What do you want?

[nick]

Just to look at those 2 points Glenn.

 

You complain that for example SACN is a self appointed and un-representative body. Yet you are willing for an individual to appoint himself to represent you and the thousands of anglers from your region and the nations charter skippers? (No disrespect to Paul - I am sure he is all that you say he is, but he is not a true "representative".

 

Secondly you argue that you would rather the whole thing didn't exist. I am afraid it is too late, it does exist and for that reason the "silent majority" need to have someone fighting their corner so that hopefully they can carry on in blissful ignorance of what is being done on their behalf. And carry on catching more and bigger fish in the future.

[glennk]

Just to look at those 2 points Glenn.

 

You complain that for example SACN is a self appointed and un-representative body. Yet you are willing for an individual to appoint himself to represent you and the thousands of anglers from your region and the nations charter skippers? (No disrespect to Paul - I am sure he is all that you say he is, but he is not a true "representative".

 

I would Garuntee that if we put together a membership form from the people in our area we would drawf the membership of SACN with ease. Due to short timescales as already discussed this has not been possible. So why should Paul Not represent the 1000's of anglers from our region who would back him ? SACN are allowed to represent less than 600. They don't want our voice in there because they know we are opposed to what's on the table and wouldn't be fearful of speaking against it.

 

Again Nick This is my opinion. No matter how many times you tell me I'm wrong you will not convince me otherwise. I will remain here showing my objection to all of this.

[Leon Roskilly]

So why should Paul Not represent the 1000's of anglers from our region who would back him ?

 

You already have the Plymouth Federation, The Bristol Federation, The South West Federation of sea anglers, all representing many clubs in their areas and many thousands of anglers.

 

I dare say that around the country there are other regional bodies as well, all of whom would be interested in representing their 1,000s of members.

 

If you formed another federation to represent the anglers of the North East, or a federation of charter skippers etc, you would still only be representing a particular area or sector segment.

 

At this level of representation, giving the number of stakeholder groups involved, and with a desire to keep those putting together the DEFRA strategy together for wider consultation, I should imagine that DEFRA are only seeking to involve orgainsations operating on a national level.

 

SACN have probably been involved because of our track record of previous involvement, our proven ability to bring something worthwhile to the table, and our ability to work effectively with others.

 

Only guessing mind, you would have to ask DEFRA why they couldn't/wouldn't find a place for Paul.

 

 

As regards to licences and bag limits being mentioned within the strategy.

 

They have been on the table a long time anyway.

 

If there wasn't a strategy in the offing, it would make absolutely no difference.

 

All the strategy does is to draw together all the piecemeal issues and developments, species management plans etc together, wrapping it up in a single package which makes everything clearer and more integrated and cohesive, and is giving RSA (and other stakeholders) the opportunity to tie down all of these separate issues with a clear direction, so that DEFRA knows what it has to deliver.

 

Even if there was no strategy, all of the things included in the strategy would still be being progressed, but in a much more confused manner.

 

(Plans for charging anglers, and taking powers to introduce bag limits were already identified as needed in the new Marine Bill, long before any talk of a DEFRA RSA strategy)

 

What I would advise the anglers of the North East to do now, is to get organised, to identify the issues that will most affect them, both negatively and positively, and to start preparing the arguments to go into their response, both collectively and individually.

 

And to ensure that everyone who will be affected gets to hear about it, and understand what it could mean to them.

 

Charter boat businesses, tackle trade, bait suppliers etc as well as the regions anglers.

 

And remember too that simply saying 'we don't want this because it will hurt our interests' will not carry much weight.

 

Rather it's important to formulate constructive and well argued responses, backed up by evidence, which will demonstrate how much value angling brings to the area, both from a social and economic viewpoint, and the opportunities for developing that further within a good well thought out strategy framework.

[glennk]

:bigemo_harabe_net-163:

 

It has to be you who included the hook thing Leon. It was wasn't it ?

[Leon Roskilly]

:bigemo_harabe_net-163:

 

It has to be you who included the hook thing Leon. It was wasn't it ?

 

 

As always Glenn, you are way off beam, and no, I don't know who did.

 

 

6. VOLUNTARY MEASURES: CODES OF CONDUCT AND BEST PRACTICE

 

• Appropriate hook selection for size and species of targeted fish

 

(I think it has something to do with match anglers targeting tiny fish with freshwater hook sizes and ending up deep-hooking too many fish that cannot then be released, or have low survival prospects. A hot conservation topic now that match anglers in the south are often scratching around for tiny fish.)

[glennk]

As always Glenn, you are way off beam, and no, I don't know who did.

