A Recreational Sea Angling Strategy

[steve good]

There has been a search for positives in this thread, some think they found some others think it could be impossible. How about we look at solutions to problems ?

 

If a bag limit is introduced and the catches of charter boats across the land are restricted. Is there a way to ensure that those business dependent on anglers being allowed to maintain their catch can continue ?

 

Another scenario - Your a tackle shop owner and your business is high turn over based on selling cheap tackle to holiday makers - first time anglers, anglers who maybe fish a handful of times a year. A licence is introduced and these 1 off anglers don't fancy paying a licence fee and perhaps shelling out for insurance. What does this tackle dealer do to ensure he stays afloat ?? Also spare some thought for the tackle suppliers who supply these localised shops, could their businesses be damaged to ?

[/quote

 

Hi glennk

 

At the moment it is not known if anglers collectively catch a 1000,10,000,100,000 or a million tonne of fish a year, are you saying that anglers should be exempt from conservation measures (like they are now) just to keep the tackle shops viable

 

steve

[glennk]

No I'm asking for solutions to a problems Steve. Can you Help ??

[Ken Davison South Wales]

No I'm asking for solutions to a problems Steve. Can you Help ??

 

I would like to see some real thought put into the process, in certain areas a limit on certain species and I think this will be the way to go.

 

I know your concern is cod and I would admit I have little idea how that situation could be resolved.

 

With bass in our areas I would like to see the mls increased, there is an abundance of small fish but a lack of larger ones, at the risk of being torn to pieces I would say two fish per person per day with a 45mls for all concerned.

 

Plaice & flounders possibly five per day, dabs which are quite prolific down here twelve per day.

 

It is all a question of personal control, I never keep wrass, whiting, pout, scad, infact I only ever take what I consider to be good eating fish and only enough to be eaten by the following day, plus about a dozen mackeral for bait in the freezer at any one time.

 

That suits me as a person but others would feel that is very restrictive.

 

However if everyone adopted this type of approach it would give us all a better voice in the long run.

 

OK I running for cover.

[glennk]

Isn't that more about the Bass management Plan Ken ? Increased MLS and bag limits ? I understand you always like to have the moral high ground Ken but I wouldn't be concerned on the mackerel front having read that 1 boat landed between 2 and 4 million mackerel in one go recently.

 

You maybe should come visit the Whitby forum - The guys there have a real liking of Pouting.

 

Been honest Ken you are always a diplomat and at least didn't try to murky the waters by throwing in comments about serious illnesses, but it doesn't really answer the questions I asked.

[stavey]

I would like to see some real thought put into the process, in certain areas a limit on certain species and I think this will be the way to go.

 

I know your concern is cod and I would admit I have little idea how that situation could be resolved.

 

With bass in our areas I would like to see the mls increased, there is an abundance of small fish but a lack of larger ones, at the risk of being torn to pieces I would say two fish per person per day with a 45mls for all concerned.

 

Plaice & flounders possibly five per day, dabs which are quite prolific down here twelve per day.

 

It is all a question of personal control, I never keep wrass, whiting, pout, scad, infact I only ever take what I consider to be good eating fish and only enough to be eaten by the following day, plus about a dozen mackeral for bait in the freezer at any one time.

 

That suits me as a person but others would feel that is very restrictive.

 

However if everyone adopted this type of approach it would give us all a better voice in the long run.

 

OK I running for cover.

 

Hi ken, you must like eating fish very much indeed! i dont think i could stomach twelve dabs in a day or any other type of fish for that matter, i do agree with your bass limit of two a day but i would set my mls a little higher if i fancied ever taking one home which i wont, i noticed you left out mullet! which i would recommend as a c+r only species as they taste like "crap" anyway and they can only be regarded as a true sport angling species by anyone with an ounce of sense, then we have the good old cod well it seems it is just as popular with a lot of anglers in its eating!! as well as its catching!! and for this reason i would have to argue that perhaps bag limits is not the answer for it (not very conservational i know) but there you go, cheers...............

[Steve Coppolo]

I would like to see some real thought put into the process, in certain areas a limit on certain species and I think this will be the way to go.

 

 

I would say two fish per person per day with a 45mls for all concerned.

 

Plaice & flounders possibly five per day, dabs which are quite prolific down here twelve per day.

 

It is all a question of personal control, I never keep wrass, whiting, pout, scad, infact I only ever take what I consider to be good eating fish and only enough to be eaten by the following day, plus about a dozen mackeral for bait in the freezer at any one time.

 

[Leon Roskilly]

Glenn,

 

Third party insurance for anglers.

 

This is mentioned under section 6.2 of the Draft RSA strategy.

 

Section 6 is headed ' Codes of Conduct and Good Practice'

 

As some people have had problems understanding exactly what that means it's been suggested and I believe accepted that the heading of that section be changed to read-

 

6. VOLUNTARY MEASURES: CODES OF CONDUCT AND BEST PRACTICE

 

So I hope that clears up any confusion and reassures people that no one has suggested compulsory insurance for anglers.

