Sea Fishing Licence - would you pay?

[steve pitts]

Your opinions conservative!!!? some where left of Lennon I would have thought.

 

 

 

That would make him Ringo then?

 

Sorry Peter - couldn't resist it.

[Leon Roskilly]

I have a copy of the SSFC bylaws, it's a bit old but I am not aware of any changes.

It states that any vessel of more than 18 meters or has the engine power which exceeds 300 horse power can fish in their territorial waters.

 

 

Latest relevant byelaw is this one

 

http://www.southernsfc.org.uk/byelaws/inde...les/Page737.htm

 

Vessels Used in Fishing

 

THE FOLLOWING BYELAW APPLIES WITHIN THE AREA ENCLOSED BY A LINE DRAWN SIX NAUTICAL MILES TO SEAWARD OF BASELINES.

 

Byelaws > Byelaw 16

 

No person shall use, or permit the use of any vessel which exceeds 12 metres in overall length for fishing for or taking sea fish within any part of the District which lies within a line drawn six nautical miles to seaward from the baselines.

 

Save that this Byelaw shall not apply:

 

(i)

in that part of the District which lies inside a line drawn three nautical miles to seaward from baselines to any vessel over 12 metres in overall length registered with the Committee on 1st January 1995 to fish for the purpose of sale.

 

Obviously it was drawn up to protect the inshore waters from larger vessels which have a greater fishing impact.

 

The Charter vessels are licensed to carry a maximum number whatever the size, so the size is not related to their fishing capacity (other than perhaps they can stay out in rougher weather than the smaller boats, with greater safety and comfort for the customers). As well as comfort and safety, it also allows the boat to have better facilities ie toilets, kitchen etc.

 

When the byelaw was framed, it was for a specific conservation reason. I can't imagine that they even considered its applicibility to Angling Charter vessels, but the Chief Fisheries Officer is sticking to the 'law is the law' line.

 

Most other committees similar byelaws are framed so that they do not apply to RSA charters (apart from Devon SFC).

 

ie

 

Eastern Sea Fisheries Joint Committee

 

http://www.esfjc.co.uk/byelaws.htm

 

BYELAW 12:- INSHORE TRAWLING RESTRICTION

 

“No person shall in fishing for seafish in that part of the District which lies within three nautical miles from the 1983 baselines use any kind of trawl net provided that this byelaw shall not apply to the use by any person of a trawl net in the following circumstances;

 

(a) in connection with a vessel whose overall length does not exceed 15.24 metres in the area between a line drawn True East from the control tower at the Royal Air Force Gunnery and Bombing Range at Donna Nook in the County of Lincolnshire (Latitude 53o28.22'N, Longitude 0o09.24'E) being the northern extremity of the District to a line drawn True North from Blakeney Church in the County of Norfolk (Latitude 52º57.05'N, Longitude 01º01.60'E) or,

 

( in connection with a vessel whose overall length does not exceed 15.24 metres in the area between a line drawn True North East from Mundesley Church in the County of Norfolk (Latitude 52o52.50'N Longitude 01o26.15'E) to the northern edge of the causeway (Latitude 51o55.76'N Longitude 01o16.90'E) situated opposite Lower Marine Parade at Dovercourt in the County of Essex to where it intersects the line of mean low water and thence drawn seaward on a bearing 100o True, being the southern extremity of the District.

 

Provided that this byelaw shall not apply to persons using vessels exceeding 15.24 metres in overall length who were engaged in fishing with a trawl net within three nautical miles from the 1983 baselines in the area between a line True East from the control tower at the Royal Air Force Gunnery and Bombing Range at Donna Nook in the County of Lincolnshire (Latitude 53o28.22'N, Longitude 0o09.24'E) being the northern extremity of the District and a line drawn True North from Blakeney Church in the County of Norfolk (Latitude 52º57.05'N, Longitude 01º01.60'E) on a regular basis prior to the advertisement of this byelaw who may continue to fish by the said method in the said area between Donna Nook and Blakeney Church as mentioned above until such time as the particular vessel so derogated changes ownership or ceases to fish.

