Request that SACN withdraws from the negotiation table wrt RSA Strategy

[nick]

wurzel read my last post about money, then read this:

 

from the western morning news

 

As always it is about money, but the man from DEFRA is now looking hard at RSA 'cos he knows that commercials are not going to be allowed to contribute enough to the economy in the future due to their past greed.

 

Also do you really believe that quotas would not have been set even lower, days at sea far less, and your industry generally shafted even harder with a broken bottle from behind if you guys had walked away from the table...

 

Coffee smells fine from here.

Edited February 27, 2007 by nick

[wurzel]

Quote

As always it is about money, but the man from DEFRA is now looking hard at RSA 'cos he knows that commercials are not going to be allowed to contribute enough to the economy in the future due to their past greed.

 

 

[Reply deleted. Wurzel, we don't like petty namecalling on this forum. If you want to indulge in that pasttime, remove yourself to another forum - John S]

[nick]

That's as may be, but it would help to know what part of the quote you find such a problem?

 

All I mean by their past greed is that they have taken too many fish of their preferred species for too long and therefore the populations are now struggling to survive.

[wurzel]

Quote

 

and therefore the populations are now struggling to survive.

 

It's Quotes like this that prove what I said.

[Steve Coppolo]

Hi Nick

You've jumped in at the deep end with this one I fear, and are a little bit out of your depth if you don't mind me saying. To save going back over old ground, can I just give you a few bullet points that summarise the situation we now face? This is how I see things at the moment.

 

Politicians and civil servants don't give a damn about fish stocks, anglers or commercial fishermen. They do give a damn about careers, pensions popularity and votes.

 

The RSA strategy is being developed because it will create jobs and secure pensions for civil servants, although it will probably lose popularity and votes for politicians. DEFRA have even developed a 20 year "vision" or plan for the future of the fishery. (Wouldn't it be nice to be able to secure our own jobs for the next 20 years!)

 

There was nothing in the last draft strategy document that indicated how benefits to RSA would be delivered. (Remember, the only thing that would improve/develop sea angling is more/bigger fish. What is the biggest and fastest growing section of angling? Carp. Why? Because they are big and there are lots of them).

 

There was, however, plenty of mention of how RSA would be managed and controlled.

 

The last draft was so loosely worded that it could have meant anything you wanted it to mean, and if it hadn't been picked up by a few people who saw how potentially damaging it could have been, it would have progressed to public consultation un-opposed. Even though the RSA representative bodies sent responses asking for changes to the document, initially they defended it!

 

Now DEFRA are re-writing the strategy and none of us will get to see it until it's been agreed by the inshore working group, which consists of reps from the RSA, the commercial sector, SFC's and environmental NGO's. So RSA have only a small voice on the group that will decide the future of RSA.

 

Once it is agreed by them, it will go out to public consultation. The important thing to remember is, by the time any of us get to see it and comment on it, it will have already been agreed by the inshore working group. I believe that, going on past experiences, the public consultation will just be a formality, a legal requirement, and what was decided by the IWG will be what we end up with.

 

I also believe that the content of the next draft strategy will be the same as the last one, but worded different to make it read a bit better. So although almost everyone involved objected to the content of the last draft, the new one won't be much of an improvement. The difference is, no one will get a chance to comment on this one before it goes out.

 

So what do the RSA reps do when DEFRA present them with the new version of the same strategy? Do they agree to it because it'll be forced through anyway? Do they object and get ignored and out voted by the rest of the IWG? Or do they refuse to take part in the downfall of RSA and walk away from negotiations?

 

If any of the measures in the strategy are imposed against the will of RSA, we can continue to fight them forever if we want to. If they are brought in through negotiation we will be deemed to have accepted them and we will be stuck with them forever more, even if they are the worst thing that has ever happened for RSA.

 

My own personal view is that if DEFRA don't come up with a strategy that is a vast improvement on the last draft, ie, they need to detail exactly how they are going to improve and develop RSA by providing more/bigger fish, then our reps need to distance themselves from the process and let the strategy be imposed against our will. Whatever happens to RSA is going to happen anyway, the only variable is how it happens and where you go from there.

 

If we end up getting stuffed, and our reps then turn around and tell us that they got the best deal possible for us, I will class that as being sold down the river. If our reps tell us that they walked away from negotiations because they couldn't get a good deal for us, I'll say they did there best. The important bit here is how good the deal is we end up with. By "deal" I mean the trade off between licences and restrictions, and impovements to our fishing. So far, I can see us getting the licences and restrictions, but not the improvements to our fishing, and that's not good enough.

 

That's how I see things. I'd love to be proved wrong, but I won't hold my breath.

[nick]

Hi Steve

 

I understand where you are coming from. But the simple fact is that a strategy document is not the place for the nuts and bolts. It is the overall strategy.

