INSHORE FISHERIES WORKING GROUP

[Steve Coppolo]

As far as I understand its up to sea anglers to put their indervidual points on issues to the RSA reps. It would be inpossable for the likes of Steve Coppollo, Tom Pibough and Leon to keep in touch with the two million people who went sea fishing last year!

 

 

Don't count me in there, I'm out of it. I did my best but found the attitudes of some within RSA more obstructive than DEFRA or the commercials. Maybe if and when things change, and if it isn't too late by then, I might have another go, but it's like banging your head against a wall at the moment.

[glennk]

Just pointing out a few facts Nick, If that appears to be negative then so be it, its not my intention to be negative - just realistic. You cant get away from it. SACN represents less than 600 anglers. NFSA who knows ? some say 5000, I think they want to count all their affiliated members so they say 20,000 its still a long way short of 2 million.

 

The body I want to see would represent a lot closer to 2 million than 600. What we have at the moment is undemocratic.

 

Once the DRAFT is no longer a draft and the golden mile has been removed, how do the IFWG intend to ensure the countries 2 million sea anglers are given the opportuinty to respond to the consultation. Will Leon be saying - Well if you never read my site you have only yourselves to blaim ? The anglers in my area don't even know the site exists. Some keep emailing me to ask who Leon Roskilly is, Some have asked if he's a DEFRA spy and ask why a man from the far end of the country is spending more time on a north east forum than anglers from the area. How are these people to be engaged ?

[thedogs]

Hi Steve, dont you sit on the E&S,S,F,C any more? if not more the pitty.

[nick]

but Glenn, that body doesn't exist.

 

Until it does I am afraid that you will have to put up with the democracy we have.

 

To say that what we have currently is undemocratic is simply not true. If SACN, or NFSA, or BASS or any other organisation representing RSA was some sort of exclusive club which had a closed membership and kept it's activities secret you would be correct.

 

The simple fact is SACN is an organisation open for membership to anyone that cares to join. It is free. Members are consulted on all major policies.

 

Democracy does not mean that all the people have got to be involved. It just means that anyone that wants to be involved can be.

 

Why not encourage all the North East anglers to join SACN and run it in the way that they desire?

[glennk]

but Glenn, that body doesn't exist.

 

Until it does I am afraid that you will have to put up with the democracy we have.

 

To say that what we have currently is undemocratic is simply not true. If SACN, or NFSA, or BASS or any other organisation representing RSA was some sort of exclusive club which had a closed membership and kept it's activities secret you would be correct.

 

The simple fact is SACN is an organisation open for membership to anyone that cares to join. It is free. Members are consulted on all major policies.

 

Democracy does not mean that all the people have got to be involved. It just means that anyone that wants to be involved can be.

 

Why not encourage all the North East anglers to join SACN and run it in the way that they desire?

 

But Nick if you work on the views of 600 people and don't make a good attempt at engaging the rest you are not democratic it could be argued you are trying to byepass the democratic process. My question of how the other 1.9 million anglers are to be engaged was a very valid question and one I will continue to ask no matter how many times you and the other members of SACN come back to me.

 

Democracy does not mean that all the people have got to be involved. It just means that anyone that wants to be involved can be.

Only if they have been made aware they can. With a consultation on something so important not too far off these people havent even scratches the surface on debate of how they are to engage the countries 2 million sea anglers. Perhaps They don't really want to engage them ? Perhaps they know the only way to get their own goals past is to make sure the masses are not engaged.

 

 

The simple fact is SACN is an organisation open for membership to anyone that cares to join. It is free. Members are consulted on all major policies.

 

Are they ?? Can you give me a list of all the times the SACN membership was consulted on its policy ? I can recall once and at that point in time mysteriously my email address stopped working (according to Leon). Nick Did you read all the responses to my recent request to SACN ? like this

 

"SACN, in addition to

other RSA member organisations, refuses to release crucial details concerning the ongoing evolution of the Strategy."

 

And the person who said he was "appalled" at the secrecy of SACN ?

 

Its not just me Nick, others are saying it too.

 

Ok I'm off fishing. Its a club night. Off for four hours fishing then a pint with the lads, what better way to spend a Sunday evening. Just checked my Diary and there is no meetings with boffins I should be attending. Have a great night all of you. I have my fingers crossed for a great big cod.

Edited March 4, 2007 by glennk

[Steve Coppolo]

Hi Steve, dont you sit on the E&S,S,F,C any more? if not more the pitty.

 

At the moment I still sit on the SFC, I just don't know how long for. At least on the SFC I have the same say as all the other RSA reps who sit on them, ie, none.

 

Why not encourage all the North East anglers to join SACN and run it in the way that they desire?

