What do you want?

[glennk]

Remember that this wasn't a full blown consultation, just a quick check over of the output of the meeting, and the timescales simply didn't allow for a massive consultation exercise with all of the membership, and nor would that have been appropriate (that's why the organisations have Executive Groups, Conservation Groups and Restoration Teams, to get to grips with the nitty gritty of the issues and to act accordingly, sometimes delegating work to individuals largely acting under instruction).

 

Isn't that a little concerning Leon. Timescales don't allow you to talk to the very people this will all effect. Whose timescales are they ? Do you agree with such tight timescales ?

 

Why not tell them to slow down so you can consult those who really matter ? Seems this whole thing is being forced through by DEFRA with no regard for anyone else, or perhaps its the RSA reps that are pushing things through before the angling community gets wind of things ?

 

Why the rush ?

 

Remember a point raise by several of your SACN members recently ? you must speak to them, not simply just to tell them what you have decided but to ensure they have their say.

[Leon Roskilly]

I was talking about the latest round of discussions that went on so that RSA could decide how to respond to the latest draft strategy document, not the last meeting with DEFRA on the 15th Feb. Bearing in mind that this version is going to be the last one and will go out for public consultation, (ie, whatever is in this version will be what's implemented, because we now know through experience that the consultation stage will be a farce.)

 

 

No Steve, it wasn't so that 'RSA' could respond to the latest draft strategy document.

 

DEFRA circulated the amended draft to the attendees so that they could check that the changes made by DEFRA from the notes of the meeting properly reflected the discussions during the meeting (when many people have been discussing many issues over four hours of intense debate with many conflicting views put forward, and one person has been taking notes and subsequently radically amending the draft, it is common to have a quick check with those present to ensure that every one is happy with the results of the process.

 

 

Of course, we were able to use the opportunity to add some afterthoughts, and given the amount of time allowed, were able to involve a slightly larger audience than the attendees at the meeting. But not a full blown consultation with everyone. That was simply not feasible!

 

 

The version that we now have, is the version drafted by DEFRA, with suggested amendments that DEFRA may or may not include in the final draft.

 

Similarly we have not seen the comments fed back in a similar fashion by other stakeholder groups present at the meeting.

 

DEFRA will take on board our comments, and the comments of others, and present yet another draft to the IFWG for acceptance.

 

And it is possible that further amendments will be made following that meeting before a cosnultation document agreed by the IFWG goes out for a 12 week consultation in the early summer when everyone that wants to can add their own comments, suggestions and views, hopefully in a constructive manner and backed up with good evidence.

 

And yes, whatever previous input there has been, whatever comes during the public consultation, it is the Government that will make the final decisions on everything.

 

That is how Government works, all are able to express their views but it is the elected who are responsible for the final decisions, taking the interests of all stakeholders and their own civil servants into account.

 

What we need to do now is to keep pushing, as individuals and organisations, to raise the importance of RSA, to educate decision makers as to the opportunities in increasing the social and economic benefits that could accrue from the further devlopment of the RSA stracture as a result of good manaegement of the resources upon which the sector depends, and the harm that could be done to that potential by inappropriate management.

 

In short to increase the liklihood of getting good things, and decrease the liklihood of getting bad things out of this.

 

Unfortunately stating 'this will be bad for us' carries no weight at all.

 

Well thought through constructive arguments, backed up by evidence, rather than simple assertions is what will have an effect.

Edited March 10, 2007 by Leon Roskilly

[barry luxton]

What we need to do now is to keep pushing, as individuals and organisations, to raise the importance of RSA, to educate decision makers as to the opportunities in increasing the social and economic benefits that could accrue from the further devlopment of the RSA stracture as a result of good manaegement of the resources upon which the sector depends, and the harm that could be done to that potential by inappropriate management.

 

In short to increase the liklihood of getting good things, and decrease the liklihood of getting bad things out of this.

