SEA ANGLERS FAIL TO BITE

[big_cod1]

Just been reading through the fishing news and as the topic says the headline is sea anglers refuse to bite what it actually says is in its little dig is that the national federation of sea anglers are now litterally back healing the rod licecences scernario as they have just suddenly realized anglers arent to blame for fish over explotation from our seas my lord a brain wave.

The national fedaration is now saying they strongly against licences because you will be getting nothing for it( DONT TELL ANYBODY BUT THEY HAVE JUST FOUND OUT) and why should anglers pay a fee to fish in the sea when each succesive goverment has let the seas to over fished by the commercial sector for years.

[Ken Davison South Wales]

Just been reading through the fishing news and as the topic says the headline is sea anglers refuse to bite what it actually says is in its little dig is that the national federation of sea anglers are now litterally back healing the rod licecences scernario as they have just suddenly realized anglers arent to blame for fish over explotation from our seas my lord a brain wave.

The national fedaration is now saying they strongly against licences because you will be getting nothing for it( DONT TELL ANYBODY BUT THEY HAVE JUST FOUND OUT) and why should anglers pay a fee to fish in the sea when each succesive goverment has let the seas to over fished by the commercial sector for years.

 

Reading back through all of the negotiations I think you will find that the NFSA has always taken the same stand, no improvements no license.

[glennk]

This is something I picked up on the other day Paul - See :

 

http://www.whitbyseaanglers.co.uk/forum/in...opic,353.0.html

 

and

 

http://www.nesa.co.uk/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=42

 

 

It (the licence) Should never have been on the table in the first place Ken. 2 years of RSA drafts with only a few words on this issue from the NFSA. Most here including yourself Ken are believers that we will get something in return for the licence fee - this was also the stance of the NFSA - anyone who pointed out the reality was silenced. Then at the very last moment - only weeks before the RSA strategy goes to consultation with the licence very much central to the document the NFSA **** their pants, they realise the government will give us nothing in return. Confounded by Ben Bradshawe's back tracking on the Bass Minimum Landing size issue the penny drops they get more vociferous and suddenly out comes a page on their website saying they are anti licences and the government is going to give nothing. Well what a surprise that is.

 

My prediction for what happens next.

 

RSA strategy goes to consultation. Hardly anyone replies to consultation because noboddy has ever heard of it (IFWG has failed on their objectives 13 and 14 and have been unable to communicate with anglers). As noone replies government walks all over us and introduces Licences, bag limits and bait collecting restrictions. NFSA turns around and says don't blame us we said it was a bad idea - LETS BLAME ANGLER APATHY.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Objectives 13 and 14 as discussed above are :

 

13. It was agreed that the RSA group must be representative of the vast majority of stakeholders, including individuals, representative groups, tackle dealers and charter operators.

 

14. Channels for communicating with RSA stakeholders were discussed, including regional and angling press and Fishing Focus. It was noted that Sea Angling News it not widely available, and Sea Angler is more widely read by ‘new’ anglers. Richard Ferre offered space in the NFSA newsletter for any Defra announcements relevant to his members. Reel Life, the Environment Agency (EA) newsletter for anglers could also be used.

 

See also :

 

http://www.anglersnet.co.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=72407

[big_cod1]

This is something I picked up on the other day Paul - See :

 

http://www.whitbyseaanglers.co.uk/forum/in...opic,353.0.html

 

and

 

http://www.nesa.co.uk/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=42

It (the licence) Should never have been on the table in the first place Ken. 2 years of RSA drafts with only a few words on this issue from the NFSA. Most here including yourself Ken are believers that we will get something in return for the licence fee - this was also the stance of the NFSA - anyone who pointed out the reality was silenced. Then at the very last moment - only weeks before the RSA strategy goes to consultation with the licence very much central to the document the NFSA **** their pants, they realise the government will give us nothing in return. Confounded by Ben Bradshawe's back tracking on the Bass Minimum Landing size issue the penny drops they get more vociferous and suddenly out comes a page on their website saying they are anti licences and the government is going to give nothing. Well what a surprise that is.

 

My prediction for what happens next.

 

RSA strategy goes to consultation. Hardly anyone replies to consultation because noboddy has ever heard of it (IFWG has failed on their objectives 13 and 14 and have been unable to communicate with anglers). As noone replies government walks all over us and introduces Licences, bag limits and bait collecting restrictions. NFSA turns around and says don't blame us we said it was a bad idea - LETS BLAME ANGLER APATHY.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Objectives 13 and 14 as discussed above are :

 

13. It was agreed that the RSA group must be representative of the vast majority of stakeholders, including individuals, representative groups, tackle dealers and charter operators.