 

 

Glad to see that you've still got your sense of humour Nick.

[ColinW]

The vast majority of anglers (those who fish off the shore) wouldn't be affected in the least by any bag limits, because the way stocks are now we can't catch enough to break any limit that is likely to be introduced. There are of course people who prefer to save up and then go out on a charter. Obviously they want to catch a lot more on a special trip like that, which might involve hundreds of miles of travelling, than the guy going down his local beach every couple of nights. Why is this such a big problem? Just how many charter boats operate from a place like Whitby, a dozen? Surely to god it can't be that difficult for Defra to accommodate these small numbers in any management plan in a way that won't screw up the charter businesses. I for one wouldn't want anything that discouraged trawler skippers switching to full time chartering! It's obvious that this situation is totally different to that of the shore angler or the guy with his own dinghy.

[nick]

But Nick if you work on the views of 600 people and don't make a good attempt at engaging the rest you are not democratic it could be argued you are trying to byepass the democratic process. My question of how the other 1.9 million anglers are to be engaged was a very valid question and one I will continue to ask no matter how many times you and the other members of SACN come back to me.

 

Glenn, I need your input here. How is SACN supposed to engage these people?

 

Once again you criticise but offer no constructive suggestions.

 

I personally would love it if all 2 million (or however many) sea anglers got politically involved, and campaigned for what they want. Believe me if they did RSA would pretty well get anything they want For an example of what an extremely well organised group of enthusiasts can achieve just look at the RSPB - just over a million members, and when they say jump the government usually asks how high.

 

SACN attempts to be open and democratic. It has a website on which it publishes information regarding it's "agenda". It offers free membership to anyone that cares to join. What else should they do. Bearing in mind that it is an organisation with no funding.

 

Only if they have been made aware they can. With a consultation on something so important not too far off these people havent even scratches the surface on debate of how they are to engage the countries 2 million sea anglers. Perhaps They don't really want to engage them ? Perhaps they know the only way to get their own goals past is to make sure the masses are not engaged.

Again, all the information is available free on the website. Most of the countrys 2 million sea anglers could not give a stuff about angling politics. If you want proof just take a look and see how few people read conservation forums either here or anywhere else. Quite simply there is almost total apathy. If you can get folks interested then good luck to you (genuinely - I would be delighted!)

 

Are they ?? Can you give me a list of all the times the SACN membership was consulted on its policy ? I can recall once and at that point in time mysteriously my email address stopped working (according to Leon). Nick Did you read all the responses to my recent request to SACN ? like this

 

"SACN, in addition to

other RSA member organisations, refuses to release crucial details concerning the ongoing evolution of the Strategy."

 

And the person who said he was "appalled" at the secrecy of SACN ?

 

Its not just me Nick, others are saying it too.

 

Ok I'm off fishing. Its a club night. Off for four hours fishing then a pint with the lads, what better way to spend a Sunday evening. Just checked my Diary and there is no meetings with boffins I should be attending. Have a great night all of you. I have my fingers crossed for a great big cod.

 

No I could not give you a list, but I know that I have seen a lot of emails over the years from SACN and I have also read lots of stuff on the website. Most of the SACN policies have been in place for a long time.

 

Yet other members were quite happy with what SACN are doing and saying. Once again I have to say the document you claim SACN were keeping secret was a DEFRA document. DEFRA decide who gets to see it. If someone on the circulation list releases it to the public on the own initiative then they may well find themselves off the circulation list. This document which is being kept secret is a draft document which when complete is going to be released to the public for consultation. That is how it works.

 

Others are saying lots of things all the time.

 

I keep asking you for your suggestions as to how to achieve the aims you have. So far you are not saying!

 

Hope you catch a big one - if there's any left

[Leon Roskilly]

I can recall once and at that point in time mysteriously my email address stopped working (according to Leon).

 

 

That paranoia again Glenn.

 

The information submitted by you when you applied for membership was:

 

email = JAY_ CON@NTL.COM

 

(cut from the membership application and pasted here)

 

and that was the address added to the SACN email list.

 

So, although you and I have exchanged many emails using your correct address, any SACN mailings going out to the membership were sent to the address supplied in your application for membership, and presumably failed to reach you

 

It wasn't until you complained that you hadn't recieved information that I knew had gone to the SACN membership, that I checked and found that the email address supplied in you application to join SACN had been incorrect.

 

Sorry to spoil yet another of your interesting conspiracy theories Glenn

[Leon Roskilly]

Only if they have been made aware they can. With a consultation on something so important not too far off these people havent even scratches the surface on debate of how they are to engage the countries 2 million sea anglers. Perhaps They don't really want to engage them ? Perhaps they know the only way to get their own goals past is to make sure the masses are not engaged.

