No Sea Angling Licence

[steve good]

Over the issue of the mls for bass, commercials made the point to Defra, that anglers fish unrestricted and are unacccountable for what they catch and land, in fact nobody knows what anglers total collective landings are.

 

Now that DEFRA have withdrawn licencing they will be looking to make bag limits stick,, which was their intention all along, licences was a red herring.

 

Now if anglers kick and scream over bag limits what will DEFRA then think. Anglers only want a say in fisheries management so as to get one over on the commercials while anglers fish on unrestricted and unaccountably

 

The next stage bag limits will be interesting after all catch and release regarding tope is already an accepted practice

 

If anglers and angling is a sport then catch and release should be standard practice for all types of fish

 

The other thing is who got the licencing issue over turned angling reps or the hard core angler if it was the later then what message does that send out

 

steve

[glennk]

Don't you think it could be a ploy by the government to let you think that they are doing something for the rsa, next week or month they could quite easily dump something more nasty and sinister on the plate, me just being a cynic.

 

 

Agree totally Barry and I think Steve ain't far off the mark with what is intended. Not quite sure why but the issue seems to get dodged. The issues have been recognised by members of ours and many other local fishing clubs but many other people dont see whats in front of them. Over the past few years I have spoke to the charter skippers at Whitby a lot. I've consistently told them the bag limit could cause them more trouble than a sea angling licence ever could, but they've always thrown all their eggs into 1 basket and opposed the licence only. Interesting times still lay ahead. I'm currently trying to talk the Yorks NFSA into total opposition to bag limits on any grounds. Its bloody hard work but we've actually won a few over. Whats nice to know is the towns dignatories got right behind our licence campaign with the council and tourism board both responding to the rsa strategy. I wonder if they would help out in any campaign against the other nasties in the RSA Strategy.

 

Also of concern for me is these no take zones. Having attended the last meeting for Flamborough it's evident that no take doesnt just mean no take it means no entry. From Winkle collectors and dog walkers to netsmen and potters noone will be allowed to even enter the zone. Now that is worry. When I asked about the cliffs they said there was special grasses they wanted to protect. Were all going to be really up against it in the coming years and I'm under no illusion that the licence issue is just 1 small corner of a very big jig saw.

[maidstonemike]

If anglers and angling is a sport then catch and release should be standard practice for all types of fish

 

 

steve

 

Wether angling is a 'sport' is another debate entirely. Nothing sporting about it at all. It's a passtime, a hobby, never a sport surely.

There is nothing sporting or noble about putting a sharp hook in a fishes food, any idiot can do it, I do.

But I can live with it. I am not sentimental about fish. I put back small fish, and I take home and eat good sized fish, ie. hardly any.

You might as well call trawling a sport, they work harder to catch fish than we do.

I see we have been lumped together with the commercials as 'part of the fishing industry'.

No we certainly are not! We fish for relaxation and pleasure, a passtime, to be enjoyed on our days off. If the individual wants to take fish home, it's his business, nobody elses.

[Steve Coppolo]

The other thing is who got the licencing issue over turned angling reps or the hard core angler if it was the later then what message does that send out

 

steve

 

The right one, hopefully, Steve.

[ColinW]

I doubt if anglers will "kick and scream" over bag limits. I'd be quite happy with a bag limit of two decent sized fish like cod or bass. Obviously there would have to be limits for each species, two mackerel wouldn't be much use! It would only be acceptable as part of a package that severely limited what commercial fishermen are allowed to do. It may be difficult to see from Whitby but charter fishing forms a tiny part of our sport and it would be stupid to come up with rules governing all of us based on the needs of a handful of charter skippers. Obviously charters need special treatment that reflects the needs of the skippers as well as those of their customers. What do they do in those areas of the USA where limits apply?

You could of course argue that the only reason our long distance charter boats exist is because the stocks are so poor. Maybe chartering in well stocked waters is a different ball game.

[H.A.]

Have a read again at what 'steveg' says in post 21.

 

Why do anglers take the slightest bit of notice about what commercials have to say on this forum?

 

They don't care about you - the angler - they have no axe to grind on your behalf.

They are in the business of making money from every fish they catch (usually as long as regulations permit!); the last thing they want is anyone stepping on their petticoat tails.

 

What are they doing on this forum? God knows.

Damned if I'd want to spend any time on a commercial fishing site.

They have nothing to say in favour of angling and nothing constructive to say about conservation and re-building the stocks of fish THEY have plundered.

 

Get uptight if you must about C&R and bag limits, but that is nothing compared to the threat that they feel to their livelihoods.

No wonder they bleat and chip away at the credibility of anglers.

