RSA: A Survey of the District. A Strategy for 2013-14
- Thread starter Northumberland IFCA
- Start date
Stores
Well-known member
What it means is that there are going to be parts of the shore line (those areas with sea grass in them) that you'll be unable to dig worm. I've still to see the map (might be my fault) but if Mr. NIFCA could put a link up it would really help.
After the RED tranche of decisions have gone through (by December THIS year) the AMBER ones appear and that could affect bait collection between Coquet Island and St Marys so we could have no go areas all the way up to the Borders.
Soon all those on this and other fishing boards who said they would ignore the by laws or who threatened violence should anyone interfere with their "rights" to collect bait will be put to the test. With other IFCA's doing similar things it might not be easy to just drive up the coast or across to Cumbria to make up your bait supply. S**t and fan spring to mind.
redtop69
Well-known member
Is it not pointless though as the burrows of the actual worms are no where near the mentioned seagrass! If a map of those areas is available id like to see it so i know where i can and cant collect bait! I think this government should recognise that fishing IS a sport( obviously not an olympic one) that a large proportion of the country participate in and if they want votes they should be helping not hindering us!
Stores
Well-known member
Every time you think Government replace it with EU directive. Remember British law is second to EU law.
Stores
Well-known member
Please I'm no expert on these things, just a worried bystander, concerned enough from my cosy life 200 miles from the North East to actually show interest but my understanding is that our NIFCA (and I like them and think they're not anti RSA at all) are being instructed to do the biddings of others. Here's an example from elsewhere via WSF
World Sea Fishing Forums
No need for a line in the sand when you've got a cameras, video recorder or whatever.
Last edited:
redtop69
Well-known member
Maybe its because your so fond of the north east as you grew up and fished here! Its so sad that a popular pastime, hobby and sport has to be governed by so many strict guidelines! I bet none of the people wanting these actions have actually picked up a rod n line, maybe then they would see it in a different light!
Geordie-UK
Well-known member
Hi, I would like to raise some concerns, all of which have not been raised so far with the severe lack of information that has been supplied both here and on the NIFCA website and pdf's.
Firstly, there are 15 species of Zostera, which particular one are NIFCA focused on? bearing in mind that the most common and widespread Sea grass in the northern hemisphere is Zostera marina, and that species is highly widespread throughout the UK's waters, it grows everywhere that there is slow water, sand, and sediment, and is extremely prolific, and the UK actually has the largest concentration in the world of that species.
Secondly, you stated
Given that the meeting was held on the 28th of august, don't you think that a two month delay for a matter as serious as banning bait digging from area's that contain one of the most abundant and prolific spreading weeds in the sea, and quite conveniently so close the 5th november deadline, which will have a detrimental effect on sea anglers, bait diggers, tackle shops, and their suppliers, is being orchestrated to prevent as much protest and discussion as possible?.....
Thirdly, if it is regarding Zostera Marina, who ordered the most common and prolific sea grass to be protected? you said it was an EU directive, but it beggars belief that a protection order has been placed upon Zostera Marina if that is the case, its like putting a protection order on seagulls or wood pigeons...
I have found this:
http://www.nifca.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Number2.pdf
In the exemptions it does state that fishing with rod and line is allowed, if that is the case, why is bait digging prohibited?
Last edited:
Stores
Well-known member
Hi Geordie-UK,
Have just pm'd you re the "need your help" thread then just read this.........
think I'm falling in love.........................
fantastic reply, way out of my depth, hope to God it's accurate lol
amblecol
Well-known member
great reply from Geordie uk, this seagrass question seems to make up a large part of the argument but where does it come from? Was it a survey? if so by whom and when? can we have access to it to see if Geordie uk was right. Was it done as a one off or repeated every month for a year? there's a big difference between a july day and after a December storm. Why is it so important to wildlife? I would have thought a ban on sandeel and sprat fishing in the North Sea would be of much greater importance to both birds and fish as they are the building blocks of so much wildlife.
The acronyms used in these consultations are becoming confusing to the extent that few understand where they start and end, and more worrying I think some say they understand but don't. Seems the more complex it gets the more likely it will end up in the hands of the legal system and who can afford the best lawyers.
Great work done so far by NESA lads and Geordie has raised good points.
The acronyms used in these consultations are becoming confusing to the extent that few understand where they start and end, and more worrying I think some say they understand but don't. Seems the more complex it gets the more likely it will end up in the hands of the legal system and who can afford the best lawyers.
Great work done so far by NESA lads and Geordie has raised good points.