 

14. Channels for communicating with RSA stakeholders were discussed, including regional and angling press and Fishing Focus. It was noted that Sea Angling News it not widely available, and Sea Angler is more widely read by ‘new’ anglers. Richard Ferre offered space in the NFSA newsletter for any Defra announcements relevant to his members. Reel Life, the Environment Agency (EA) newsletter for anglers could also be used.

 

See also :

 

http://www.anglersnet.co.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=72407

 

 

Yes glen had a good look through but from the very begining of the mention of licences on this forum i said just what are you getting for your money and that is 0 except a restriction to fish freely in the sea and in real terms what defra will give you wont make a bit of differnce this talk of improveing things for anglers slipways artifical reefs etc its a joke we have many many miles of fantastic reefs here and have looked after them over the years you can make your own mind up on that one i have seen at first hand how goverment bodies work we had a tiolet next to our pontoon which in summer was use by as many as hundred anglers before 7 am what did they do after it made the front page of the local paper twice as they were told it desperately needed they closed it and left people to pee in the streets for thoses of you who think angling licecnes would be good thing keep dreaming defra are now after your money for there ends and not yours.

[glennk]

Yes glen had a good look through but from the very begining of the mention of licences on this forum i said just what are you getting for your money and that is 0 except a restriction to fish freely in the sea and in real terms what defra will give you wont make a bit of differnce this talk of improveing things for anglers slipways artifical reefs etc its a joke we have many many miles of fantastic reefs here and have looked after them over the years you can make your own mind up on that one i have seen at first hand how goverment bodies work we had a tiolet next to our pontoon which in summer was use by as many as hundred anglers before 7 am what did they do after it made the front page of the local paper twice as they were told it desperately needed they closed it and left people to pee in the streets for thoses of you who think angling licecnes would be good thing keep dreaming defra are now after your money for there ends and not yours.

 

 

The point your trying to make Paul ??

 

Is it

 

slipways and Reefs don't improve fish stocks ?

 

I think at long last Mr Ferre realises that when his article mentions overfishing - The real cause of fish decline - not a lack of reefs, toilets and slipways.

[big_cod1]

The point your trying to make Paul ??

 

Is it

 

slipways and Reefs don't improve fish stocks ?

 

I think at long last Mr Ferre realises that when his article mentions overfishing - The real cause of fish decline - not a lack of reefs, toilets and slipways.

 

[glennk]

The RSA Strategy draft 5 has been approved by the IFWG and should soon be out for consultation.

 

Looks like a licence and bag limits moves ever closer and in section 5 of the latest draft DEFRA have toughened up their talk. The wording is more concrete and they have insisted that Licences and Bag limits are in the document.

 

5. RSA MANAGEMENT

 

• A sea angling licence will be considered. Costs and benefits will be clear and transparent, and additional revenue ring fenced and returned to the angling sector to provide benefits.

 

• As part of a balanced package of conservation measures to improve stock management, effort control (such as increased MLS, voluntary codes of conduct, bag limits, or carcass tags or voluntary log books) should be considered on a species by species basis. Objectives for such measures must be clearly defined.

 

 

5.1 There is relatively little management of sea angling activity in comparison with the commercial sector, with SFCs and the EA (who have powers to regulate shore activity) being the main bodies taking action. This may be a contributing factor to the broad appeal of the sport. However, with relatively high angling participation levels, and a possibility that this could increase in future, anglers have the potential to have an impact on some stocks. Everyone who catches fish has a responsibility to respond to changing stock levels to prevent the risk of over-exploitation.

5.2 Nevertheless, the potential benefits that might result from taking a more active approach to management can be identified, although it is noted that these will need to be communicated effectively to generate interest and participation from anglers. Such measures should be part of an overall package that aims to benefit anglers. The success and potential benefits of any measures will be dependent on anglers being actively involved in the development process. Responsibility would fall both to anglers, who should be willing to contribute constructively to the debate, and management bodies, who should ensure there is a clear, participative and extensive consultation process. Enforcement bodies should be actively involved in the development of proposals to ensure that any management measures can be enforced effectively .

 

5.3 All stakeholders in the Marine Environment have a responsibility to share the cost of science and fisheries management. A combined mechanism that would raise money for the benefit of sea anglers, provide an effective communication tool, gather information to better understand anglers’ needs and enable effective monitoring and enforcement would underpin other elements of the RSA Strategy. A sea angling licence (operating in a similar way to the freshwater angling licence) could meet these needs. The costs and benefits should must be transparent, justifiable and clearly understood. Additional revenue would need to be returned to the angling sector through a range of projects and programmes that would enhance the angling experience. It is understood that the sea angling community is against the principle of licensing until clear improvements in the sea angling experience are achieved.