 

Unfortunately stating 'this will be bad for us' carries no weight at all.

 

Well thought through constructive arguments, backed up by evidence, rather than simple assertions is what will have an effect.

 

I am sorry but when i read the above i must go back and again ask the questions why Bass were unsuccessful, why bradshaw only agreed to a small increase, why the welsh assembly decided on none, to the detriment of the stock and what more can anyone do to make a differance?

[wurzel]

I am sorry but when i read the above i must go back and again ask the questions why Bass were unsuccessful, why bradshaw only agreed to a small increase, why the welsh assembly decided on none, to the detriment of the stock and what more can anyone do to make a differance?

 

 

Hello Barry

 

It only seems a small increase to rsa but it's quite a significent increase to commercials.

[Leon Roskilly]

I am sorry but when i read the above i must go back and again ask the questions why Bass were unsuccessful, why bradshaw only agreed to a small increase, why the welsh assembly decided on none, to the detriment of the stock and what more can anyone do to make a differance?

 

 

We can only really guess at that.

 

It would help if we knew exactly what advice DEFRA civil servants gave to the minister, and why.

 

The minister was obliged to look at all sides of the argument, not just the views put forward by BASS and their supporters.

 

The catching sector also made (and continue to make) strong representations of the damage that could be caused to fishermen's livelihoods.

 

So rather than go headfirst for the full 45cm the minister decided to be more cautious, to proceed more slowly, moving first to 40cm and, once the effects of that can be assessed, to 45cm following a review in 2010 (and if the evidence is there, there is no reason not to act sooner).

 

40cm also ties in with a new minimum mesh size of 100mm, already widely available and widely used, whereas a higher mls would have meant a new mesh size, not in stock, and a greater amount of change for fishermen (those fishermen who accepted an increase might be good for bass, felt that it would be better for the increase to be phased in, and argued that case strongly also).

 

It also didn't help that some RSA organisations were not familiar with all of the arguments being put forward by BASS that the proposed measures would, after a period, lead to a greater abundance of bigger fish, and thought that as their members mainly caught bass at 36cm and below, they would not encounter takeable fish in future at the higher mls in their areas, and so opposed the increase.

 

It would have helped if we could have gotten 10,000 anglers in Parliament Square to support the measures, rather than a total of some 3,000 responses to the consultation, including those against.

 

But let us not forget that the catching sector was completely taken by surprise that the very idea of increasing the bass mls for the benefit of angling wasn't thrown out completely, they too thought that they had the argument buttoned up and that there would be no change, and they are asking the same kind of questions.

 

Except they are asking 'Why did Bradshaw increase the mls at all'.

 

 

'What more can anyone do to make a difference'?

 

Keep at it, perhaps.

 

If you are at least moving forward, you aren't going backwards.

 

Change is inevitable, and unless you push forward, you will always go backward.

 

And the harder you push, the more who do the pushing, the greater chance that you have of moving forward.

 

But you also need to push intelligently.

 

It's a game of intelligence and knowledge, more so than simply a trial of strength.

 

And there will inevitably be setbacks as well as victories, and that is the real test for RSA.

 

Are we able to dust ouselves off, get back on our feet and win the next round. Or are we aleady defeated?

 

Perhaps that's the question that the civil servants advising the minister were exploring and still are.

 

They need to be sure that they are backing the right horse, difficult when there is a new entrant to the circuit and nobody can really be sure of its form.

Edited March 10, 2007 by Leon Roskilly

[Ken Davison South Wales]

I am sorry but when i read the above i must go back and again ask the questions why Bass were unsuccessful, why bradshaw only agreed to a small increase, why the welsh assembly decided on none, to the detriment of the stock and what more can anyone do to make a difference?

 

The Welsh issue shows just how badly we need central reforms, one agency dealing with marine issues, so we all including Wurzle have only one a*** to kick.

 

The Welsh assembly is a complete and utter cockup and the vast majority of Welsh born and bred I speak to think the same.

