guilty

[barry luxton]

I am not criticising anything you say Barry. However, the last part of your post was déjà vu. Twenty-odd years ago, commercial fishermen were saying and thinking something like this.

 

“I am not looking forward to what is going to happen to the commercial fishing industry, all I want to do is go fishing but this bloody government won't let me, so I have to join with the rest and try to get the best possible deal or nothing at all. That’s when I suppose the full force of the government actions will hit home but what can I do; I will be in the same position as the rest. Work with the law or break it.”

 

And successive governments have ignored the needs of, and advice from, commercial fishermen ever since. Most have finished up on the dole, with nothing at all for a lifetime’s involvement. Personally, along with a few others being skipper/owners, I got out with a pittance for my whole life’s work. Understandably, I feel extremely bitter about it. I came from many generations of fishermen; but thanks to the government, I was the last in that long line of proud men doing an honourable job.

 

Now the same thing is happening to RSA. It’s all déjà vu, to be sure.

 

JB

 

Many thanks for that John. I totally agree with the sentiment, the other saying now springs to mind, two wrongs don't make a right. I think it is the same for most proffesions, i will never be rich, one reason is that i am too honest. Cheers.

[ColinW]

Since I'm not a commercial fisherman I obviously have to make my judgements based on what I read and what I see. I don't take any notice of gossip, these court cases are fact. The offences were committed and TWICE a leader of the NFFO has been involved, the president Arnold Locker and the chairman Elizabeth Stevenson.

 

So as the ignorant man I obviously am, just what conclusions SHOULD I draw from those facts?

 

If the "vast majority of honest fishermen" don't want to be tarred with this particular brush, then why do they elect these people as their leaders?

Edited April 16, 2007 by ColinW

[Guest challenge]

Since I'm not a commercial fisherman I obviously have to make my judgements based on what I read and what I see. I don't take any notice of gossip, these court cases are fact. The offences were committed and TWICE a leader of the NFFO has been involved, the president Arnold Locker and the chairman Elizabeth Stevenson.

 

So as the ignorant man I obviously am, just what conclusions SHOULD I draw from those facts?

 

If the "vast majority of honest fishermen" don't want to be tarred with this particular brush, then why do they elect these people as their leaders?

They elect them because these individuals are prepared to brake laws (that where put in place to terminate an industry and not protect fish) and to face the consequences.

People who have dedicated most of there working life’s to an industry that they believe in and the people that work in that industry.

The commercial industry went (and is still going through) some desperate times. The fact that these few broke some laws does not make them bad people when you take into account the laws that they broke.

They where put in an impossible situation, a position of standing drawing a line and taking the consequences.

RSA will come up against some very similar rules and regulations in the future, people who make a living from RSA will find themselves in a frustrating position where they will have to break these laws to make a living.

if these people where to brake any of the laws that are about to be placed on them to survive, or even out of principle or come to that be found guilty by association, would you not vote for these people if they where to be representing sea anglers at the time or in the future?

I know people who work in the charter business who have broken the law, the odd extra angler or a bit of fish sold here and there for a bit of pocket money and why not the country practically runs on the black economy for Christ sake.

Who are we to judge? Who on here can say with there hand on there heart that they have never done anything illegal and therefore are available to represent whoever wants to be represented?

Where not talking about drug dealers here or people who have mugged old age pensioners.

You find me an honest politician and then ill find you one that has never been voted for at an election.

Regards.

[steve good]

Hi All

 

This is a very interesting thread, and as a commercial I agree with both sides of the arguement.

 

I once owned a boat that was 4 inches over the 10 metres, the public sector quotes made it impossible for the boat to support 3 married men and 7 children it used to before DEFRA reduced the quotes. We were faced with breaking the law or do something about it.

 

It was not in us by nature to break the law and or steal our fish from fellow fishermen because that is the position that DEFRA placed us in.

 

So we cut off 5 inches of the bow of the boat part exchanged our over 10 metre licence for a under 10 metre licence and at that time it was perfectly legal to do so. Over 100 vessels done the same thing. Then DEFRA made that illegal.

 

We endeed up selling our Offshore 105 to charter- skipper at Poole and bought a under 10 metre vessel from South Boats Cats and every thing was alright up till now, DEFRA are now reducing all quotes for the under 10 metre vessels in my area so like all other fishermen we are all once again in trouble.

 

I will not break the law if I need to think that way then DEFRA and the goverment have won, I can fully understand as to why some fishermen will chose that course of action, they have no other choice, they are being forced to do that.

 

Whether a fisherman chose's to stay within the law or break it, is of his presonal choseing.

 

If a fisherman breaks the law and is in a position of representing other fisherman I believe that fisherman should resign out of a matter of honour, in this day and age credability and leading by example are needed more so now than ever before.

 

With all due respect to you anglers there is a lesson for you to learn by what is happening to the commercial fishing industry, the goverment via DEFRA is running the fishing industry down so as to make it redunant just the same as mining, shipbuilding ect, ect, ect. With the fishing industry it all started with licences.

 

Now anglers have bag limits and licences and fees looming up you the question is, is it the beginning of the end or the end of the biggening.

 

Movitation, I believe the goverment make about £100,000,000 per year from aggreagate dredging licences this can be expanded if there are no commercials or anglers to kick up stink.

 

Hindsight is a wonderful thing commercials have got it, anglers have yet to learn it, but you may do soon

 

Regards steve

[ColinW]

Movitation, I believe the goverment make about £100,000,000 per year from aggreagate dredging licences this can be expanded if there are no commercials or anglers to kick up stink.