 

Let them try to hold their own heads above water in the inevitable mire of more and more restrictions (reparations?), which WILL be imposed on them simply because of their bigotry and lack of foresight in the use of technology and their abuse of resources over the past decades.

 

[steve pitts]

My response to the question -

 

•Would you support a bag limit for certain species where there is a conservation need and there are controls on commercial exploitation of the same species?

 

The subject of bag limits is contentious amongst anglers, but as an individual angler I could accept the concept of bag limits as part of an overall species management plan, which also includes the capping of commercial effort.

 

I could support the implementation of bag limits, but only on the condition that similar controls were implemented on the commercial sector at the same time. To impose bag limits on anglers under any other circumstances would be to restrict anglers for the benefit of the commercial fishing sector. This would be discriminatory and would further deteriorate the angling experience.

 

I would vigorously oppose the imposition of bag limits on anglers, as part of a pseudo-conservation measure, when the underlying motive is to allow and encourage greater commercial levels of prosecution, such as bag limits for bass which were proposed in 2007 by Defra and some SFCs.

[glennk]

I doubt if anglers will "kick and scream" over bag limits. I'd be quite happy with a bag limit of two decent sized fish like cod or bass. Obviously there would have to be limits for each species, two mackerel wouldn't be much use! It would only be acceptable as part of a package that severely limited what commercial fishermen are allowed to do. It may be difficult to see from Whitby but charter fishing forms a tiny part of our sport and it would be stupid to come up with rules governing all of us based on the needs of a handful of charter skippers. Obviously charters need special treatment that reflects the needs of the skippers as well as those of their customers. What do they do in those areas of the USA where limits apply?

You could of course argue that the only reason our long distance charter boats exist is because the stocks are so poor. Maybe chartering in well stocked waters is a different ball game.

 

 

No need to get into ifs and buts Colin. What good is a bag limit going to do for you ? Do you believe that anglers contributed to the current problems or do you believe it was commercial fishing ?

 

At our regional RSA strategy meeting with DEFRA a similar question was posed. Who caused the decrease in fish stocks ? Haynes and sideshow bob looked at each other and fell silent. Again the question was put to them -big smiles on their faces by this time but still silent. More voices from the floor pushed for an answer. Out the Side of his mouth Haynes mutters "Commercial Fishing".

 

Now they know it, I know it and deep down you know it. Restrictions on us will have no impact, so please when agreeing with bag limits spare a thought for those of us who who will have to live with the consequences, and always be mindful of the fact we dont live in America, new zealand, or Australia and we have no control over our own waters.

 

[Guest challenge]

I must say that I have to agree with glenk on this one, bag limits (if introduced) could certainly spell the end of the recreational charters angling industry (as we know it) in these parts.

I personally believe that some sort of voluntary licensing scheme introduced through local SFC, s similar to that of the recreational shell fishermen (free of charge of course) would have given RSA some form of accountability in the future negotiations that are going to take place in the future.

There is so much going on besides the marine bill e.g. http://www.seafish.org/whatsnew/detail.asp?p=ca&id=1686

RSA need to get properly organised and recognised for the trying times ahead.

 

Going back to Steve Pitt post and his answering of the question •would you support a bag limit for certain species where there is a conservation need and there are controls on commercial exploitation of the same species?

 

Steves answers where

The subject of bag limits is contentious amongst anglers, but as an individual angler I could accept the concept of bag limits as part of an overall species management plan, which also includes the capping of commercial effort.

There answer to that would simply be the commercial fishing industry has been caped to the extent of a reduction of 60% of its catching capacity in the past ten years.

I could support the implementation of bag limits, but only on the condition that similar controls were implemented on the commercial sector at the same time. To impose bag limits on anglers under any other circumstances would be to restrict anglers for the benefit of the commercial fishing sector. This would be discriminatory and would further deteriorate the angling experience.

There answer to that would be the commercial fishing industry works under a quota system that they are accountable too and that is enforced.

Regards.

[Steve Coppolo]

At our regional RSA strategy meeting with DEFRA a similar question was posed. Who caused the decrease in fish stocks ? Haynes and sideshow bob looked at each other and fell silent. Again the question was put to them -big smiles on their faces by this time but still silent. More voices from the floor pushed for an answer. Out the Side of his mouth Haynes mutters "Commercial Fishing".

 

No surprises there then. Just like Defra to blame someone else for their own incompetence.

 

Cause and effect. Defra are the cause, and dwindling fish stocks is the effect; regardless of who actually caught the fish. (That's a different argument in its own right). Ultimate responsibilty lies with Defra.