 

BMP was to specific; a narrow envelope supported in the main by keen bass anglers, it was easy to make a political decision as it did not damage the RSA industry and it kept Wurzle happyish

 

The marine bill is a different kettle of fish, everyone is involved tackle manufacturers, retail outlets, charter boats, hotels, marinas, take Bury Port and Swansea vast majority of boats belong to RSAs, loose that trade and they are sunk.

 

When this one goes out to consultation the sparks will fly with everyone jockeying for position.

[Davy Holt]

Hiya Ken

 

You dont seem to begetting many replied to your orginal questions.. I wonder why

 

BMP was to specific; a narrow envelope supported in the main by keen bass anglers,

 

The aggressive attitude of the minority of these same anglers also helped to turn the very people that they needed for support against the BMP.

 

When this one goes out to consultation the sparks will fly with everyone jockeying for position.

I feel sorry for anyone trying to represent the RSA sector on anything now.. your dammed if you do and dammed if you dont

[Ian Burrett]

The marine bill is a different kettle of fish, everyone is involved tackle manufacturers, retail outlets, charter boats, hotels, marinas, take Bury Port and Swansea vast majority of boats belong to RSAs, loose that trade and they are sunk.

 

Hi Ken

 

Everyone should be involved but sadly the dealers, manufactureres charter skipper organisations are doing absolutely nothing. I can't believe how short sighted they are.

[Ken Davison South Wales]

Hi Ken

 

Everyone should be involved but sadly the dealers, manufacturers charter skipper organizations are doing absolutely nothing. I can't believe how short sighted they are.

 

I maybe wrong but I think until the marine bill takes shape and goes out for consultation input will be low, once it is on the table and people know that something is going to happen if they have any sense at all they will get involved.

 

This is a situation which is common in commercial activities the old adage "Far to busy to deal with that now" however when it looks like there is a possibility their pockets will be dented they will be forced to look up and take notice or chance loosing their income.

 

Next week I hope to visit several tackle shops in my area in the hopes of stirring up some action and obtaining a positive list for Leon.

 

I did not expect to much from my original question The whole idea was to try and put things in perspective and make people look at their comments in a more supportive and constructive way.

 

I think it has been very clearly spelled out that there is no future for a license without some concrete evidence that efforts are being made to improve fish stocks, access and investment of any money collected being ring fenced for the good of RSAs.

[glennk]

Ok

 

I'll have an attempt at the first question. I didn't want to really as Ive said the same things several times already, but after being put back on the spot - Here goes.

 

2 answers from me.

 

The chairman of the local charter skippers Paul Kilpatrick contacted Defra in January this year to request an invite to the IFWG on Feb 15th. His intention to represent himself, the many thousands of anglers from our region, his charter skipper colleagues and the many anglers he sees through his business each year. Paul was willing to get involved in these meetings and travel down to London to take part at his own expense on a day he would normally be working. This is a man who doesn't have a degree in any subject, hasn't worked in a high flying industry where communication skills are key (arse licking etc), but if there were qualifications in Angling then he would be at the very top of his academic field. Because I know Paul so well and know that anglers right across our immediate region know him and respect him I would be happy for him to represent me on this issue. Unfortunately Paul was turned away.

 

Secondly I would only want Paul involved as a last resort, Id rather this whole thing didn't exist. Those who can not see it for what it is must in my opinion be rather naive. For once I have to agree with Challenge on something. Right across our nation there are people who fish, they wish to continue fishing unbothered by the likes of NFSA, SACN, and even DEFRA. They want to fish just as they always have done. If they catch they catch and if they don't they have had a good day out anyways. I don't believe this group of people want any of this. At First I thought Challenge was speaking from his rear end as usual but the more people Ive spoke to the more I feel this group of individuals really exist and possibly together are quite large in numbers.

 

Do they want a Strategy and do they have to have someone to represent them ?