Rsa versus Commercial

[stavey]

As rsa's have only just been recently rocognised as stakeholders in the way of what swims around our shores i got to wondering how long will it take before something realy possitive would be done by our government to help improve our lot?

 

My thoughts were well if they only had to deal with the rsa's then not very long at all, but we all know its not the case we have a few commercials i think somewhere around 3000 in total for the whole of the uk and shrinking year by year for the government to look after and protect no matter what"or so it seems?

 

Believe it or not i do feel a little sorry for the commercials as they are slowly being hung out to dry with ever ending quota cuts etc etc, but none of this is to do with the rsa me thinks but we appear to be their no 1 enemy nowadays? instead of letting the goverment use the two as political pawns in their stupid games surely it would more constructive to work together against the establishment! i am sure there must be a few common interests that we would both like to see happen is there not? or are commercials happy to see their quota's cut year on year and along with their industry dissappear down the pan?

 

The alternative could be to leave things as they are for year after year and continue to be both the governments pawns and to get nowhere in a very long time, pretty much like in the usa, it is not all so rosy over there!! both the rsa and commercials have been at each other for decades

 

http://saltfishing.about.com/cs/commercial...a/aa030622a.htm

 

 

So whats it gonna be boys and girls

 

PS. tony blair said today it would be political suicide to put forward new road charging proposals against such a public out cry, is it not so surprising what a little petition that 1.8 million people signed can do, there are more sea anglers than that, now for the right petition??????

Edited March 1, 2007 by stavey

[nick]

You would think wouldn't you that RSA and commercials would have plenty of common ground.

 

We both want (preumably) more fish in the sea, and presumambly more bigger fish (if only because that means more good breeding stock to produce lots of smaller ones too).

 

And presumably we also want freedom to fish when and where we want, which if there are plenty of fish out there would not really be a problem.

 

The problem appears to me to be one of greed - always has and always will I fear - on the part of the majority of the commercial fleet. they are in denial, they still claim that there are plenty of fish out there.

 

They claim that the current quotas are not required (and I must say I think the quota system is one of the most stupid methods ever devised to limit deaths of sea fish species) as there are plenty of fish out there.

 

They claim that they should be allowed to catch what they want because they know better than the scientists what fish are available to be caught.

 

If the commercials had any sort of record in the recent past of self regulation I believe that we could work together, but as their history since the second world war at least has been one of massive over fishing without a shred of self restraint I for one do not believe that we van ever establish an commonality of purpose. I would not shed a sigle tear to see the total demise of the white fish fleet, any form of trawler, any form of dredger, and the over 10 meter longliners that catch and kill indescriminately.

 

Small boats using selective fishing methods are fine.

[luckyjim]

A clear case of "the tragedy of the commons." Self regulation to maintain a common resource will never rationally work according to most economists and social scientists. Expoitation of the commons (in this case fisheries) will be a relentless process for which the conclusion can only be the destruction of the common resource (fish stocks).

 

http://dieoff.org/page95.htm

 

Administrating the Commons:

 

"Indeed, the process has been so widely commented upon that one writer postulated a common life cycle for all of the attempts to develop regulatory policies. The life cycle is launched by an outcry so widespread and demanding that it generates enough political force to bring about establishment of a regulatory agency to insure the equitable, just, and rational distribution of the advantages among all holders of interest in the commons. This phase is followed by the symbolic reassurance of the offended as the agency goes into operation, developing a period of political quiescence among the great majority of those who hold a general but unorganized interest in the commons. Once this political quiescence has developed, the highly organized and specifically interested groups who wish to make incursions into the commons bring sufficient pressure to bear through other political processes to convert the agency to the protection and furthering of their interests. In the last phase even staffing of the regulating agency is accomplished by drawing the agency administrators from the ranks of the regulated."

 

I.e. Sea Anglers must reach a greater level of organization than they have achieved so far if they wish to prevent total depletion of fish stocks ("The Tragedy of the Commons"). Commercials cannot be depended on to provide the necessary pressure for regulation because each of them depends on the resource for their economic benefit, and the advantages of defection would be too great for each individual commercial fisherman. The only interest groups which can preserve the common resource are recreational anglers and possibly the environmental lobby.

 

Just thought I'd confirm your fears using academic social-science.

Edited March 1, 2007 by luckyjim

[stavey]

You would think wouldn't you that RSA and commercials would have plenty of common ground.

 

We both want (preumably) more fish in the sea, and presumambly more bigger fish (if only because that means more good breeding stock to produce lots of smaller ones too).

 

And presumably we also want freedom to fish when and where we want, which if there are plenty of fish out there would not really be a problem.

 

The problem appears to me to be one of greed - always has and always will I fear - on the part of the majority of the commercial fleet. they are in denial, they still claim that there are plenty of fish out there.

 

They claim that the current quotas are not required (and I must say I think the quota system is one of the most stupid methods ever devised to limit deaths of sea fish species) as there are plenty of fish out there.

 

They claim that they should be allowed to catch what they want because they know better than the scientists what fish are available to be caught.

 

If the commercials had any sort of record in the recent past of self regulation I believe that we could work together, but as their history since the second world war at least has been one of massive over fishing without a shred of self restraint I for one do not believe that we van ever establish an commonality of purpose. I would not shed a sigle tear to see the total demise of the white fish fleet, any form of trawler, any form of dredger, and the over 10 meter longliners that catch and kill indescriminately.

 

Small boats using selective fishing methods are fine.

