Jump to content

The prospects look grim!

frankthebass

By frankthebass
in Conservation & Politics

 Share

Recommended Posts

frankthebass Member

frankthebass

Posted
  • Author
Posted

ps on the golden mile issue i would like to ad that if anglers opposed this in their area fair enough ie, not wanted not needed then licenses and bag limits should not apply but in areas where it was asked for by their rsa, then i would have no objection to bag limits and a licenses in those areas.

 

 

They are my feelings to Stavey! you get nout for nout mate!

THEY DONT LIKE IT UP EM THE FUZZY WUZZIES, THEY DONT LIKE IT UP EM!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 32
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

stavey Member

stavey

Posted
Posted
ps on the golden mile issue i would like to ad that if anglers opposed this in their area fair enough ie, not wanted not needed then licenses and bag limits should not apply but in areas where it was asked for by their rsa, then i would have no objection to bag limits and a licenses in those areas.

They are my feelings to Stavey! you get nout for nout mate!

 

 

Hi sam

 

Like most rsa's (although i am not actively taking part at the mo) i am a very reasonable person i dont mind a bit of pain if it obtains some sort of gain along with it.

 

As a guy who as done commercial netting in the past yourself, you will know how effective they can be at removing good heads of fish, and with a fleet of mono costing know more than about £25, to get set up dont cost much does it? and the loss of one or two of these is not going to bring financial tears to any fisherman pro or part time dodger, this is only part of the bigger problem but by getting rid of all nets even within a mile of the beach would make a huge difference to atleast 65% of the total rsa in those areas where it was applied, i am sure you will agree, cheers.............

I Fish For Sport Not Me Belly

Link to comment
Share on other sites
frankthebass Member

frankthebass

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Stavey, gill nets second hand are cheap, but they are only efective is used properly, any Tom Dick or Harry wouldnt be able to earn a living by just chucking them out.

 

But used correctly (or wrongly from a RSA point of view) and coupled with modern navigation technollergy they can be deverstatingly efficient.

 

Gill nets are far more selective than trawling that damages the very foundations of a fishery.

 

Ban all trawling and just let gill nets be used out past the six mile limit and in a very short time we would be back inthe good ol days.

 

regards.S.C

THEY DONT LIKE IT UP EM THE FUZZY WUZZIES, THEY DONT LIKE IT UP EM!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Coppolo Member

Steve Coppolo

Posted
Posted
Ban all trawling and just let gill nets be used out past the six mile limit and in a very short time we would be back inthe good ol days.

 

I'm not so sure Sam. As you say, gill nets can be super efficient and though more selective than trawling they probably catch more, (sizeable), fish. There would definately be far less discards with a gill net only fishery though.

DRUNK DRIVERS WRECK LIVES.

 

Don't drink and drive.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trubshaw Member

Trubshaw

Posted
Posted

I would support the concept of Angling Licences regulation etc, after I have seen the Government do something for us.

 

Problem is as always that us TAXPAYERS, I refuse to use the word STAKEHOLDERS it is a spin doctor's invention to avoid saying T A X P A Y E R, which has connotations of our P A Y I N G for something, will be soaked first; the Commercials will have no change to their rights, we will have ours restricted in the name of enhancement and the claim will be as always

 

Well the stakeholders (TAXPAYERS) agreed to all of this at the consultation stage.

 

WE SHOULD BE SAYING TO THE ISWG AND TO DEFRA; WHEN YOU HAVE DONE SOMETHING TO ENHANCE OUR SPORT WHICH PAYS YOU £100M PER YEAR IN VAT ALREADY, THEN AND ONLY THEN COME AND CONSULT WITH US ABOUT IMPROVEMENTS AND HOW WE SHOULD FUND THE COST.

 

IF THEY DON'T THEN TELL THEM TO GO AWAY.

 

Can't put it clearer than that.

Out of many things I enjoy in life, those that start with an F tend to feature the most.

 

Plea to save our fish. Please visit http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Seafishstocks/ and sign it if you agree.

 

The one on the right is Trubshaw, the one on the left is Teal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
barry luxton Member

barry luxton

Posted
Posted
I would support the concept of Angling Licences regulation etc, after I have seen the Government do something for us.

 

Problem is as always that us TAXPAYERS, I refuse to use the word STAKEHOLDERS it is a spin doctor's invention to avoid saying T A X P A Y E R, which has connotations of our P A Y I N G for something, will be soaked first; the Commercials will have no change to their rights, we will have ours restricted in the name of enhancement and the claim will be as always

 

Well the stakeholders (TAXPAYERS) agreed to all of this at the consultation stage.

