not quite what we want to start outwith but given time this can be strengthened.

 

At the moment we are all splashing around and getting no where and as a result loosing out whole sale. The commercial sector who without a doubt rule the roost currently will be only to pleased to point out the perceived down side as they don't want us in the mix and they are currently very unhappy to see us being brought into the fold.

 

IF a license does appear that frame work of laws will be on the backside of it and at £25 per year it will be a worth while investment. At the top will be a licensing authority and they will have to protect our rights.

 

A slightly of thread example, I have just won a court case, as an individule I would have lost but as a paid up member of the Federation of Small Businesses I won hands down, yearly fee £126 and worth every penny. A million plus licensed members is scaring the hell out of the commercial sector thats why they are playing on the downside as much as possble.

[Leon Roskilly]

If you evaluate it we have very little in the way of rights at the moment, SFCs can bring in local rules without consulting anyone

 

er, before an SFC can enact a local byelaw, it has to go for public consultation with responses being sent to both DEFRA and the SFC.

 

DEFRA will weigh the responses recieved before the Secretary of State approves or rejects the byelaw.

 

That's why it is important for anglers to keep a close eye on what their SFC is up to, to ensure that byelaws that are detrimental to their interests do not slip by them onto the books without them realising.

[wurzel]

Hello Ken

 

Happy new year to you as well.

 

Don't you think you are being a bit dramatic here,

 

Quote

"The commercial sector who without a doubt rule the roost currently will be only to pleased to point out the perceived down side as they don't want us in the mix and they are currently very unhappy to see us being brought into the fold."

 

It don't feel like we rule the roost and I don't think commercials give a damn what anglers do, at the end of the day commercials don't stop you doing any thing, so where's the infringement on your rights?

Commercials have enough grief while earning a living, most don't effect or interfere with anglers and just want to get on with their lives, only when you get some uppity anglers (most just go fishing) demanding this and that and adding to the commercial's daily hassle, or worse threatening his livelihood, you get retaliation and every thing gets bitter and twisted.

 

It's more like DEFRA are very happy to see anglers being brought into the fold, only they are trying to find a way of doing it with as little impact on the commercail sector as possible, hence 40 instead of 45 cm for bass.

[stavey]

Hello Ken

 

Happy new year to you as well.

 

Don't you think you are being a bit dramatic here,

 

Quote

"The commercial sector who without a doubt rule the roost currently will be only to pleased to point out the perceived down side as they don't want us in the mix and they are currently very unhappy to see us being brought into the fold."

 

at the end of the day commercials don't stop you doing any thing, so where's the infringement on your rights?

Commercials have enough grief while earning a living, most don't effect or interfere with anglers and just want to get on with their lives, only when you get some uppity anglers (most just go fishing) demanding this and that and adding to the commercial's daily hassle, or worse threatening his livelihood, you get retaliation and every thing gets bitter and twisted.

 

Hello wurzel

 

If only that what you have said was all true? i can believe the latter about the commercials getting bitter and twisted though, bit late i know but happy new year to you wurzel cheers........