 

Licensing

 

The suggestion that anglers be charged a contribution towards the cost of fisheries management comes out of the Bradley review of Inshore Enforcement in an attempt to comply with a broader Government policy that where 'stakeholders' benefit from a management regime, that the 'User Pays' principle should apply.

 

The review pointed out that the cost of inshore management, including science, andministration, enforcement all comes out of the public purse, and the funding of SFCs all comes out of the ratepayer's pocket.

 

As this expenditure supports an inshore industry that makes it's profits from access to the public fishery resources, with the taxpayer/ratepayer picking up the tab above, the review felt it reasonable that those benefitting should pay a contribution towards that cost.

 

They also looked to see which other stakeholders benefitted, and identified Recreational Sea Anglers as another potential contributor.

 

Now our argument is that all the current management regime has done is to reduce both the number and quality of fish available to the majority of anglers, driving many charter boats and other related businesses out of business, so it is unacceptable to talk of charging anglers for the privilege of contributing towards that management which isn't focussed upon the needs of anglers.

 

If a licence is to be imposed on anglers, then that can only be acceptable if it is paying towards a management package that is actually delivering benefits to anglers.

 

ie we may be willing to pay towards a regime that makes rsa strong and healthy, but we are not going to pay for the bullets to finish us off.

 

That basic message seems to have gotten through, but needs to be kept saying over and over again.

 

'Before you think of charging us, put in measures that benefit anglers (not merely their organisations or representatives, but the guys catching the fish), and if those measures are working and someone needs to pay for them, well then perhaps we can talk about charging anglers who are recieving benefits. But only if the money goes back into beneficial management'

 

Now how will such a licensing scheme operate?

 

That, if it comes (and I believe is a few years off yet) is going to take a lot of head scratching and consultation.

 

But looking on the positive side, it's not as though it's never been tried before.

 

There are examples around the world of recreational angling license systems, which are part of the management of very healthy recreational angling sectors, and it's up to anglers to enshure that any detailed proposals in the future draw on best practice.

 

I would imagine that you could fill a hefty document with proposals to ensure that such a scheme in UK saltwater works as well as anywhere else.

 

But to answer some of your concerns above.

 

- No licensing for kids (I believe that the freshwater licence starts at 14, and is a special rate until aged 16)

 

- 'Group' licensing - Waters popular with holiday makers can buy a 'general' licence that covers everyone fishing that water whether they have a licence of their own or not. So charter boats in places where people probably want to fish occasionally could perhaps use the same scheme so that holidaymakers etc are covered when they fish from that boat. Similarly pier operators that charge a day-ticket could have such an arrangement.

 

- Species - Perhaps if you are (say) feathering for mackerel from the beach, you won't need a licence, and perhaps fishing for flounder or wrasse etc.

 

- Short period licences - You can buy a day licence, or an 8 day licence for freshwater fishing. I would expect similar arrangements will apply to any future sea angling licence.

 

As I say, you could fill a hefty document with such detail, and there are plenty of examples to look at around the world.

 

What will be important is to ensure good and powerful representation when the Government starts to put together detailed proposals to ensure that the best interests of anglers are safeguarded should they decide to continue down the route of introducing a licence for sea anglers.

Bag Limits

 

Similarly for bag limits.

 

Species by species, region by region,

 

Proposals need to be looked at in detail, and good arguments made (and presented well), to attempt to ensure that specific proposals are not unnecessarily damaging to RSA interests, and meet the underlying objective of such proposals, whether they be for good conservation reasons, or for enforcement of unlicensed selling of fish.

 

Again it need not be all doom and gloom, some of the best recreational fisheries in the world have bag limits as part of the overall management package.

 

Strong and powerful representation of anglers' best interests is the key.

[steve good]

There has been a search for positives in this thread, some think they found some others think it could be impossible. How about we look at solutions to problems ?

 

If a bag limit is introduced and the catches of charter boats across the land are restricted. Is there a way to ensure that those business dependent on anglers being allowed to maintain their catch can continue ?

 

Another scenario - Your a tackle shop owner and your business is high turn over based on selling cheap tackle to holiday makers - first time anglers, anglers who maybe fish a handful of times a year. A licence is introduced and these 1 off anglers don't fancy paying a licence fee and perhaps shelling out for insurance. What does this tackle dealer do to ensure he stays afloat ?? Also spare some thought for the tackle suppliers who supply these localised shops, could their businesses be damaged to ?

 

Hi glennk

 

I cannot see the problem, I have just been looking back through all the angling mags and papers I got, and all I can see is alot of happy smiling anglers holding up really nice sized fish of all descriptions.