Stores
Well-known member
As a result of these posts here's my unscientific, unrehearsed, Geordie angler (please don't stop me fishing) response to NIFCA:
Hi Mike,
Over the past two years I have taken a great interest in the developments that are affecting our coastline, in all areas, but especially in the North of England. I have read your document “BNCC Consultation” and I have found that its format does not allow me to say what I want. I hope you will forgive me for presenting it the way I have.
I am, by profession, a schoolteacher and I have quite a knowledgeable background in the NE coastline, especially around the Tyne and although I now live in the Midlands I have maintained my links with fellow anglers from both Tyne and Wear and Northumberland. Over the last few months I have endeavoured to maintain a dialogue with NIFCA via the NESA website – I hope you won’t hold it against me!
Although interested in your work I am also concerned as to the outcomes of “your” actions, especially the way that RSAs will be affected, initially as bait collectors (specifically your red and amber priorities) but eventually (worse case scenario) whether restricted access to parts of the shoreline may be introduced.
Referring to your document “Impact Assessment – Seagrass Protection” may I make the following observations (by the nature of the observations, questions arise. I include them though I do not necessarily expect an answer).
- as I see it today’s situation is a result of DEFRA changing its approach in order to comply with EU Habitats Directives. Why was this? Is it because the EU has discovered a hole in their planning? Is it because there has been a change in the need to protect environments? Or is DEFRA complying with the EU because of pressures placed upon it, perhaps legal pressures, by interested parties that have no interest in, nor love for, sea anglers? If it is the latter then I believe that is a deplorable state of affairs and our representatives, way above both your head and mine, should be ashamed of themselves.
- with specific regard to Seagrass can I quote from your literature (my highlighting):
“Evidence…..is available from A SMALL NUMBER OF, primarily EXPERIMENTAL, PEER REVIEWED studies…..on NON -UK species of Seagrass”
You therefore rely on a “balance of evidence” to justify your protectionist claims. How can that be? I could put together a small number of teacher samples from Peru, share them with my colleagues in the staff room and unanimously conclude that Michael Gove is incompetent and that OFSTED are all bullies. Would it get past the committee stage? I suspect not (and rightly so). Yet this piece of flimsy evidence appears to have gone through, on the nod.
- there appears to be limited knowledge as to the extent of the seagrass you want to protect. Do you know the extent of it 5 years ago? Maybe 10 years ago? Or even 20 years ago? If you know the answers what is its projected spread in the future? If its area is increasing (and it hasn’t been protected in the past), why does it need protecting now? If you don’t know the answers then why err on the side of safety. This will result in seagrass spreading into the buffer zone you have set up and, presumably in the future, a new buffer zone will have to be installed. Seagrass will therefore spread in perpetuum, forcing other shoreline users out.
- you refer to seagrass as an area that offers protection to delicate environments, as a natural sea defence and as a barrier to coastal erosion. Left to its own devices, in its protected state, you would imagine that the seagrass would spread, as above. Should that occur presumably it would bind together the sands and muds that are its habitat and the areas of sands and muds would likewise spread. Are you aware of such a consequence? There is a precedent to base my case on. In the late 1980’s the sewage outlet pipes were removed from the Tynemouth beach area. A number of locals expressed their concerns as to how this would alter the set of the tides. Today the sands of Tynemouth beach now march slowly northward towards Cullercoats Harbour, with the potential to eventually level it out but, in the meantime, engulfing the “under boulder environment” that are the rocks between Tynemouth and Cullercoats. What would be NIFCA’s response to destroying one environment in order to protect another?
- I also noticed your comments regarding the possibility of eelgrass existing in the areas around Beadnall, Newton and Embleton. Although I know nothing more than I have read these are unlike the area in Budle Bay, that attracts few anglers. These are extremely popular fishing spots. Should political pressure be put on DEFRA to restrict or prohibit access to these areas I would expect considerable bad will to exist between anglers and the enforcers of any further bylaws – your good selves.
- Finally, with regard to the seagrass, it appears from the, albeit flimsy, studies that the main damage is caused by trampling. Will NIFCA be imposing a ban on all groups accessing the seagrass areas or just those from the angling fraternity? Surely damage done by holidaymakers, the bird watchers and the wild fowlers is no different to that done by anglers. If my memory serves me well there is also an annual walk through the designated area. Do these people levitate or are they merely lighter on their feet? Is the rule the rule? Or is the rule to prevent access to anglers?
