EFTTA - Sea Fishing Licence

[glennk]

Whilst you have their attention Paul, it's also worth pointing out that availability of fish, especially good-sized fish of the species that anglers target, is also important to the Recreational Sea Angling sector.

 

That's quite possibly where all this madness Started Leon. With the best intentions in the world but little forethought for what could become reality. The Inshore fisheries working group set off down this path and look where you've led us.

 

Maybe Paul could tell the council about the size of fish he catches -

 

 

and those of his angling friends in our area ?

 

http://www.whitbyseaanglers.co.uk/forum/no...the-champion/0/

 

and even the kids get in on the act

 

http://www.whitbyseaanglers.co.uk/hall-of-fame-2007.php

 

Speaks for itself really.

Edited February 2, 2008 by glennk

[Leon Roskilly]

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/c...iii/uc12202.htm

 

Mr Cox: I can probably answer that.

 

I operated a charter boat in the Thames estuary taking anglers fishing from 1975 to 1995.

 

It was a new fishery, very unexploited and over the first four or five years of that operation we developed it to the point where there were some 60 charter boats operating in the Thames estuary from North Kent, from Southend, the Crouch, the Blackwater estuary and the Colne estuary.

 

In the late 1970s/early 1980s, monofilament gill nets, these so-called walls of death, were introduced to catch rays and bass.

 

They decimated not only the ray and bass stock, but also the stock of non-commercial species such as tope and smoothhounds, which anglers prize.

 

Now, in my own port, which once boasted 16 charter boats, there are one and a half full-time boats.

 

In the greater Thames estuary, we are probably down to 15 or 20 boats.

 

Those livelihoods were as equally valid as the livelihoods of commercial fishermen.

 

I raised three children on the proceeds of a charter boat operation.

 

I now have a small tackle business which is also impacted by the lack of fish in the sea and the lack of activity from recreational sea angling.

 

Following the recovery of the USA Recreational Striped Bass Fishery between 1981 and 1996 the consequential expenditure increased from $85 million to $560 million over the same period by anglers fishing for striped bass

 

First and foremost, anglers need fish.

 

Not just now, but for the future.

 

Too many ports have had their charter fleets decimated by lack of fish, those that still have good fishing shouldn't be too complacent about future availability.

 

Many ports could once again have the kind of fishing available that would bring the ports back, if the recreational fisheries were properly managed.

Edited February 2, 2008 by Leon Roskilly

[Leon Roskilly]

That's quite possibly where all this madness Started Leon. With the best intentions in the world but little forethought for what could become reality. The Inshore fisheries working group set off down this path and look where you've led us.

 

 

The proposals for a sea angling licence were part of DEFRA's strategy long before the formation of DEFRA's Inshore Fisheries Working Group Glenn.

 

Although discussed on and off over the last 20 years or more, I believe it really became an issue when the 'Bradley Review' was undertaken, looking into inshore enforcement.

 

(see: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/water/...fishenforce.pdf )

 

During the review, they looked at how enforcement could be made more effective, and how this could be paid for, on the basis 'the user pays'.

 

They recommended that the 'beneficeries' should contribute towards the cost of inshore fisheries management, recommending a charge of some £1,000 to £1,500 per vessel per year.

 

They then considered who else benefitted from fisheries management and came up with the suggestion that sea anglers should also contribute through a sea angling license.

 

This fed through into the Marine Bill proposals, where there is the proposal that both inshore boats and recreational sea anglers should pay for access to the managed resource.

 

With DEFRA already committed to the idea of charging Recreational Sea Anglers, it was impossible to keep the suggestion of a licence out of the RSA strategy consultation.

 

But the RSA strategy and the deliberations of the inshore working group was not the origin of the proposal by any means.

Edited February 2, 2008 by Leon Roskilly

[barry luxton]

The proposals for a sea angling licence were part of DEFRA's strategy long before the formation of DEFRA's Inshore Fisheries Working Group Glenn.

 

Although discussed on and off over the last 20 years or more, I believe it really became an issue when the 'Bradley Review' was undertaken, looking into inshore enforcement.

 

(see: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/water/...fishenforce.pdf )

 

During the review, they looked at how enforcement could be made more effective, and how this could be paid for, on the basis 'the user pays'.

 

They recommended that the 'beneficeries' should contribute towards the cost of inshore fisheries management, recommending a charge of some £1,000 to £1,500 per vessel per year.