 

5.4 Other management tools to manage the potential impact anglers have on stocks should be considered as part of an overall package of measures designed to manage and improve stocks These tools should be flexible, enable action to be taken quickly if necessary to protect vulnerable stocks as well as look to the longer term, and be driven by clear scientific evidence. The conservation benefits of taking any action would need to be balanced and proportionate to the potential impact anglers have on stocks. Possible management tools include voluntary codes of conduct, increased MLS, voluntary log books and ‘bag limits’ (where, on a case-by-case basis, the total number of fish of the identified species allowed to be taken from the fishery over a specified time period would be limited) and carcass tagging (where limited numbers of tags are issued to identify saleable fish).

 

5.5 The objectives should clearly state whether measures are being taken for conservation or enforcement purposes, or both. Action should be taken at the most appropriate level for any species, but should be primarily driven by Sea Fisheries Committees and the EA so that measures can be designed to take account of particular local circumstances.

 

5.6 Defra should take the opportunity of the Marine Bill to provide the necessary powers to introduce any management measures. The consultation processes involved in the Bill would enable anglers to express their views on these proposals. Translating any powers into practical legislation will take some years and involve further consultation on specific details. This period of time would enable other measures in the Strategy to be progressed and demonstrate improvements in the angling experience.

 

5.7 SFCs already have powers that would enable the introduction of some local management measures, such as bag limits and fixed engine by-laws.. Where measures are justified, pilot schemes could be considered by SFCs, working with local anglers and scientists to introduce, test and monitor the impact of the measures. SFCs should work together to ensure measures cover a full range of situations and locations. This would build evidence to inform decisions about using such measures on a wider and national basis.

[Steve Coppolo]

The RSA Strategy draft 5 has been approved by the IFWG and should soon be out for consultation.

 

Looks like a licence and bag limits moves ever closer and in section 5 of the latest draft DEFRA have toughened up their talk. The wording is more concrete and they have insisted that Licences and Bag limits are in the document.

 

Are you sure thats from the latest draft Glenn? Apparently there is/was a version 5 knocking around somewhere, although hardly anyone got to see it. Secret squirrels and all that you see.

[glennk]

Come to think of it it might be draft v4. I'll take a look.

 

What's in Draft 5 ?

 

Funds from the licence fee to pay for net mending and fuel bills of our commercial comrades ?

[Ken Davison South Wales]

This is something I picked up on the other day Paul - See :

 

http://www.whitbyseaanglers.co.uk/forum/in...opic,353.0.html

 

and

 

http://www.nesa.co.uk/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=42

It (the licence) Should never have been on the table in the first place Ken. 2 years of RSA drafts with only a few words on this issue from the NFSA. Most here including yourself Ken are believers that we will get something in return for the licence fee - this was also the stance of the NFSA - anyone who pointed out the reality was silenced. Then at the very last moment - only weeks before the RSA strategy goes to consultation with the licence very much central to the document the NFSA **** their pants, they realise the government will give us nothing in return. Confounded by Ben Bradshawe's back tracking on the Bass Minimum Landing size issue the penny drops they get more vociferous and suddenly out comes a page on their website saying they are anti licences and the government is going to give nothing. Well what a surprise that is.

 

My prediction for what happens next.

 

RSA strategy goes to consultation. Hardly anyone replies to consultation because noboddy has ever heard of it (IFWG has failed on their objectives 13 and 14 and have been unable to communicate with anglers). As noone replies government walks all over us and introduces Licences, bag limits and bait collecting restrictions. NFSA turns around and says don't blame us we said it was a bad idea - LETS BLAME ANGLER APATHY.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Objectives 13 and 14 as discussed above are :

 

13. It was agreed that the RSA group must be representative of the vast majority of stakeholders, including individuals, representative groups, tackle dealers and charter operators.

 

14. Channels for communicating with RSA stakeholders were discussed, including regional and angling press and Fishing Focus. It was noted that Sea Angling News it not widely available, and Sea Angler is more widely read by ‘new’ anglers. Richard Ferre offered space in the NFSA newsletter for any Defra announcements relevant to his members. Reel Life, the Environment Agency (EA) newsletter for anglers could also be used.

 

See also :

 

http://www.anglersnet.co.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=72407

 

I have to admit I am not sure what we will get in return if anything from the powers that be.

 

However I do believe a license will be a wake up call to all those who are currently not taking any interest in what is happening. It will also create a very strong voice something I do not think the powers that be have even considered, it will bring us all into a club so to speak whether we like it or not and as a club with at least one million members it will have some clout.

 

Well that's my thinking for what it is worth.