 

If bag limits were introduced I see no reason why they will not be fair and reasonable, and I do not think that bag limits would be deptrimental to any angler or angling business.

 

steve

[glennk]

I did wonder what someone would want with 12 dabs but people will eat anything.

 

Just for Ken - Preparing And Cooking Pouting

[steve good]

Glenn,

 

Third party insurance for anglers.

 

This is mentioned under section 6.2 of the Draft RSA strategy.

 

Section 6 is headed ' Codes of Conduct and Good Practice'

 

As some people have had problems understanding exactly what that means it's been suggested and I believe accepted that the heading of that section be changed to read-

 

6. VOLUNTARY MEASURES: CODES OF CONDUCT AND BEST PRACTICE

 

So I hope that clears up any confusion and reassures people that no one has suggested compulsory insurance for anglers.

 

Licensing

 

The suggestion that anglers be charged a contribution towards the cost of fisheries management comes out of the Bradley review of Inshore Enforcement in an attempt to comply with a broader Government policy that where 'stakeholders' benefit from a management regime, that the 'User Pays' principle should apply.

 

The review pointed out that the cost of inshore management, including science, andministration, enforcement all comes out of the public purse, and the funding of SFCs all comes out of the ratepayer's pocket.

 

As this expenditure supports an inshore industry that makes it's profits from access to the public fishery resources, with the taxpayer/ratepayer picking up the tab above, the review felt it reasonable that those benefitting should pay a contribution towards that cost.

 

They also looked to see which other stakeholders benefitted, and identified Recreational Sea Anglers as another potential contributor.

 

Now our argument is that all the current management regime has done is to reduce both the number and quality of fish available to the majority of anglers, driving many charter boats and other related businesses out of business, so it is unacceptable to talk of charging anglers for the privilege of contributing towards that management which isn't focussed upon the needs of anglers.

 

If a licence is to be imposed on anglers, then that can only be acceptable if it is paying towards a management package that is actually delivering benefits to anglers.

 

ie we may be willing to pay towards a regime that makes rsa strong and healthy, but we are not going to pay for the bullets to finish us off.

 

That basic message seems to have gotten through, but needs to be kept saying over and over again.

 

'Before you think of charging us, put in measures that benefit anglers (not merely their organisations or representatives, but the guys catching the fish), and if those measures are working and someone needs to pay for them, well then perhaps we can talk about charging anglers who are recieving benefits. But only if the money goes back into beneficial management'

 

Now how will such a licensing scheme operate?

 

That, if it comes (and I believe is a few years off yet) is going to take a lot of head scratching and consultation.

 

But looking on the positive side, it's not as though it's never been tried before.

 

There are examples around the world of recreational angling license systems, which are part of the management of very healthy recreational angling sectors, and it's up to anglers to enshure that any detailed proposals in the future draw on best practice.

 

I would imagine that you could fill a hefty document with proposals to ensure that such a scheme in UK saltwater works as well as anywhere else.

 

But to answer some of your concerns above.

 

- No licensing for kids (I believe that the freshwater licence starts at 14, and is a special rate until aged 16)

 

- 'Group' licensing - Waters popular with holiday makers can buy a 'general' licence that covers everyone fishing that water whether they have a licence of their own or not. So charter boats in places where people probably want to fish occasionally could perhaps use the same scheme so that holidaymakers etc are covered when they fish from that boat. Similarly pier operators that charge a day-ticket could have such an arrangement.

 

- Species - Perhaps if you are (say) feathering for mackerel from the beach, you won't need a licence, and perhaps fishing for flounder or wrasse etc.

 

- Short period licences - You can buy a day licence, or an 8 day licence for freshwater fishing. I would expect similar arrangements will apply to any future sea angling licence.

 

As I say, you could fill a hefty document with such detail, and there are plenty of examples to look at around the world.

 

What will be important is to ensure good and powerful representation when the Government starts to put together detailed proposals to ensure that the best interests of anglers are safeguarded should they decide to continue down the route of introducing a licence for sea anglers.

Bag Limits

 

Similarly for bag limits.

 

Species by species, region by region,

 

Proposals need to be looked at in detail, and good arguments made (and presented well), to attempt to ensure that specific proposals are not unnecessarily damaging to RSA interests, and meet the underlying objective of such proposals, whether they be for good conservation reasons, or for enforcement of unlicensed selling of fish.

 

Again it need not be all doom and gloom, some of the best recreational fisheries in the world have bag limits as part of the overall management package.

 

Strong and powerful representation of anglers' best interests is the key.

 

 

 

Hi Leon

 

All I have seen on this forum is anglers blaming commercials because anglers cannot catch fish, NOW YOU SAY:-

 

QUOTE// Now our argument is that all the current management regime has done is to reduce both the number and quality of fish available to the majority of anglers,

 

So are you now blaming the management policies that commercials have to work in accordance with.

 

steve