 

They then considered who else benefitted from fisheries management and came up with the suggestion that sea anglers should also contribute through a sea angling license.

 

This fed through into the Marine Bill proposals, where there is the proposal that both inshore boats and recreational sea anglers should pay for access to the managed resource.

 

With DEFRA already committed to the idea of charging Recreational Sea Anglers, it was impossible to keep the suggestion of a licence out of the RSA strategy consultation.

 

But the RSA strategy and the deliberations of the inshore working group was not the origin of the proposal by any means.

 

So how is it that defra have dropped the idea of 'the user pays' and are concentrating on the rsa who are not guilty of any decimation of the stock. Are they classed as an easy target. I like the way defra have stated previously if they are to charge the commercial sector for a licence, it will take an act of parliament, in other words lets not go there shall we. Transparent, i think not. One sided, i think so.

 

Thanks for the oral parliament link Leon, how very interesting. Here we have conflict with the golden mile, commercial. Then we have Mr Venmore stating that he wants to see a twelve mile limit for commercial use by the uk fleet and not the eu. Then we have him saying further that scallop dredging does cause seabed, environmental damage to the extent of removing six to seven feet of the rough ground topogathy. And is also stating that environment friendly ways of fishing is the way forward. I thought he was a commercial not a greeny. He let's himself down though when he states that for every rsa on the sfc committee, there aught to be 6 commercial. His collegue Mr Bennett is stating that beam trawling is damaging, really? And he is looking for grants to move to a more environmental way of fishing. Let me get this right. all of the above is suggesting that the commercial methods are damaging to the sea eco system, but if they was paid money, our money, they could make it right?

Edited February 2, 2008 by barry luxton

[glennk]

Having watched things progress to where we are now, in my opinion the main group responsible for driving us to our current position are the Inshore fisheries working group. They (Yourself included Leon) drafted the RSA strategy so they must take responsibility for that. Also surely you can not be surprised that when you propose to damage someone's way of life, and the way some people make a living that they will stand up and defend themselves. When you sat with the Inshore fisheries working group you did so with no knowledge of the world outside SACN ( a tiny organisation with less than 1000 anglers within it). The reality is so very different from what you perceive or wish it to be, you should have consulted us before you tried represent us.

Edited February 2, 2008 by glennk

[barry luxton]

Having watched things progress to where we are now, in my opinion the main group responsible for driving us to our current position are the Inshore fisheries working group. They (Yourself included Leon) drafted the RSA strategy so they must take responsibility for that. Also surely you can not be surprised that when you propose to damage someone's way of life, and the way some people make a living that they will stand up and defend themselves. When you sat with the Inshore fisheries working group you did so with no knowledge of the world outside SACN ( a tiny organisation with less than 1000 anglers within it). The reality is so very different from what you perceive or wish it to be, you should have consulted us before you tried represent us.

 

 

How many do you represent Glennk. Show us what is reality.

[Leon Roskilly]

He let's himself down though when he states that for every rsa on the sfc committee, there aught to be 6 commercial.

 

 

The Sea Fisheries Committees (soon to be replaced by “Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities” when/if the Marine Bill goes through) are meant to be the body which looks after inshore fisheries and at least they do have some semblance of representation by stakeholders other than commercial fishermen.

 

Now you would have thought that control over how much fish could be removed from the fishery would play an important part in the management of the inshore fishery wouldn't you.

 

After all, the more fish taken out by commercial fishing, the less available to the recreational fishery with a direct consequential impact on the quality of the recreational fishery.

 

It might be that anglers representatives might get voted down on every occasion, but at least they would have a say, and perhaps could embarass the process as fundamentally unfair.

 

But it seems that the idea of any such semblance of democracy and fairness to all stakeholders has been abandoned, and instead a cosy arrangement btween the MFA and local commercial fishermen will in future determine how much fish can be removed from the fishery.

 

http://www.defra.gov.uk/marine/pdf/fisheries/fishfocus9.pdf

 

Managing quotas for the inshore fleet

 

The MFA will be looking at new ways to involve the inshore industry in managing quotas better in 2008.

 

The idea is to focus on regional needs for the under 10 metre fleet so that maximum quota for specific species can be delivered when it is most needed locally.