 

Provided also that this byelaw shall not apply to persons using vessels exceeding 15.24 metres in overall length who were engaged in fishing with a trawl net in the area between a line drawn True North East from Mundesley Church in the County of Norfolk (Latitude 52o 52.50'N, Longitude 01o26.15'E) and a line drawn True East from Covehithe Church in the County of Suffolk (Latitude 52o 22.60'N, Longitude 01o 42.40'E) previously derogated which may continue to fish by the said method in the said area between Mundesley Church and Covehithe Church as mentioned above until such time as the particular vessel previously so derogated changes ownership or ceases to fish.

 

For the purposes of this byelaw, “the 1983 baselines” means the baselines as they existed at 25 January 1983 in accordance with the Territorial Waters Order in Council 1964 (1965 IIIp.6452A, amended by 1979 IIp.2866).

 

For the purposes of this byelaw, the overall length of a vessel shall be the overall length as determined by the Registrar General of Shipping and Seamen and shown on the Certificate of Registry of a British Fishing Vessel.

[Leon Roskilly]

I am not condoning the FC stance in any way but I think this sort of thing will probably crop up more often in one form or another and it won't be just FC's implementing the rules, it will be the down side of RSA demanding more involvement in fishery management.

 

Since the issue has arisen, and local RSA boat owners have taken up the issue with DEFRA and the NFSA, DEFRA have appointed a top official from the NFSA to the SSFC.

 

Are they sending the Chief Fisheries Officer of SSFC a subtle message do you think?

Edited January 14, 2008 by Leon Roskilly

[wurzel]

Since the issue has arisen, and local RSA boat owners have taken up the issue with DEFRA and the NFSA, DEFRA have appointed a top official from the NFSA to the SSFC.

 

Are they sending the Chief Fisheries Officer of SSFC a subtle message do you think?

 

 

Hello Leon

 

So what is the out come, are the boats now allowed to fish inside 6 miles?

[Leon Roskilly]

Hello Leon

 

So what is the out come, are the boats now allowed to fish inside 6 miles?

 

 

Nope, Not Yet.

 

There's still some SFC meetings to get through, then it might go to the courts.

 

SFC's can enact byelaws for conservation reasons, it's clear that when this was drafted RSA charters were not considered, and there is no conservation reason behind the persecution of RSA charter boats over 12m, and the larger boats were fishing for a long time before the SFC acted, so I would imagine that the SFC might be on sticky legal ground.

 

The problem is that byelaws cannot be amended, they can only be withdrawn, which would mean that any vessel of any size would then be able to trawl up to the beaches in the district.

 

(It takes around 18 months and some £1,500 to put in place a new byelaw).

 

Common sense would say that they would be better off coming to an agreement not to enforce the byelaw until it was convenient to change it.

 

But common sense seems sadly lacking.

 

Unfortunately it's businesses (in Weymouth particularly) who are likely to find themselves suffering (RSA brings in a lot of money, particularly during the Weymouth Boat Angling Festival which the reputation of these large comfortable boats with good facilities has helped to build), and County Councils might find themselves coming under increasing pressure to lean on the SFC (which they finance).

[Jaffa]

Anything to keep him repeating the same questions over and over ......

 

http://www.eurocbc.org/amasontrawlingimpac...06page1854.html

 

 

Worth repeating the same question if you fail to answer it

 

So your photo's are not before and after, not the same location, so their meaning is what exactly? A random collection of images brought together, sold as a truth by a green lobby group, then beamed onto AN by you. Thanks for that

 

They were not based on any any science paper, but from the website of the "EUROPEAN CETACEAN BYCATCH CAMPAIGN"; which i reckon makes it spin upon spin.

 

Peta would love this group, that quote

 

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."

~Mahatma Gandhi~

 

on their home page.

 

Odds on this lot being funded by Pew?

[H.A.]

As usual, you miss the point.

 

The photos were to show how the seabed is affected by the passage of a trawl.

The article is about the methodology of studying the effects of trawling on the seabed.

These effects are obvious to most intelligent people even without the underwater photography.

 

You can take them as you like.

 

Other photos which are as accurately taken as is possible with underwater cameras are posted in post#91.

 

 

Are you funded by NFFO?

 

[Jaffa]

This is the second or third post where you are talking about hate. What are you trying to say. If you are not including me in this why mention it here.

 

I have no real opinion on the netting of the shoreline apart from what i have posted as it does not have a great effect on me personally. However I'm sure the nets would do better if they was placed elsewhere and were of a decent size to target decent fish, needs must? Couldn't tell you if they where commercial or hobby nets, however from the post the ea stated that they where illegal.