- I believe I am right in assuming that the protection offered to recreational bait diggers via Anderson v Alnwick D. C. would no longer be deemed valid when the Seagrass bylaw becomes active. I believe your decision to group together recreational bait diggers and commercial bait diggers to be heavy handed, insensitive, unfairly biased and, perhaps, politically motivated. The offer of a trade off for “other areas” to dig remains to be decided upon. I look forward to seeing a redressing of the balance here, although I appreciate that without commercial bait digging, in general, the average angler and the tackle shop trade will suffer.
- Nowhere in the document is there a quantifying of the value of NIFCA’s actions, in an economic sense. The phrase “Not Known” is repeated again and again when measuring the effect this bylaw will have on fishing, fishing communities, businesses involved in fishing or coastal communities. We do, however, know that there will be an increase in costs for NIFCA to police the changes. So economics do not appear to be the driving force here. The impression appears to be that seagrass, inter tidal sands and sea birds take precedence over anglers, commercial fishermen and local communities. Were such consequences highlighted in your deliberations?
- Finally, as a result of the above points, I find it surprising that the Chairman would sign off this IA document saying that “it represents a reasonable view of costs, benefits and impacts” Such a statement would only be valid, in my opinion, should he be singing from a completely different hymn sheet.
Thank you for your time.
David Storey
Last edited:
Geordie-UK
Well-known member
Sea grass grows in the sea, it forms no barrier for erosion or protection to delicate enviroments.
Its not subject to trampling either, as it can't survive in a rough water enviroment, the main cause of any reduction is actually water quality, it needs clear water to thrive, and given the state of our sea's...NIFCA are targetting the wrong people.
However its prolific spread can be seen online. there is side by side aerial imagery that show no grass, a few little dots of grass a few years later, and within four years, the whole bay taken over by the grass
...and its protected status is.....of least concern...
Zostera marina - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We know that wiki is at best only a basic indication, but from what I have read and uncovered, its very accurate in this case.
However the findings of a privately run conservation body called Ospera, claims it is endangered...
http://www.ospar.org/html_documents/ospar/html/p00426post bdc version sw zostera_assess_final.pdf
But a lot more are trying to rid themselves of it as it is invasive and chokes up estuaries and kills off established flora.
So who to believe? EU who want to licence everything and get more money coming in...NIFCA who ban baitdigging in area's that bait digging won't affect, or those groups trying to stop the spread of an invasive species that destroys habitats....where have I heard this before?.....oh thats right, the march of the velvet crab...which ironically is an alien species that destroys habitats and kills off brown crab, which was included on tally's and fishing quota's with minimum take sizes...all I can say is WTF!
Next will be the invasive destructive alien species of chinese Salt crab eh...
Its not subject to trampling either, as it can't survive in a rough water enviroment, the main cause of any reduction is actually water quality, it needs clear water to thrive, and given the state of our sea's...NIFCA are targetting the wrong people.
However its prolific spread can be seen online. there is side by side aerial imagery that show no grass, a few little dots of grass a few years later, and within four years, the whole bay taken over by the grass
...and its protected status is.....of least concern...
Zostera marina - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We know that wiki is at best only a basic indication, but from what I have read and uncovered, its very accurate in this case.
However the findings of a privately run conservation body called Ospera, claims it is endangered...
http://www.ospar.org/html_documents/ospar/html/p00426post bdc version sw zostera_assess_final.pdf
But a lot more are trying to rid themselves of it as it is invasive and chokes up estuaries and kills off established flora.
So who to believe? EU who want to licence everything and get more money coming in...NIFCA who ban baitdigging in area's that bait digging won't affect, or those groups trying to stop the spread of an invasive species that destroys habitats....where have I heard this before?.....oh thats right, the march of the velvet crab...which ironically is an alien species that destroys habitats and kills off brown crab, which was included on tally's and fishing quota's with minimum take sizes...all I can say is WTF!
Next will be the invasive destructive alien species of chinese Salt crab eh...
Just read that OSPAR report, interesting.
Apparently water clarity and quality are main reason for decline.
Can't quite see how banning bait collection is really going to make much of an impact on this grass. In my opinion it would take a total ban of ALL human acivity on the seashore over god knows how many years to see any change. A few anglers digging a bit bait is not going to have as much effect on the grass as coastal area development will or thousands of holiday makers will.
Interestingly it also states the following :-
quote-- "Another and totally different biological effect causing small-scale decline in Z. noltii was observed in the Dutch Wadden Sea where bioturbation caused by an increased density of lugworms (Arenicola marina) covered the small shoots with layers of sediment (Krause-Jensen et.al. 2004)." --unquote
So stopping bait collection will obviously be allowing the worm beds to increase in size and density therefore potentially having an adverse effect on the grass. Digging worms, thus keeping the wormbeds under some sort of control seems as if it is beneficial to the grass. Thats maybe why it growing there in the first place, maybe why its been happily growing there for god knows how many years.