 

 

Hi nick

 

Yes you would think that more and bigger fish would do the both of us a world of good would'nt you? but perhaps it may not be the case for the few commercials that are left in this country perhaps if more fish was available this may encourage more and previous fishermen to take part again in the industry leading to prices going down etc, just generaly more competition i dont know?

 

I think its just the old attitudes that need changing, like, i have more rights than you because i make a living out of it mate!! you know? saying that though nick i dont have a problem with commercials personally its just some of their methods like netts stuck along low water mark on most of the shore marks i fish that pi**es me off its totally not needed not even for pot bait, cheers.............

[stavey]

A clear case of "the tragedy of the commons." Self regulation to maintain a common resource will never rationally work according to most economists and social scientists. Expoitation of the commons (in this case fisheries) will be a relentless process for which the conclusion can only be the destruction of the common resource (fish stocks).

 

http://dieoff.org/page95.htm

 

Administrating the Commons:

 

"Indeed, the process has been so widely commented upon that one writer postulated a common life cycle for all of the attempts to develop regulatory policies. The life cycle is launched by an outcry so widespread and demanding that it generates enough political force to bring about establishment of a regulatory agency to insure the equitable, just, and rational distribution of the advantages among all holders of interest in the commons. This phase is followed by the symbolic reassurance of the offended as the agency goes into operation, developing a period of political quiescence among the great majority of those who hold a general but unorganized interest in the commons. Once this political quiescence has developed, the highly organized and specifically interested groups who wish to make incursions into the commons bring sufficient pressure to bear through other political processes to convert the agency to the protection and furthering of their interests. In the last phase even staffing of the regulating agency is accomplished by drawing the agency administrators from the ranks of the regulated."

 

I.e. Sea Anglers must reach a greater level of organization than they have achieved so far if they wish to prevent total depletion of fish stocks ("The Tragedy of the Commons"). Commercials cannot be depended on to provide the necessary pressure for regulation because each of them depends on the resource for their economic benefit, and the advantages of defection would be too great for each individual commercial fisherman. The only interest groups which can preserve the common resource are recreational anglers and possibly the environmental lobby.

 

Just thought I'd confirm your fears using academic social-science.

 

Thanks for that jim, heavy shyte that but i sort of get the picture, cheers........

[Who's the Daddy]

flounder is a very good pot bait an keeps well

 

theres alot of them and youse dont have to use a lot of fuel travelling off to find them

 

whot els is there every thing else is quotad or limited as bycatch or not in season

 

no pot bait meens no potting meens no crabs meens no fishery

 

an just cos a few crap anglers cant catch flounders on a sunday morning all them mens lost there jobs

[barry luxton]

flounder is a very good pot bait an keeps well

 

theres alot of them and youse dont have to use a lot of fuel travelling off to find them

 

whot els is there every thing else is quotad or limited as bycatch or not in season

 

no pot bait meens no potting meens no crabs meens no fishery

 

an just cos a few crap anglers cant catch flounders on a sunday morning all them mens lost there jobs

 

 

So the pram guys say to their families, soory luv just lost me job cause i can't catch the flounders? If that is the case i think they aught to go to derfra and tell em instead of crying to the press first.

 

I can't believe a few crap anglers have stoped all those trawlers with all that money tied up in them as well. Shows you what power a few crap anglers have me thinks.

Edited March 2, 2007 by barry luxton

[ColinW]

flounder is a very good pot bait an keeps well

 

theres alot of them and youse dont have to use a lot of fuel travelling off to find them

 

whot els is there every thing else is quotad or limited as bycatch or not in season

 

no pot bait meens no potting meens no crabs meens no fishery

 

an just cos a few crap anglers cant catch flounders on a sunday morning all them mens lost there jobs

 

Fishing for pot bait is the commercial fishing equivalent of the tramp rooting in bins for half eaten kebabs. Fishermen who know what they are doing can catch commercially valuable fish and leave the inedible ones to us anglers.

[JB]

Fishing for pot bait is the commercial fishing equivalent of the tramp rooting in bins for half eaten kebabs. Fishermen who know what they are doing can catch commercially valuable fish and leave the inedible ones to us anglers.

Unless I am missing something, this is yet another ill-informed cheap shot at commercial fishermen.

 

For many years I successfully fished pots and caught my own pot bait with a small trawl which I entirely made myself. I caught my own bait because it greatly out-fished other baits available at the time. The bait we used to catch was mostly plaice, but there was also a small percentage of other fish like sand dabs, flounder and Dover soles. The latter added to my overall income.

 

I have always welcomed informed opinions. However, on a thread trying to look for common ground between RSA and commercials, malicious attitudes seem to me to be counter-productive.

 

JB

[barry luxton]

Unless I am missing something, this is yet another ill-informed cheap shot at commercial fishermen.

 

For many years I successfully fished pots and caught my own pot bait with a small trawl which I entirely made myself. I caught my own bait because it greatly out-fished other baits available at the time. The bait we used to catch was mostly plaice, but there was also a small percentage of other fish like sand dabs, flounder and Dover soles. The latter added to my overall income.

 

I have always welcomed informed opinions. However, on a thread trying to look for common ground between RSA and commercials, malicious attitudes seem to me to be counter-productive.

 

JB

 

 

In your opinion then John are the commercial guys there right to tie up their boats as opposed to going and try something else. I have seen them use conger for bait for example. can they not use anything else or is it that drastic.

 

Your second para John, i entirly agree, again it works both ways though. Throwing rsa overboard and crap anglers doesn't help much.

Edited March 2, 2007 by barry luxton