 

WE SHOULD BE SAYING TO THE ISWG AND TO DEFRA; WHEN YOU HAVE DONE SOMETHING TO ENHANCE OUR SPORT WHICH PAYS YOU £100M PER YEAR IN VAT ALREADY, THEN AND ONLY THEN COME AND CONSULT WITH US ABOUT IMPROVEMENTS AND HOW WE SHOULD FUND THE COST.

 

IF THEY DON'T THEN TELL THEM TO GO AWAY.

 

Can't put it clearer than that.

 

 

I cannot see why defra etc are spending so much time and effort and our money trying to fix something that ain't broke, rsa sector. Commpared with the catching sector where it is broke and they cannot get it fixed. do they somehow think they can do a better job with us than they have done with commercial, i think not. Leave us alone derfra, we don't want your help. Concentrate on what broke first, i.e. put fish back on the menu.

Free to choose apart from the ones where the trust poked their nose in. Common eel. tope. Bass and sea bream. All restricted.


New for 2016 TAT are the main instigators for the demise of the u k bass charter boat industry, where they went screaming off to parliament and for the first time assisting so called angling gurus set up bass take bans with the e u using rubbish exaggerated info collected by ices from anglers, they must be very proud.

Upgrade, the door has been closed with regards to anglers being linked to the e u superstate and the failed c f p. So TAT will no longer need to pay monies to the EAA anymore as that org is no longer relevant to the u k . Goodbye to the europeon anglers alliance and pathetic restrictions from the e u.

Angling is better than politics, ban politics from angling.

Consumer of bass. where is the evidence that the u k bass stock need angling trust protection. Why won't you work with your peers instead of castigating them. They have the answer.

Recipie's for mullet stew more than welcomed.

Angling sanitation trust and kent and sussex sea anglers org delete's and blocks rsa's alternative opinion on their face book site. Although they claim to rep all.

new for 2014. where is the evidence that the south coast bream stock need the angling trust? Your campaign has no evidence. Why won't you work with your peers, the inshore under tens? As opposed to alienating them? Angling trust failed big time re bait digging, even fish legal attempted to intervene and failed, all for what, nothing.

Looks like the sea angling reps have been coerced by the ifca's to compose sea angling strategy's that the ifca's at some stage will look at drafting into legislation to manage the rsa, because they like wasting tax payers money. That's without asking the rsa btw. You know who you are..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trubshaw Member

Trubshaw

Posted
Posted
I cannot see why defra etc are spending so much time and effort and our money trying to fix something that ain't broke, rsa sector. Commpared with the catching sector where it is broke and they cannot get it fixed. do they somehow think they can do a better job with us than they have done with commercial, i think not. Leave us alone derfra, we don't want your help. Concentrate on what broke first, i.e. put fish back on the menu.

 

 

Time for a new Petition methinks

Out of many things I enjoy in life, those that start with an F tend to feature the most.

 

Plea to save our fish. Please visit http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Seafishstocks/ and sign it if you agree.

 

The one on the right is Trubshaw, the one on the left is Teal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
barry luxton Member

barry luxton

Posted
Posted
Time for a new Petition methinks

let em have a go first Henry they havn't been doing it too long and they need some time to pull all their troops together and their horses, ops resources, they only have 100 mill per year to play with so a licence scheme or two might help?

Free to choose apart from the ones where the trust poked their nose in. Common eel. tope. Bass and sea bream. All restricted.


New for 2016 TAT are the main instigators for the demise of the u k bass charter boat industry, where they went screaming off to parliament and for the first time assisting so called angling gurus set up bass take bans with the e u using rubbish exaggerated info collected by ices from anglers, they must be very proud.

Upgrade, the door has been closed with regards to anglers being linked to the e u superstate and the failed c f p. So TAT will no longer need to pay monies to the EAA anymore as that org is no longer relevant to the u k . Goodbye to the europeon anglers alliance and pathetic restrictions from the e u.

Angling is better than politics, ban politics from angling.

Consumer of bass. where is the evidence that the u k bass stock need angling trust protection. Why won't you work with your peers instead of castigating them. They have the answer.

Recipie's for mullet stew more than welcomed.

Angling sanitation trust and kent and sussex sea anglers org delete's and blocks rsa's alternative opinion on their face book site. Although they claim to rep all.

new for 2014. where is the evidence that the south coast bream stock need the angling trust? Your campaign has no evidence. Why won't you work with your peers, the inshore under tens? As opposed to alienating them? Angling trust failed big time re bait digging, even fish legal attempted to intervene and failed, all for what, nothing.

Looks like the sea angling reps have been coerced by the ifca's to compose sea angling strategy's that the ifca's at some stage will look at drafting into legislation to manage the rsa, because they like wasting tax payers money. That's without asking the rsa btw. You know who you are..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We and our partners use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences, repeat visits and to show you personalised advertisements. By clicking “I Agree”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit Cookie Settings to provide a controlled consent.

  I accept