Licenses

[davem2005]

Some good points moocher...To elaborate a bit

The major concern is not the license fee itself but more about the restriction of where you can fish? .

Marine protected areas ( MPA's)are to be proposed but are unlikely to conflict with where anglers fish they are far more likely to be SSI's and recognised spawning grounds which cant be bad news for angling. I would be more concerned about this proposal if I was a commercial who trawled a net over huge areas of the seabed.

and that you will not be allowed to collect bait i.e. crabs or worm and will be forced to purchase these from licenseed suppliers probally at a exorbitant rates.
.

I have read nothing to say we would be prevented from collecting bait , only that the control of the foreshore would be moved to the SFC's where we have representatives, rather than the current situation where each local council (where we have no representation) control the foreshore and can bring in bylaws to prevent bait digging.

Giving defra the statistics of match catchs both historically at the present rates will just mean that defras statitons will be able to make their case for limiting the areas where you can fish.

I agree but also consider that it is difficult to get any protection for species when no data is available.

For example I keep hearing stories of areas in the NE where juvenile bass are plentifull then get wiped out. This means we are unlikely to see bass more widely established along our beaches untill we can get them some protection in spawning areas. A similar situation arises annually off Whitby where juvenile cod are massacred in the seasonal herring fishery.

The marine bill contains proposals to speed up the introduction of emergency measures to help in situations where species are under threat from short term and localised circumstances which would be very helpfull in the above cases.

Leisure angling bag limits would NOT help conservation as most anglers are responsible but we need to ensure we act responsibly and do not give Defra any ammunition.This could be acheived by ensuring that in match fishing that we only kill the fish in circumstances when they will be eaten?Which means we either alter the way these matches are judged or eusure we increase size limits and exclude species that you would not eat?

Once again I agree and anglers are regularly quoted as making little impact on stocks yet these consultation documents always have the phrase "anglers need to be managed better" which annoys me.

More and more anglers practice C&R fishing and keep a few. Many clubs have size limits above that of the MLS and also fish points matches. The NFSA are reveiwing their advisory match rules and organisations like SOS advised defra on "best practice" recommendations for tope and sharks.

Yet while this is currently happening the commercials are unwilling to change their methods and adopt new technology to reduce bycatch, although I am lead to believe new types of nets are being trialed and the results look promising.

The leisure angler is not the guilty party in the decline in the fish stocks?Fish species quotason trawlers does not help conservation but removal would not help either?

The chucking back of tonnes of dead fish because a quota for that species has been reached is a far greater crime that fishing without a license.

scrapping the random way fish species are taken from the sea is as far as I can see is the only real solution to fish conservation.

Write to your MP and tell him that

Cheers
Dave

[Red5]

As former secretary of the Alnwick Sea Angling club, I have historical data going back 5 years that proves there has been a decline, with the Overall champion 5 years ago having a total catch weight of 150lbs to last years champion having a total weight of around 70lbs.

Commercials are the major factor in the decline of fish stocks, with their head in the sand attitudes and disasterous methods of catching fish.Raping seabeds so that they are un-inhabitable for the species they target and for ecosystem as a whole.

But some inshore angling does affect fish populations. Take a look off the coast in the summer and count how many private boats there are, only a mile offshore. I've counted dozens off Boulmer on certain days, and if everyone of those takes 20 cod as an average, times that by every weekend over the summer and it starts to mount up. I remember posts from only a few years back on here about the charter boats out of the Tyne taking hundreds of fish in a session to add to the equation.How many were returned?

Truth is as anglers we are also to blame if we remove cod from our inshore areas in these amounts.
Then unfortunately we get the idiots who hammer 100's of mackeral from the piers in the summer who catch and kill literally for the sake of doing so, leaving a trail of dead fish, discarded line and detritus .

Re: bait collection. I often rant on here about how bad the situation is at Boulmer with the lug worm which is comparible. The Byelaw there is not working, with people ignoring the signs and digging in front of the cobles and the scale of digging there (IMHO) unsustainable. Why shouldn't there be something done to allow the worm population to be sustainable for future generations.

We have to take responsibility also, whether that means by licence or what I don't know, but to me if it means, more fish, bigger fish, protection of bait species from over exploitation and a decent say in fisheries, then so be it.

Loopy....You're unlikely to hear from Alan Beith as he wanted to increase the mackeral quota for the commercial boats at Amble so I assume he's for the commercials as he was with the Landowners on the fox hunting issue.

[The Great Wallsendo]

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Catch cuts 'bring bigger profits'

[loopy]

"When fish are more plentiful it becomes easier and cheaper to catch them."

It is so simple when the great scientist of Australia and the US brake it down.

Red5 I hope our local MP does respond he has a duty in law to reply
will pm you about the DEFRA doc

[willywetegg]

Cheers for the link Tony.

Loopy you are not wrong there mate. We might catch up with those ideas in another decade or so.

Jim.

