INSHORE FISHERIES WORKING GROUP

[glennk]

And that the presence of nets and inshore trawling has a negative effect on the 'angling experience' (rather like trying to listen to birdsong whilst someone blares out rap music - you can still hear the birds, but the experience is ruined).

 

Having accepted that, they are now looking more closely at how to identify areas of special significance to anglers, which require special consideration, and are actively talking about using existing tools to limit fixed gill-nets close inshore, to increase the number and size of nursery areas etc, as well as considering how to identify and implement 'angling only' areas.

 

Never been concerned about the golden Mile as it would mean nothing on a local level with most commercial fishing taking part outside this zone and often out of sight.

 

http://www.fishupdate.com/news/fullstory.p...hire_Coast.html

 

Anyone wanting to read the full article can use my Login details

 

email : jay_con@ntlworld.com

 

password : cod1

 

But does your paragraph mean your Golden mile is already been watered down ? To become maybe a golden 300 yard weed bed of the Essex coast ?

Edited March 3, 2007 by glennk

[Leon Roskilly]

But does your paragraph mean your Golden mile is already been watered down ? To become maybe a golden 300 yard weed bed of the Essex coast ?

 

Only if you want to roll over and die, and accept such a thing.

[glennk]

You would have made a fair politician

[Leon Roskilly]

You would have made a fair politician

 

 

Thank you for your constructive and helpful input Glenn.

 

[glennk]

I just meant you have a nack of avoiding the last question asked or appearing to give an answer when you haven't so the debate can move on and the initial question be forgot.

[stavey]

We never expected an absolute ban on all commercial activity within 1 nm.

 

 

 

 

 

Having accepted that, they are now looking more closely at how to identify areas of special significance to anglers, which require special consideration, and are actively talking about using existing tools to limit fixed gill-nets close inshore, to increase the number and size of nursery areas etc, as well as considering how to identify and implement 'angling only' areas.

 

 

Hi Leon

 

Its a shame the rsa reps dont believe in some of their own proposals, when you say existing tools to limit fixed gill-nets would you care to elaborate, cheers............

[Steve Coppolo]

And yes, we won't always get exactly what we want, and sometimes we will get some things that we don't want.

 

 

If anglers were not there, saying what we want, we wouldn't get much at all.

 

We won't always get what we want? Have a word! It might have escaped your attention, but we haven't but we haven't actually got anything yet, there are no indications that we will actually get anything, and there are indications that we won't ever get anything.

Edited March 4, 2007 by Steve Coppolo

[Steve Coppolo]

And that the presence of nets and inshore trawling has a negative effect on the 'angling experience' (rather like trying to listen to birdsong whilst someone blares out rap music - you can still hear the birds, but the experience is ruined).

That argument is very weak. Is that the best you can come up with?

 

Having accepted that, they are now looking more closely at how to identify areas of special significance to anglers, which require special consideration, and are actively talking about using existing tools to limit fixed gill-nets close inshore,

What about drift gill nets? Are you actively talking about them too?

 

to increase the number and size of nursery areas etc,

This is another example of people rushing ahead with plans without thinking how they might affect other anglers. At present bass angling from boats isn't allowed in nursery areas, even though bass nursery areas also hold good numbers of big bass, (or at least they used too). You will definately not be thanked if anglers are stopped from fishing some of their favourite bass marks.

 

Another example of the need to be engaged, to float ideas, to counter those who would otherwise just laugh at the very idea and turn it down flat, and to work towards solutions that most would see as reasonable.

 

It would help if the people doing the engaging actually had half a clue what they were talking about and put a bit of thought into what they were proposing and the effect it would have on angling/anglers before steaming off with them.

Edited March 4, 2007 by Steve Coppolo

[Leon Roskilly]

Hi Leon

 

Its a shame the rsa reps dont believe in some of their own proposals, when you say existing tools to limit fixed gill-nets would you care to elaborate, cheers............

 

 

Under the Salmon & Freshwater fisheries act, it is illegal to set a fixed engine (ie an 'anchored' gill net) anywhere within England and Wales.

 

The legislation was bought in to protect migratory species, principally salmon and trout (which travel high in the water column, and run close to the coast as they return to freshwater to spawn).

 

The legislation was confirmed by the case Champion V Maughan (see below)

 

However, Sea Fisheries Committees have the power to pass 'enabling' byelaws which allow the setting of fixed gill nets, at times and with certain restrictions (eg headrope must be at least 3 metres deep at all states of the tide, meaning they cannot be set close to the shore except in very deep water off the rocks say) where this can be demonstrated not to affect a run of salmon and/or sea trout (particularly in estuaries, or the approaches to estuaries).

 

Where enabling byelaws exist, if there is evidence that they do in fact interfere with a run of salmon and/or sea trout, the Environment Agency can require the local SFC to rescind byelaws allowing the setting of fixed nets.

 

(As salmon and sea-trout are known to travel close inshore, along most of the East coast, their is scope to attain evidence, present it to the EA and demand that they require banning of gill nets that are set inshore along much of that coast)

 

Although the legislation banning the setting of gill nets is to protect salmon and trout, it often applies in areas where bass and mullet are prevalent, so also affords protection to those and other species too.

 

Further information in the attached documents.

 

 

ChampionvMaughan.doc

 

LawRelatingtoFixedEngines.doc

 

 

 

That enabling byelaws can be implemented by SFCs, at the request of fishermen, is another example of how these committees fundamentally affect the inshore fishing of anglers.

 

And why, given their traditional sympathy towards the needs of the catching sector above the needs of other marine stakeholders, anglers should take a close interest in the business of their local sea fisheries committees, attend meetings, publicise issues that the committee is considering which will affect sea anglers in the district, and to engage with them to ensure that they fully consider the needs of sea anglers when they create and enforce byelaws etc

Edited March 4, 2007 by Leon Roskilly

[Leon Roskilly]

It would help if the people doing the engaging actually had half a clue what they were talking about and put a bit of thought into what they were proposing and the effect it would have on angling/anglers before steaming off with them.

Steve,

 

Then you need to identify people with the time, knowledge, experience, resources (much of the expense usually comes out of your own pocket) and commitment who could do the job better, and convince those that appoint representatives to put them forward if they are willing.

 

It's no use at all railing against those who are doing the job, unless you have some convincing and acceptable replacements who could do it better.

 

Have you people in mind, are they willing and available to do it?

 

It's so easy just to knock the efforts of others, but that achieves nothing other than to deter others from becoming involved.

 

Putting forward real alternatives would be a much better direction in which to channel your frustrations, actually making a positive difference for a change.

 

For my part I'm perfectly happy to step aside whenever there is someone better suited (and available) for the task in hand, and take every opportunity to do so.

 

It's always easy to be wise afterwards, wish something else had been said at the time, but in this world at least, perfection will always be flawed, to the glee of those who choose to mock rather than seek to be constructive.

 

I long ago accepted that anyone who sets out to make a difference is going to get plenty of flak from those who mostly stand by and pontificate.

Edited March 4, 2007 by Leon Roskilly