 

Why do you suggest sorting it out with the sfc locally, when a convicted person can gain an audience with the fisheries minister almost immediatly and get his 'problem' solved with just one conversation. Seems a bit one sided to me. Are they not the same guys who met with the then minister bradshaw to get another issue resolved, they must have a hotline to defra. What about the charter skippers who have been banging away at the ssfc to try and get them to see sence to allow their over ten boats to carry on fishing as they have done for years within the 6 mile zone. They have to make a living as well, but all the responce thay get are rules is rules and it will cost a lot of money to get it amended. One sided and unfair?

 

Not sure of the second para of yours that i have left in?

 

Im trying to say that all the murderer/burgler/drug dealer, fishermen as the lowest form of life stuff etc i hear from posters like HA winds me up. I'm sick of seeing it, and sick of the pseudoscience they attempt to use as support. That i'm sick of it is my problem but (and this relates to my last paragragh) unless people start asking questions then its the extremists that will call the shots.

 

 

That a person, convicted or otherwise, can have access and a wee chat with a minister to solve their "problem" is alarming but nothing more than the commercials have experienced for decades. The wee chats used to be done between Humber trawler owners and ministers in London clubs, even when reality had changed and it was the inshore fleet that was important.

 

Whats alarming now is that tiny groups seem to get the same access and influence the old trawler barons did, that the newspapers and green lobby seem to be "on message" regardless of the science.

Edited January 15, 2008 by Jaffa

[Jaffa]

As usual, you miss the point.

 

The photos were to show how the seabed is affected by the passage of a trawl.

The article is about the methodology of studying the effects of trawling on the seabed.

These effects are obvious to most intelligent people even without the underwater photography.

 

You can take them as you like.

 

Other photos which are as accurately taken as is possible with underwater cameras are posted in post#91.

Are you funded by NFFO?

 

 

Then show a thousand pictures of "how a seabed is effected by a trawl" , show it for differnet environments, show it before and after, then show it after an hour, after a day, a week, a year,.

 

The salmon farm protesters are fond of putting up pictures taken dirierctly underneath a cage so we all go "omg thats awful!" . Theres often a "dead zone" directly underneath, where so much organic matter has hit the seabed that the biological processes strip the immediate area of oxygen and the anerobic life takes over. Typically what you get is a lot of very few species. If you show that photo in a paper then all those that know nothing about the industry have reason to get upset.

 

BUT, if you were to swim out a few meters from that "dead zone" (though i dunno who decides that the creatures that inhabit that bit are "dead" ) you move through zones where you get more and more diversity, until a few meters from the cage you hit the "normal" seabed life. Funnily enough, i never see th salmon farm protesters or the newspapers that "report" their press releases giving us details

 

This stuff, the effect of organic loading on a small "area" is not news, has been well studied and plenty of measures have been put in place monitor it. Its well understood, and will diisapere once the farm is moved. We always hear only about the dead zone, about how Scottish Lochs are being killed by salmon farming; what we never see is the amazing life that develops on the structure of the farm, and how ir you took that footprint up to the surface you would actually have far more life and more diversity than existed on that patch before.

 

Same goes with you posting a couple of random seabed photos to show the effect of trawling on an area. For sure trawling will have an effect, but its going to be different depending on the part of world, the depth, exposure, etc etc. In my area the sea tends to belch up considerable amounts of marine life every winter as the gales hit in. I'd imagine a trawler has little impact compared to nature in this situation. But if i took a summer and winter photograph no doubt someone would strip away the facts and use them to their advantage?

Edited January 15, 2008 by Jaffa

[steve good]

Hello BarryWhat’s the full story on this charter boat issue?I have a copy of the SSFC bylaws, it's a bit old but I am not aware of any changes.It states that any vessel of more than 18 meters or has the engine power which exceeds 300 horse power can fish in their territorial waters.I have checked and it is much the same for all the other FC's.Have the boats in question got engines of more than 300 HP? I suspect this is what the issue is about.I am not condoning the FC stance in any way but I think this sort of thing will probably crop up more often in one form or another and it won't be just FC's implementing the rules, it will be the down side of RSA demanding more involvement in fishery management.

Hi PeterBeam trawlers over 300hp must work outside the 12 mile limitsteve

I see one small multi purpose fishing boat I don't see a problem with that.Perhaps Steve G knows the boat.

Hi PeterYes I know the boat, does oyster dredging and pottingsteve