[ScottyJim]

I’ve just downloaded and read the document. It’s the usual toilet paper filled with “should”, “could”, “might”, “possibly” and all the rest of the waffle. The problem this time is that it “will” affect us. I was looking at the members of the committee that drafted it. There are a lot of sea angling people there. I know they have a thankless task, but some of what they have put into print makes me so angry. Once again the fallacy of MLS (Minimum Landing Size) is allowed to be aired as the cure for all our ills. Am I the only one that can’t see this? Eg. If I am a commercial skipper who brings up a trawl say with 5000 fish in it. I throw back 4500 dead ones over the side because they are mostly juveniles or non quota species. I have 500 fish in size. Along comes DEFRA and says “Sorry Mr. Fishermen the MLS has gone up”. I go back out fishing and bring up a new trawl with 5000 fish in it. Oh curses, I say. The new MLS means that 50% of what I previously landed, legitimately, is now under the new limit. So what happens? I now throw 4750 fish back dead over the side. The new MLS hasn’t meant I’ve caught bigger fish. And the ridiculous outcome of this, is, that because I only have a smaller fraction left to put to market, I now have to shoot more trawls to try and make up the difference, resulting in even more dead fish over the side for the gulls. How can an MLS increase possibly make any sense if we continue to use the same fishing technology? What we need to impose is an MCS (Minimum Catch Size). With new net technology and mesh sizes we can give an undersized fish a reasonable chance to escape. But it’s not just technology that’s the answer. We need to make illegal the whole concept of discards at sea. Everything must be landed. Each boat gets a quota. After they reach it they tie up unless they can “buy” quota of another boat.. Discards are counted as part of that quota. On my third glass of port now, and the world looks rosy. But alas, the deaded letters “EU” and the “common fishery policy” have arisen. Time to hit the send button.
As for the sending of e-mails to your MP. It can’t do any harm and may do a lot of good. I sent one to my MP a few months ago. Didn’t even get the courtesy of an acknowledgement that he had received it. By the way my MP is Gordon Brown. Enough said.

[ScottyJim]

Sorry. Must have been the third glass of port. In the previous post I put "non quota". It should have been "filled quota".

Seriously though. I will draft a reply backto this papers committee. Anyone any idea where to send it?

[davem2005]

Scotty will send a pm and post details when my fourth glass of red wears off.

The reason the doc is so full of ifs/shoulds and but's is its a document sent out for debate and comment not a drafted law.

With regard to emailing a minister....take it from someone who lives in sedgfield it can take litteraly months to get any kind of reply. Having recently had an mp change from pm to back bencher it is intresting to note that my mp is more intrested in bringing up in the commons a comment about weather plans are being made to stop spreading manure close to residential houses and then left the house when the debate started about the the cfp talks due to start in the eu on dec 15th.

Oh and still had no reply from him!

Must be far too busy stopping people spreading sh*t. (and that isnt a joke if you read todays commons report)

Cheers
Dave

[ryanlee]

shore

scotty are you sure you are on about licencess for the shore angler or the commercial angler ie trawlers.
seems we the shore anglers have to put something right that the commercial sector has f@ket up ( not a spelling mistake just didnt want to post the word)
seems there are very little views to what shore anglers actually want.
i.e limits etc etc.

[mark]

here's a bit more doom and gloom for you then:

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | 'Only 50 years left' for sea fish

[Charlie_Thompson]

"Unless we fundamentally change the way we manage all the ocean species together, as working ecosystems, then this century is the last century of wild seafood."

And the rest -

[davem2005]

here's a bit more doom and gloom for you then:

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | 'Only 50 years left' for sea fish

Mark,
That report is a little over a year old. I remember it because it came out about the same time as the Tope Consultation started. Similar reports come out all the time from all around the world and concerning all different species.

On a rather more encouraging note with regard to our local stocks, CEFAS who do the stock research for our government have recommended an 11% increase in cod quota for 2008 as there are strong signs of a recovery after many years of reports that the stocks had collapsed to a point where they would never recover. Its intresting to note they get payed nearly 30 million a year to come up with these figures.

The full text of the debate on Dec 6th is available here

Fisheries: 6 Dec 2007: House of Commons debates (TheyWorkForYou.com)

Its a long read but gives a good idea as to the issues John Shaw the fisheries minister will be taking to the annual fisheries debate in Brussels on 15th Dec. There are some good comments regarding angling from Bill Wiggins the conservative angling spokesman. If only they had done what he suggests when they had power.

The letter to consultees is available here along with a list of the questions and the address to write to.

Defra, UK - Consultations - Consultation on a Recreational Sea Angling Strategy for England

"If you wish to obtain a hard copy of this consultation, please contact Nicola Clarke at the address below.

Please send responses to either:

Nicola Clarke
Defra
Area 2C
Nobel House
17 Smith Square
London, SW1P 3JR

Email: rsa.strategy@defra.gsi.gov.uk"

Deadline date for responses: 31 March 2008

The full consultation document is here

Defra, UK - Consultations - Consultation on a Recreational Sea Angling Strategy for England

Cheers
Dave

[moocher]

I have read nothing to say we would be prevented from collecting bait , only that the control of the foreshore would be moved to the SFC's where we have representatives, rather than the current situation where each local council (where we have no representation) control the foreshore and can bring in bylaws to prevent bait digging.


it.s all in the marine bill.

sec.6.61..to 7.40

[Topfly]

Local councils could always bring in by-laws, but they can not be enforced. they are not worth the paper they are written on, because of our rights enshrined in the Magna Carta. Yes agreements have been made in the past between various conservation bodies/angling associations and councils. This government are going to re-write history, and class a lot of the things we take for granted in the pursuit of our sport, illegal. It's ok to write, or e/m your local MP and go on " they work for you " and on line petitions. If you are not on line, or maybe cant write letters too well, or shy, complacent,too young or dont have the information to protest, then the RSA consultation document dosen't mean a thing. It's just another underhanded way of getting money from the people who can least afford it.

[jimmy]

well i for 1 will NOT be paying for a licence,period.Anyone other than police or an official bailiff asks to se my licence,they will be told where to get off,as previously stated by a member,dont have a licence take your chance of getting caught,but thats my choicve to make,and i wont be the only 1 not buying