6. VOLUNTARY MEASURES: CODES OF CONDUCT AND BEST PRACTICE

 

• Appropriate hook selection for size and species of targeted fish

 

(I think it has something to do with match anglers targeting tiny fish with freshwater hook sizes and ending up deep-hooking too many fish that cannot then be released, or have low survival prospects. A hot conservation topic now that match anglers in the south are often scratching around for tiny fish.)

 

:rolleyes:

 

Really.

 

Strange that it would be match anglers Leon, I usually find match anglers to be really clued up on all aspects of angling. Maybe its not the same down south ?

 

Its ok Leon I owe you an apology, you aren't that daft after all. I've had a few emails about who put that delightful little gem in there - What a wally.

[Ian Burrett]

What I would advise the anglers of the North East to do now, is to get organised, to identify the issues that will most affect them, both negatively and positively, and to start preparing the arguments to go into their response, both collectively and individually.

 

And to ensure that everyone who will be affected gets to hear about it, and understand what it could mean to them.

 

Charter boat businesses, tackle trade, bait suppliers etc as well as the regions anglers.

 

And remember too that simply saying 'we don't want this because it will hurt our interests' will not carry much weight.

 

Rather it's important to formulate constructive and well argued responses, backed up by evidence, which will demonstrate how much value angling brings to the area, both from a social and economic viewpoint, and the opportunities for developing that further within a good well thought out strategy framework.

 

Leon

 

I offered that advice to Glen 2 years ago, as I am sure he will confirm, but it is easier to knock someone and moan in a Forum than it is to do something positive and constructive.

 

Some apology that by the way. You aren't that daft after all :clap2:

 

I wonder if you will also get one for being accused off introducing the compulsory insurance that isn't, and your suggesting to Defra we have a license which is equally bxxxxks

 

I see the EU has introduced a bag limit of one fish for Tuna Anglers. I didn't realise the SACN has so much influence over there as well.

[Ken Davison South Wales]

Hi Glen,

 

Trusting your integrity and your not on a windup I will give you 10 out of 10 for the person.

 

No reason at all why Paul should not represent north east anglers if that's what they want, and I don't see a degree as a requirement.

 

Now spell out exactly what your against that's on table and why.

 

Take me as an example, I could have sat in dozens of meetings and said "I don't agreed with that concrete design" Everyone there would have looked at me awaiting a] for an explanation (reason) b] a substitute mix (action).

 

Now if you form a body in your area and come up with the goods no reason at all why you should not have a voice in the consultation, mob handed you would certainly have a better chance of influencing things than as an individual.

 

Leon gave some good pointers on how to lay it out.

 

Ian's comment on Tuna spells it out, things are happening whether we have a RSA strategy or not, we have it for better or worse so it is up to everyone to fight for what they think is best for them.

 

And don't come back and say they won't take any notice because you won't know until you have tried.

[roryh]

All very interesting but as the average bloke with a familly a job and fishing as a hobby, i cant understand who has the time, money, or opportunity to attend all the necessary meetings! So if we have people who can represent us ...even if imperfectly.. then surely it is better than no reresentation at all??

[Steve Walker]

A few points;

 

Involvement in consultation is not the same as setting policy. DEFRA is not ultimately unaccountable. We still live in a democracy.

 

The outcome of the consultation process is not a fait accompli. If we as individuals don't like the outcome of the consultation process (be that licences or bag limits) we all retain the option of lobbying our MPs (and maybe even giving Blair another e-petition to ignore). If it comes down to it, there's always civil disobedience. The imposition of legislation we don't agree with is not something we have to take lying down, just because the civil servants have decided that it's the correct course of action.

 

Consultation has to encompass a range of views. I have nothing but praise for those representatives of angling groups who have put forward the opinions of their organisations at the expense of their own time and resources. It is, however, fair to say that these people are by definition representatives of the views of a certain sector of the sea angling fraternity and that the views they represent may not be those of the rank and file bloke down the beach who has no formal affiliations with the angling voluntary sector organisations. Personally, I think the average man on the beach is still entitled to be consulted. Has DEFRA made any attempt to survey the beaches on a Saturday night, or the people passing in and out of the tackle shop with a packet of lug? I think they might find that these people who do not have a place at the consultation table are less willing to be reasonable in making the compromises which are currently being discussed.

 

So, to answer Ken's question, my concern isn't that we need to put forward different people on behalf of organised angling, it's that I feel that the views of those who are not part of any organisations may not be being heard. We can't choose people to represent individuals, and I feel that it's a duty of a consulting body to go beyond simply asking organised bodies what they think.