 

Once the strategy gets agreed then it has to be implemented. That is where the details get discussed and consulted on.

 

That is the point that very few people seem to grasp.

 

A strategy document is never going to go into detail about how the outcomes (measurables) are going to be achieved. It just discusses the things that should be achieved.

 

Once that is done then the details are worked out.

 

To use an analogy.

 

This is about architecture. The look of the thing.

 

It is not about the engineering of it. The how to make it stand up.

 

That happens after the vision is created.

 

Serious question.

 

And please don't refer to licences and bag limits in your answer as they are not mentioned in those sections (but I understand your concerns on those matters).

 

Is there anything in SECTION 2 and SECTION 10 that you find objectionable?

Edited February 27, 2007 by nick

[Steve Coppolo]

Hi Steve

 

I understand where you are coming from. But the simple fact is that a strategy document is not the place for the nuts and bolts. It is the overall strategy.

 

Once the strategy gets agreed then it has to be implemented. That is where the details get discussed and consulted on.

 

That is the point that very few people seem to grasp.

 

A strategy document is never going to go into detail about how the outcomes (measurables) are going to be achieved. It just discusses the things that should be achieved.

 

Once that is done then the details are worked out.

 

 

That's the theory anyway!

[wurzel]

Quote

As always it is about money, but the man from DEFRA is now looking hard at RSA 'cos he knows that commercials are not going to be allowed to contribute enough to the economy in the future due to their past greed.

[Reply deleted. Wurzel, we don't like petty namecalling on this forum. If you want to indulge in that pasttime, remove yourself to another forum - John S]

 

 

You might think it was petty name calling. I consider it pointing out a fact.

 

Quote

and therefore the populations are now struggling to survive.

 

 

As an angler I would not want this man or any other with the same mindset to represent me.

DEFRA will love him as will the green NGO's .

[glennk]

Hi Glen

 

We are fortunate in Scotland as at the moment there is no talk of licenses. SOS, SACN Scotland and the SFSA are lobbying the Scottish exec. to try and get them to be more active in conserving species like tope, common skate, spurdog and rays.

 

To get the exec to listen, we had to promote the value of RSA to Scotland and finally after three years of much letter writing, the exec have commissioned an economic survey. Hopefully they will be more active in promoting and conserving prized RSA stocks after the results.

 

The question I would like you to answer is.

 

If the Scottish exec turn round and say, We will back your calls for an eco based management system on RSA stocks, we will put nursery areas in place for the spurdog, we will ban the killing of tope and skate, but we want to impose a license as a quid pro quo. Have I and others sold Scottish anglers "down the river"?

 

 

Hi Ian,

 

A difficult one to answer not being from north of the border myself, but I'll give you my thoughts.

 

You are indeed in a lucky position not having to worry about a blanket bag limit or an angling licence at this time. I dare say this could soon change and you too might suddenly find yourself being challenged by anglers like me.

 

If the Scottish anglers were asking for spurdog nurseries, banning the killing of tope and skate then why should they not contribute to the cost of running that if they felt it were a good idea (I personally believe in the right to fish from the shore free of charge). I realise you have a lot of support for these measures from some very experienced anglers in your neck of the woods - Yourself, Davey Holt, Nick and many others who enjoy the fishing off your coast and in the lochs. A licence paid to fish for these species could be a good idea in my opinion - Perhaps you should also ask the question of Nick and Davey.

 

Conversely, The cod anglers from fife and the lads who hunt the big cod at Arbroath. The lads who run the local fishing clubs and compete in them and the big opens that run in that area. Some of the lads who don't see value in fishing for tope and skate and haven't a boat or the available cash to get afloat. Will these lads be happy having to shell out 20 quid a year so you can enjoy the benefits on their behalf. I dont know if they would you would have to ask them. In not seperating out the 2 you certainly would not be looking after the best interests of the Arbroath cod boys. If this whole cenario were transferred to England and the deal was cod anglers were to pay to help out bread floaters and bass anglers with no benefit to themselves then I would say you had had sold me and my cod angling buddies down the **** pan.

[JB]

We - anglers - do not decide whether there will be bag limits and licences or whatever. That is done to us by the powers that be.

 

We can either be involved in the process, or we can not.

 

I believe this to be a very correct statement. I also believe that DEFRA has already decided what will happen and what their minimum requirements are going to be. Anything above their minimum requirements will be a bonus to them. It is up to RSA to fight DEFRA down to their minimum requirements. Unfortunately, this is just a small battle. Now that RSA are considered stakeholders the war will go on and on and on.

 

I know hindsight is a great thing. However, if not now, then certainly in the future, the fact that RSA should have used anonymity and hoped not to be noticed will be much debated.

 

JB