 

Hindsight is a wonderful thing commercials have got it, anglers have yet to learn it, but you may do soon

 

Regards steve

 

I find it hard to believe that this is the motivation behind the regulations. Most of these come from Brussels don't they? What would the EU stand to gain from aggregate dredging, I thought all the money from that went to the Crown Estates. I think the regulations are honestly made in an attempt to preserve stocks. I don't believe that they work, and they are obviously causing a lot of grief to fishermen, but I think there is a genuine fear in government that if nothing is done there will be no fishing industry ten years down the line. Fishermen will say that there won't be one anyway if things carry on the way they are going, but they don't do themselves any favours by taking the law into their own hands.

[barry luxton]

They elect them because these individuals are prepared to brake laws (that where put in place to terminate an industry and not protect fish) and to face the consequences.

People who have dedicated most of there working life’s to an industry that they believe in and the people that work in that industry.

The commercial industry went (and is still going through) some desperate times. The fact that these few broke some laws does not make them bad people when you take into account the laws that they broke.

They where put in an impossible situation, a position of standing drawing a line and taking the consequences.

RSA will come up against some very similar rules and regulations in the future, people who make a living from RSA will find themselves in a frustrating position where they will have to break these laws to make a living.

if these people where to brake any of the laws that are about to be placed on them to survive, or even out of principle or come to that be found guilty by association, would you not vote for these people if they where to be representing sea anglers at the time or in the future?

I know people who work in the charter business who have broken the law, the odd extra angler or a bit of fish sold here and there for a bit of pocket money and why not the country practically runs on the black economy for Christ sake.

Who are we to judge? Who on here can say with there hand on there heart that they have never done anything illegal and therefore are available to represent whoever wants to be represented?

Where not talking about drug dealers here or people who have mugged old age pensioners.

You find me an honest politician and then ill find you one that has never been voted for at an election.

Regards.

 

Blimey Challenge where do i start? You can't tell me that the nffo elects people knowingly that they will break the law. Any uk minister would have to think twice before dealing with them, i would imagine that ben and co are certainly looking at the situation now. Would you also say that the quota restrictions are in place to decimate the industry and not to preserve fish stocks? If so what is your take on the possibility of landing all fish big or small then include them in the quota system, that would presumably automaticlly reduce the amount of discard? Or what would you suggest as an alternative?

At present compared to most countries uk ltd is doing rather well, so to say that the industry is in desperate times does not bode well for the future if there is a downturn. These cases that are attracting attention Challenge are not run of the mill parking offences and should not be passed off as such. The uk goverment have deamed them serious enough to attract big fines. Again it is not just the guys who break the law it is all of the other guys who have to live and work around them, the amount of damage and hartache it must cause must be uncalculable.

I would not vote for or support anyone who would break the law for what appears to be thier own ends and to hang the consequence of the people around them. The word i would use in this instance is selfish. I do not know of any charter skipper who would flout the regulation of 'one more angler' over what he is insured for, i would certainly get off as all would be classed as uninsured if anything was to happen. As for selling fish to line the back pocket in all my years afloat, i have never seen any and if i did i would not take kindly to it. I have heard of skippers off loading guys like that and even banning them in future and so they should. I'm not perfect and i will never be but it is where you draw the line, i think it is fair to say if someone wants to hide tonnes and tonnes of fish out of the system, they certainly wouldn't get my vote.

Edited April 17, 2007 by barry luxton

[wurzel]

These cases that are attracting attention Challenge are not run of the mill parking offences and should not be passed off as such. The uk goverment have deamed them serious enough to attract big fines. Again it is not just the guys who break the law it is all of the other guys who have to live and work around them, the amount of damage and hartache it must cause must be uncalculable.

 

How do you come to that conclusion Barry?

 

In most cases the only people with a bit of heartache would be the fat cat quota traders, the only damage being to their bank account.

 

Then you get another scenario like with the monk fish, one of the species mentioned, on the advice of ICES the monk fish quota was drastically reduced, eventually due to ICES being proved wrong it was overturned and increased to above the original amount, but until it got sorted out fishermen were supposed to pick out the high value monk fish from each haul and throw them over board to rot, can't you see the amount of damage and heartache that must cause? Given the choice of dumping £200 every 2 or 3 hours or putting a turbot tally on them what would you do?

How does dumping full grown prime fish to stay with in your quota protect stocks for the future?

[barry luxton]

How do you come to that conclusion Barry?

 

In most cases the only people with a bit of heartache would be the fat cat quota traders, the only damage being to their bank account.

 

Hi Wurzel, accourding to the article the company in question runs a major part of the fishing industry in the town. Including fuel, and ancillary services, even the fish auctions. A pair of trawler owners who are obviously in their seventies have never been involved with the day to day running of the boat are also looking at substantial fines as they are guilty by association only. If that does not have a knock on effect within the local community i would willingly eat my hat.

[wurzel]

Hi Wurzel, accourding to the article the company in question runs a major part of the fishing industry in the town. Including fuel, and ancillary services, even the fish auctions. A pair of trawler owners who are obviously in their seventies have never been involved with the day to day running of the boat are also looking at substantial fines as they are guilty by association only. If that does not have a knock on effect within the local community i would willingly eat my hat.

 

 

I hope it does not give you indigestion Barry.

[barry luxton]

I hope it does not give you indigestion Barry.

 

I'll take it with a rennie then. Cheers.