 

To do that the MFA is setting up regional ‘quota management advisory groups’, with five or six representatives from local fleets.

 

The groups will meet about every three months with MFA Port Office and quota management staff to discuss quota issues, and work out the best way forward for their local industry.

 

Fisheries Minister, Jonathan Shaw, discussed how other sectors of the industry could help with quota management at a meeting with representatives of the UK Association of Fish Producer Organisations (UKAFPO) in December 2007.

 

It was agreed that Defra and MFA will meet representatives from producer organisations and the inshore industry and the results of the ‘quota management advisory groups’ will be fed into these quarterly meetings.

 

The idea of having regional advisory groups was suggested at one of the regular meetings of South East inshore fishermen – and the first advisory group meeting for the South East will be held soon.

 

MFA District Inspector, Angus Radford, said: ‘The industry has played a key part in its constructive discussions with Defra and the MFA in resolving recent issues, such as skates and rays bycatch. We are looking to build on this.

 

The MFA wants to work in closer co-operation with the inshore industry and I hope that regional quota management advisory groups will be a step forward in focusing on local quota problems and seeking solutions to them.

 

So, as well as SFCs, we will now have local quota management groups, determining the quality of our inshore fisheries.

 

Only these will not have any representation other than from the Fishing Industry.

 

Should the SFC's now abandon any pretence that they are able to manage the inshore fisheries and shut up shop now, or simply wait until their power to manage the fisheries are whittled away totally?

[wurzel]

Whilst you have their attention Paul, it's also worth pointing out that availability of fish, especially good-sized fish of the species that anglers target, is also important to the Recreational Sea Angling sector.

 

And that needs fisheries management to be aligned to the sector's needs, as well as to the needs of the inshore commercial fishery.

 

Many areas once had thriving charter fleets that are now but a memory, because the fish that anglers would once pay good money to catch are no longer there.

 

Hello Leon.

 

As Glenn points out Paul has no problem with the availability of fish and good sized fish of a species that anglers target I'm sure the same applies most other areas.

I would have thought the "angling Licence" should probably be quite low on the list of recommendations that DEFRA have recommended for anglers that Paul has to worry about.

As the North Eastern boat anglers seem to judge their success on how much freezer space they fill or money recouped from the local chippy perhaps a very restricted bag limit might have more consequences, along with closed areas or catch and realise only areas, the code of conduct list for anglers looks to me like an opening for all sorts of restrictive angling laws.

 

I expect the fishery management are aligned to the angling sectors need to be managed in the same way as the inshore commercial fishery whether you like it or not.

 

Quote

"Many areas once had thriving charter fleets that are now but a memory, because the fish that anglers would once pay good money to catch are no longer there".

 

This is just not true, your reference to Bob Cox 's quote means you are thinking of the Thames Estuary charter fleet.

Although I'll concede that the decrease in numbers of cod in the southern north sea would have contributed a little as some anglers refuse to fish for anything else running costs and legistration has had more effect, it is no longer possible to buy a boat chuck some life jackets aboard and obtain a very easily obtainable licence from the local council.

There is also a large increase in privately owned boats, although small twenty to twenty five foot very fast and sea worthy with all the latest electronics on board there are 18 such boats, not including several smaller craft that only fish the river and harbour entrance, ( I counted them this morning) operating from the same small marina as me, I know there are several more to north and south of Harwich no doubt there are just as many on the south side of the Thames so is there really the lack of boat anglers you claim? And from what I hear the catches are also nothing like you claim with some excellent catches of most species.

[barry luxton]

Hello Leon.

 

As Glenn points out Paul has no problem with the availability of fish and good sized fish of a species that anglers target I'm sure the same applies most other areas.

 

And from what I hear the catches are also nothing like you claim with some excellent catches of most species.

 

 

Like to see some cod in the top end of the channel as opposed to codling.

[wurzel]

So how is it that defra have dropped the idea of 'the user pays' and are concentrating on the rsa who are not guilty of any decimation of the stock. Are they classed as an easy target. I like the way defra have stated previously if they are to charge the commercial sector for a licence, it will take an act of parliament, in other words lets not go there shall we. Transparent, i think not. One sided, i think so.

 

Hello barry

 

I'm not aware of any changes not to bring in this charge to commercial fishermen, we've had more pressing things to worry about so the subject has not been at the forefront of our discussions with DEFRA.