Personally I think this whole thing smacks of some, as yet unknown, underlying motive. What, or by whom is anyones guess.
Off to find a wall to bang my head against
Apparently water clarity and quality are main reason for decline.
Can't quite see how banning bait collection is really going to make much of an impact on this grass. In my opinion it would take a total ban of ALL human acivity on the seashore over god knows how many years to see any change. A few anglers digging a bit bait is not going to have as much effect on the grass as coastal area development will or thousands of holiday makers will.
Interestingly it also states the following :-
quote-- "Another and totally different biological effect causing small-scale decline in Z. noltii was observed in the Dutch Wadden Sea where bioturbation caused by an increased density of lugworms (Arenicola marina) covered the small shoots with layers of sediment (Krause-Jensen et.al. 2004)." --unquote
So stopping bait collection will obviously be allowing the worm beds to increase in size and density therefore potentially having an adverse effect on the grass. Digging worms, thus keeping the wormbeds under some sort of control seems as if it is beneficial to the grass. Thats maybe why it growing there in the first place, maybe why its been happily growing there for god knows how many years.
Personally I think this whole thing smacks of some, as yet unknown, underlying motive. What, or by whom is anyones guess.
Off to find a wall to bang my head against
Last edited:
boysandtheirtoys
Member
I'm not sure the velvet crab is an alien species? Do you have any evidence for that? Interested to know
cheers
cheers
boysandtheirtoys
Member
OSPAR convention was an agreement signed by 15 national governments (and the EU), relating to marine pollution and protection of the marine environment, and is a legislative mechanism by which those 16 signatories cooperate to achieve the aims of the convention. The OSPAR Commission develops actions and measures to be taken under the convention, is contracted by the 16 signatories to do that, and uses mainly the resources of the signatories. So not government, but works to government contracts to develop and guide government policy and actions 
cheers
cheers
Stores
Well-known member
So not government, but works to government contracts to develop and guide government policy and actions
cheers
So the Alistair Campbell of the seagrass world?
Topfly
Well-known member
All interesting stuff David, but from the way i see it, we are doomed.
over the past few years,we have e/mailed Mr Milliband, MR Farage and numerous MEPs,DEFRA, and a host of other parties, who were supposed to have our best interest at heart, we have even registered as stakeholders of the sea, and custodians of this that and the other, but in reality all we have done is supply the relevant parties with enough information, ( data ) which they are using against us.
rant over and will soldier on.
over the past few years,we have e/mailed Mr Milliband, MR Farage and numerous MEPs,DEFRA, and a host of other parties, who were supposed to have our best interest at heart, we have even registered as stakeholders of the sea, and custodians of this that and the other, but in reality all we have done is supply the relevant parties with enough information, ( data ) which they are using against us.
rant over and will soldier on.
Stores
Well-known member
All interesting stuff David, but from the way i see it, we are doomed.
over the past few years,we have e/mailed Mr Milliband, MR Farage and numerous MEPs,DEFRA, and a host of other parties, who were supposed to have our best interest at heart, we have even registered as stakeholders of the sea, and custodians of this that and the other, but in reality all we have done is supply the relevant parties with enough information, ( data ) which they are using against us.
rant over and will soldier on.
You might be right Jim, but better to go down throwing sinkers than sitting on your box with a baitless hook.
The more I read about seagrass the more holes there appears to be in the argument to protect it. Perhaps the problem is at the lawyer level and we, as a group, simply can't afford to argue the toss.
Stores
Well-known member
Just to let you know that the minutes of the meetings we were interested in are on the NIFCA website. They're in the downloads section and here's the links to the couple I've read. There's a couple of things that worry me and appear to treat the angling community unfairly but I'll keep quiet until others have had the chance to have a look.
http://www.nifca.gov.uk/wp-content/...roach-Meeting-8th-August-2013-at-Unit-60B.doc
http://www.nifca.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Gen-committee-meeting-23-July-2013.doc
Hope they work.
http://www.nifca.gov.uk/wp-content/...roach-Meeting-8th-August-2013-at-Unit-60B.doc
http://www.nifca.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Gen-committee-meeting-23-July-2013.doc
Hope they work.
Stores
Well-known member
Is it me or do two of the links take you to the same set of minutes? Don't seem to be able to find the 28th August ones but I can open up the 8th August from two different sources.
Strange......