 

 

When DEFRA has consulted in the past, the consultation document has gone out to hundreds of people and orgainsations involved in the commercial Fishing Industry, but less angling organisations than can be counted on a single hand.

 

Of the 500 or so consultees that the bass mls consultation initially went out to, only around 20 were angling related.

 

Following complaints to DEFRA about how few RSA people and organisations were being consulted SACN were put in touch with their communications officer and (after spending some time researching to find information) we wrote:

 

Hi Marilyn,

 

It was good to meet you again on Monday.

 

Following our conversation, I've put together some information on organisation contact details of some RSA organisations that DEFRA should consider adding to its contacts database.

 

I've also copied in some people who will probably know of others.

 

Of course, this is just a fraction of the number of RSA stakeholders that need to be identified by DEFRA for disbursing information and involving in consultations etc.

 

I would hope that DEFRA would be able to occupy a researcher to spend a little time with google, looking through sea angling magazines from Smiths and contacting other RSA organisations to build a more comprehensive list.

 

Of particular interest would be businesses and individuals that depend upon servicing the Recreational Sea Angling Sector for their livelihoods.

 

Angling Charter Businesses

 

Tackle Manufactureres

 

Tackle Shops

 

Bait Suppliers

 

Angling Holiday Companies

 

etc

 

Anyway, I hope that you will find the attached information helpful as a start :-)

We also asked other angling organisations to help with supplying details of others who should be included.

 

 

How effective we have been in getting DEFRA to consult more organisation can be seen by looking at the list they are now using

 

http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/...consultlist.pdf

 

A lot more than 20 angling related consultees on the list now!!

 

(Go on, heap praise on SACN for achieving that at least

 

No? Oh! well we don't do it for the thanks )

 

With specific regard to the RSA strategy consultation (due to begin in the early Summer and last 3 months), SACN have written in their comments on the draft document:

 

 

A recognised problem with the RSA sector, is that the majority of participants do not belong to any club or RSA organisation, nor do they often read the several publications devoted to the sector. Similarly with many small businesses operating within the sector.

 

If they do hear of initiatives or developments within the sector it is often through word of mouth, when the facts do become distorted and often issues are taken out of context, and only at a very late stage in the progressing of initiatives.

 

In delivering a strategy, it will be important to engage fully with all interests within the Recreational Sea Angling Sector and a clear communications policy needs to be developed as part of the strategy to ensure that the strategy itself, and any measures adopted within the strategy, are communicated in a timely and efficient manner down to the grass-roots sea anglers, small angling businesses etc, as well as to the major angling representative organisations.

 

Such a communications policy needs to be active, rather than passive (ie not merely relying on people to find available information, but actively presenting information to them), and will require avenues of distribution to be identified and developed.

 

 

Further Consultation and Development of the Strategy

 

Such an important document as this, is likely to influence the development of our recreational sea fisheries for many years to come, and perhaps lead to the greater development of the Recreational Sea Angling sector, bringing societal benefits, not only of increased business opportunities and support for more livelihoods engaged directly or indirectly in the sector, but increasing the quality of life and sense of well-being of many more participants.

 

Comparatively few people have been involved in it’s drafting, and we would expect a much wider consultation to develop the strategy further, including the opportunity for angling interests in all the regions to have the opportunity to meet with DEFRA, and to discuss the strategy in some depth, through a series of regional meetings at times and places that will be convenient to grass-roots angler participation.

 

 

 

Darn another good conspiracy theory bites the dust

 

 

 

 

You see it isn't all about going to the odd meeting now and again, spending 4 hours in a room mostly going around in circles.

 

To be a part of it, you have to be prepared to be fully engaged.

 

That means not only defining a problem and saying 'DEFRA do something about this'

 

It also means doing a lot of the research and putting in the effort to present DEFRA with solutions.

 

BASS didn't simply say 'We want you to do something about bass'.

 

They produced the the Bass Management Plan, and anyone who has bothered to look at it can see the amount of work put in, not only to define the problem, the opportunties, but to offer some well thought out and researched proposals too.

 

It's not so much who gets invited to the table, but what that person or organisation can bring to the table which counts.

 

And it's never simply a case of just sitting at the table.

 

If (say) you are a member of the IFWG, the group will require it's members to take on specific responsibilities to perhaps work together to research and produce a report with specific recommendations.

 

Someone who comes along to the meetings, but put's nothing else in, is a drag on everyone else, and occupies a valuable space that could better be filled by someone who is able to deliver.

 

And the ones with the most influence are not the ones who say 'somebody should do something about ....', but the ones who say "I'll do that". Not only say that but deliver on that too, rather than engaging in simply exchanging so much hot air.

Edited March 4, 2007 by Leon Roskilly